2024-09-12 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 12 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. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business order of the day no. 78, Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024, be considered today at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 1

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

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Let's just put the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 into context today. And the context we need to put it into is in the headlines of newspapers across Australia in relation to what we have known for a very, very long time about the CFMEU—the bullying, the thuggery and the intimidation on building and construction sites across Australia and the additional moneys, up to 30 per cent in fact, that taxpayers across Australia have been paying for a very long time now for publicly funded infrastructure. This includes roads, it includes hospitals and it includes schools. When you pay more for publicly funded infrastructure, the flow-on effect is that it flows into civil construction. And guess what? Because of the actions of the most militant union in Australia—that's not me speaking; that's the High Court of Australia—condoned every step of the way and facilitated by the Australian Labor Party, and we'll talk about the money that has flowed directly from the most corrupt union in Australia through to the Australian Labor Party in particular under the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, you can see why the reintroduction of the tough cop on the beat, the building watchdog, is required. These are just some of the headlines in the last two weeks. 'CFMEU administrator says union's woes "worse than reported"'. 'CFMEU administrator moves for "clean sweep" of union super fund directors at Cbus'—and just on that, let's all remember what Cbus is. It is a superannuation fund that looks after its members' money. The article this morning by Ewin Hannan should worry every single member of any super fund that the CFMEU have anything to do with. The transferring of in excess of $3 million of members' funds to pay for legal fees of a union official—is that some type of joke? The bad news is that, no, it's not; it happens to be the reality. Another headline is 'CFMEU deal puts the union in bed with bikies and the underworld: An investigation reveals the relationships that have vaulted companies with links to criminals into favoured positions on the nation's building sites.' Again, we've known that for a long time, after the Cole royal commission and the Heydon royal commission and after headline after headline and after Federal Court case after Federal Court case—and a High Court case as well! Anyone who says they were not aware of this type of behaviour either has had their head in the sand or, quite frankly, was condoning and, indeed, facilitating it. Even Sally McManus—my understanding is Sally's having a hard time at the moment—had to come out and say, 'Self-serving CFMEU leaders ruined the union.' Another headline is 'Allan, Albanese told of union thuggery in 2022'. I think that's a slight 'unexaggeration' actually, because they've known of it and, as I said, have condoned and facilitated this behaviour for a very, very long time. But what does the bill do today? We, as a coalition, are moving to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which, even in its previous form, former Labor Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard understood needed to be in place. In other words, the behaviour of the CFMEU in the construction industry was so bad that even former Labor governments recognised that there was a need for a building watchdog. We want to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission's powers to enforce workplace laws in the building and construction industry. On any analysis, what we have seen over the past couple of months shows that the decision by Mr Albanese to hand the construction sector over to John Setka, the former head of the CFMEU, on a platter as the first item of business for his government back in 2022 has been an unmitigated disaster. Why, though, do you think Mr Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, would take such a step when construction industry participant after construction industry participant said, 'Please don't, because, if you do, you are going to expose us even further to bullying, thuggery and intimidation on construction sites across Australia.' The Labor Party can try to deny their links to the CFMEU all they like but the evidence speaks louder than anything the Australian Labor Party will ever say. Since Mr Albanese became the Labor leader—again, they can deny this all they like—the fact of the matter is, and the evidence clearly shows, that the Labor Party have received more than $6.2 million in donations directly from the most corrupt union in Australia, a union that we know is in bed with bikies and the underworld. Seriously, you would almost think that this is some type of TV script, because you cannot believe that an alternative party of government, the Australian Labor Party, now in government, would have condoned and facilitated this type of behaviour. But, let's face it, the millions of dollars—and we're still waiting to find out whether or not the money is actually clean money; I have my doubts about whether or not this money that has gone directly into the Australian Labor Party is even clean money—the $6.2 million that Mr Albanese, as the Labor leader and then the Prime Minister, has conveniently accepted on behalf of the Australian Labor Party speaks volumes. Then you also have to put it into the context of the union movement. Many Australians won't know that since 2007 the union movement in Australia has given directly to the Australian Labor Party in excess of $100 million. That's since 2007. I'm hearing that Mr Albanese has got a few problems at the moment, because, you see, I'm told that Labor don't actually know how to fundraise because they've never had to fundraise. They just put out their hand and the union movement gives them the money. Now that that has dried up, the Australian Labor Party are facing their reality, and it is: not many like you, not many like your policies and not many want to support you. Money speaks louder than anything that Mr Albanese or the Australian Labor Party will ever say. They like to run around saying that they can't support the reintroduction of the tough cop on the beat and the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission because 'it was a dismal failure and ineffective at bringing the issues of criminality and corruption that surfaced in Nick McKenzie's investigative report to the forefront'. The first point I would make is this: the Australian Labor Party, when they were in opposition, fought the coalition, which went to a double dissolution election to 2016 because we were so committed to cleaning up the construction industry in Australia and ensuring that mum and dad Australia—the Australian taxpayers, because it's their money that's used on publicly funded infrastructure—were not being ripped off by the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU. We were returned to office, and we did stand up the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In fact, I was the minister at the time. Let me assure you, the Australian Labor Party fought us every single step of the way. This was despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, this is not me speaking, there was evidence. Everybody knows about it because the court cases are on the public record. Since 2003, the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions. Seriously—can you imagine someone in the corporate world breaching the corporations law in excess of 2,600 occasions? After one breach the Labor Party would be calling for their head, let alone after 2,600 breaches. The CFMEU have been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and they have been penalised other courts. The Australian Labor Party like to say that the ABCC went after the CFMEU, but the problem with that is it's not backed up by the evidence. All the ABCC was able to do is bring a case before the court. The courts of Australia, the independent judiciary, then adjudicated based on the evidence. In over 91 per cent of the cases that the Australian Building and Construction Commission brought before the courts of Australia, the courts actually found in favour of it and against the CFMEU. In fact, since 2003, the CFMEU has been penalised over $24 million by the independent judiciary in Australia. So when Labor stand up and say that the ABCC was a dismal failure, that is a reflection, quite frankly, on the independent judiciary and the fact that it found the CFMEU had breached workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions. It is little wonder, based on the ABCC's exemplary track record, that John Setka has from day one argued that it needed to be abolished. Let's be honest, the ABCC was getting in the way of his business model. But the other important reason that you want law and order on building sites in Australia is that mum and dad Australians are paying more for the cost of their infrastructure. On what planet does a government—or the then opposition—sit back, knowing full well that publicly funded infrastructure in Australia is costing up to 30 per cent more than it should, and say that is okay? We are talking hospitals, roads and schools. We're in a housing crisis in Australia at the moment, with the flow-on effect that has on what Australians have to pay for houses. On what planet do you sit back and say that is okay? Quite frankly, the only reason you do that is that you are on the take. It doesn't matter what the Australian Labor Party says; the donations records show money flows directly from the most corrupt union in Australia, the CFMEU—with bikies and the underworld—to Labor. You couldn't script this if you tried. This is the reality of life in Australia under the Australian Labor Party. There have been $6.2 million of donations made since Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, became the Labor leader and there has been $100 million from the union movement since 2007. It's pretty obvious why the Australian Labor Party have continued to turn a blind eye. Well, guess what? We say no more. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has made it very clear. It's pretty obvious the Australian Labor Party won't stand up for the Australian taxpayer. It's pretty obvious that the Australian Labor Party are quite happy to let John Setka still turn up to building sites across Australia. They're quite happy for Zach Smith to turn up and tell people he's still running the CFMEU. They will do nothing and I can't wait to hear their speeches today justifying, but not based on evidence, why they will not be supporting the reintroduction of the tough cop on the beat when stakeholder after stakeholder have said it is required. This bill is a test and, if Mr Albanese refuses to support it, it will show the Australian people he is very much still in the pocket of the CFMEU. 09:17 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales As Senator Cash has just set out, there is a wall of money which goes from the union movement into the Labor Party's coffers. It's a wall of money which goes from the CFMEU but also its favourite tentacles, the super funds, and that has enriched the Labor Party. It has paid for its campaigning capacity for many decades and it has given it manpower at polling places and enormous internal power inside this building. Often it's unclear, when Labor members and senators give speeches in this place, whether they are speaking on behalf of the people that they seek to represent, or do represent, or whether they are speaking on behalf of a union they used to work for. It is very unclear who in fact they are trying to work for in this building, which is a howling conflict of interest and something that I think is eating away at the qualities of the Labor Party. It has been widely exposed by the media this year, and I think we all are in debt to the Sydney Morning Herald for its extraordinarily good investigative work, which has exposed all these issues. The reason that the parliament is considering these matters now is that the media have done outstanding work in exposing this wrongdoing. What is the transaction here? The transaction for the CFMEU is that Cbus, First Super and BUSSQ—all these organisations—give their money through the union to Labor, and in return what do the CFMEU get? They get preferable policy settings. They are paid off in policy. One of the first actions of this government was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission. As has been canvassed before, the Building and Construction Commission was put in place by the Howard government because it was recognised that lawlessness was driving up costs and hurting Australians because of the inflated costs of building in this country. Then, when the Gillard government came along, they sought to replace the ABCC with another body which was not as effective as the ABCC. The Turnbull government then sought to legislate the ABCC. It was stymied by the Senate, a double dissolution election occurred and the Turnbull government then legislated the ABCC with the support of One Nation, Derryn Hinch and the Xenophon team. Thank goodness for the crossbench of the day standing up for the good qualities of this parliament, which has one pretty clear job—to look after the Australian people and ensure that lawlessness is not something that is tolerated by the people in this building. After 2,600 breaches of workplace laws and $24 million in penalties, the insertion of the CFMEU into enterprise agreements has a real consequence for the Australian people at a time when the Labor Party has presided over the largest growth in immigration since the 1950s and a collapse in building construction, a collapse in house building. So the nexus between bringing people into the country and building houses is in a terrible state. At that time they allowed the CFMEU to run rampant across building sites in this country, and the consequence of that has been a 30 per cent premium, a 30 per cent tax, on all apartment buildings and the like in this country wherever the CFMEU has been allowed to do business. This 30 per cent tax means that housing, particularly apartment buildings, for so many Australians then become unaffordable. For many Australians who are living in the cities—bigger cities on the east coast, perhaps—the entry point for them into the Australian dream is going to be an apartment. So the deliberate inflation of apartment building costs by this government and its actions is a disgrace. It is hurting under-40s. When you look at opinion polls and you look at surveys of under-40s in this country, they are very angry about the housing situation, which has got so much worse under this government. They should be angry, because the government is a government for vested interests and is running a protection racket for their best friends. They don't care. The Labor Party does not care that the Australian people have to pay a 30 per cent premium on a new apartment building because of the CFMEU. They would rather help out their favourite vested interests than look after the welfare of younger Australians. Unions are more important than young people to this Labor Party. That's where we find ourselves. The lack of law and order has manifested in many places across our country. In relation to the Hakoah Club, in Sydney's eastern suburbs, this is a Jewish club that is being threatened by the CFMEU with pro-Palestinian protestors because of a dispute between Hakoah and its builder. This is the sort of activity the CFMEU is prepared to undertake. It is prepared to go into communities that are already very much under stress and strain and threaten them with all sorts of political and other measures, which is illuminating for this chamber to consider—the fact that you would threaten people who are already under siege with a particular form of sensitive protest in order to get an outcome. This has been shown in the good work of the Sydney Morning Herald, which has been able to canvass these matters in detail in recent weeks. I want to take the opportunity here as well to flag something that it is very concerning to me about the tentacles of this organisation, the CFMEU. It is now in administration and has been described by the administrator as an organisation that even he was surprised was in such a terrible state, but the CFMEU is apparently still being led by its secretary, even though it's in administration, and still has very deep tentacles into this building. I say to the chamber that a very risky precedent was set yesterday afternoon here in the Senate, when it voted against an inquiry into a matter which goes to the heart of all this—that is, that the CFMEU still owns 21 per cent of the super fund Cbus, and even though the administrator has kicked three CFMEU officials off the Cbus board they still own a large portion of the fund and exercise significant control as an owner of 21 per cent of the organisation that owns the Cbus fund. The bill before the Senate would ban the Cbus organisation from accessing taxpayer funds through the government's Housing Australia Future Fund. The reason that measure has been put forward by the coalition is we do not regard it as appropriate that the CFMEU should be allowed to use it surrogates, the Cbus super fund, to access taxpayer funds. That is a reasonably unremarkable concept—that taxpayer funds should be shielded from an organisation that has been found to be engaging in deeply corrupt activities. In fact, this parliament itself has put it into administration. So how can it be the case that the parliament thinks it's important enough to put the CFMEU into administration but is open to the CFMEU surrogates accessing taxpayer funds through the Housing Australia Future Fund through the Cbus organisation? The two things cannot be consistent in any form. The bill before the Senate seeks to ban Cbus from accessing the housing fund while the CFMEU is in administration—an unremarkable concept. But the idea of having an inquiry into this bill was voted down yesterday by the Senate, and I think it is a very risky precedent. Our role here is to inquire and get to the bottom of things. Even if people don't agree with my comments today about these matters—and I understand there are different views—the concept of having an inquiry and doing investigative work, giving people parliamentary privilege when they are seeking it, being able to call in regulators to get to the detail of what they are doing in terms of protecting taxpayer funds and protecting the interests of members in compulsory schemes, is fairly unremarkable. Rather than asking this chamber to vote in a particular way on a substantive measure, we simply seek to have an inquiry into the bill. I know there has been a significant amount of lobbying here to stop this bill going to an inquiry. I think it is a very dangerous precedent for the Senate, and I regret that some of the crossbench did not support the motion to refer the bill to a committee. I think the Australian people would expect us to conduct reasonable inquiries. I understand there are some things that are extremely sensitive that have not gone to committee inquiries before, for good reason, but when it comes to matters of probity and governance this is surely the core business of the Senate. I again urge my colleagues on the Senate crossbench—particularly the Greens, who have been very good generally in supporting measures that promote good probity and good governance in relation to these matters—to consider whether or not it is a good precedent for the parliament to vote to defeat an inquiry into a bill that seeks to prevent an organisation that is linked to an organisation under administration from accessing taxpayer funds. The bill does not seek to put a blanket ban on an organisation forever; the bill seeks to put a ban on that organisation while the CFMEU is in administration. It is not a forever clause. So the idea of the crossbench voting against an inquiry, voting against investigation, voting against giving people parliamentary privilege, voting against bringing in the regulators to give evidence, voting against the idea of getting the detailed evidence that the Australian people would expect us to collect, is very dangerous. I again urge the crossbench to think carefully about the precedent it wants to set here. We have been sent to Canberra to get to the bottom of corruption, wrongdoing and malfeasance. There is certainly malfeasance happening with the CFMEU, otherwise the parliament would not have put the organisation into administration. The crossbench should consider carefully the precedents that it seeks to make, because if we start voting against inquiries then I wonder what our role here is in Canberra at all. If we're not going to get to the bottom of things, then maybe it's not worth flying down here to the bush capital and wasting all these taxpayer funds—because I can assure you there's a lot of rubbish that goes on here. There's the pantomime of question time, all the scripted answers and all the other rubbish, which are a huge waste of taxpayer funds. Who seriously thinks that getting up and asking two or three questions, with all the supplementaries, is good value, particularly the dorothy dixers? The Australian people see through it. I've made that point in government and in opposition. It is often an ugly place to be a part of because of the huge waste of taxpayer funds and resources, where people just get up and they read speeches. They read speeches with talking points on them. They've got no idea what they're saying. They're just here to fill up a few hours. The real work of this Senate is done in the committees. I would say that any reasonable senator would agree that there is a level of collegiality that comes with the committee system that we inherited from the US in the early seventies which has given the Senate the best opportunity to make a contribution to Australia by developing policies, working together and getting to the bottom of things. I want to commend Senator Pocock, Senator O'Neill and Senator Colbeck for all their work on the PwC matter. They have exposed enormous wrongdoing in the corporate sector through the Senate committee system. If we didn't have the Senate committee system, I would really question the value of having this chamber, because there's not a lot of value that goes on here for the Australian people. So I again urge the crossbench. It is a very dangerous precedent for the crossbench to vote against inquiries into issues of governance, probity, integrity and transparency. This is not about a culture war or some other sensitive issue. This is about the sorts of standards that people would expect us to apply to the protection of taxpayer funds. This is not a substantive motion. It's not a matter where you're being asked to nail your colours to the mast. It is asking the Senate to vote for a process which allows the Senate to undertake an inquiry and investigation. I conclude with those comments. 09:32 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2). This bill shows what the Liberal-National agenda for the building industry is all about. It's not about making the industry more productive. It's not about stamping out corruption or lawlessness. It's not about protecting working conditions. It's not about making construction sites safer. This bill shows that their agenda is about one thing and one thing only. It's about taking advantage of allegations that are already been dealt with by administrators. It's about taking advantage of the situation to attack the rights of construction workers. It's about de-unionising the industry by force. Workers aren't allowed to have a voice at work; that's the view they have on the opposition side. They want to shut down a voice as much as they can. I'll come to the evidence of that, because they were a party to it through the entire instalment of the ABCC. People aren't allowed to bargain for better pay and conditions. They aren't allowed to speak up when there are safety issues. That's what the ABCC was about. That's what they're about. That is what this is about. Let's be clear about what this bill would actually do if it were passed by this place. Construction is one of the deadliest industries in Australia. Twenty-two construction workers died in 2022. But I guess, for those opposite and their cheerleaders, and some in the construction industry, that isn't enough, because they want to get rid of the one organisation that specialises in making work sites safer and fairer in the construction industry. The bill will result in more deaths. It will make construction jobs less safe and more deadly. Specifically, this bill revives a disgraced, discredited organisation, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The ABCC is a law enforcement agency set up to go after the political enemies of the Liberal and National parties. It's the kind of agency you'd expect in Putin's Russia—not in a democratic state like Australia. Just look at the state of the shonks and grifters they put in charge of it, like Nigel Hadgkiss. The first bloke those opposite put in charge of the ABCC had to resign in disgrace. He was found by the federal court to have engaged in 'serious contraventions of law that were required to police'. The court went on to say, 'The consequence of his conduct was dissemination by the commission at his direction of false information to the industry of which the commission was not only the regulator but supposedly a trustworthy source of reliable information.' The bloke those opposite put in charge, supposedly to clean up the construction industry, was breaking the very laws he was supposed to police. You just can't make this stuff up. It would almost be worth letting the ABCC go through so we could see the shortlist Senator Cash has in her pocket of the psychopaths she would put in charge at this time. She'd demand these sort of people run this sort of organisation. The ABCC spent half-a-million dollars on legal action to stop a Eureka flag being flown on a building site, when the developer, Lendlease, didn't even have an issue with it. No-one—the union, workers or developer—supported the ABCC action. It was an ideological farce. Some of the other famous wastes of money the ABCC embarked on, with the full support of the Liberals and Nationals, include prosecuting the CFMEU for having COVID-19 safety posters in break rooms. Can you believe it? There was a common interest and a common goal, but no—they wanted them prosecuted, because the posters had the union and the employer association logos on the bottom. Heaven forbid! They launched cases about union stickers on hard hats. They launched cases about union officials having a cup of tea on a work site. In that case, Justice North said: … it was "astounding" that commissioner Nigel Hadgkiss had briefed silk and conducted days of hearing with dozens of participants, including Australian Federal Police, over "such a miniscule, insignificant affair." Justice North went on to say about the ABCC, 'Using public resources to bring the bar down to this level really calls into question the exercise of the discretion to proceed.' My personal favourite is the half-a-million dollars the ABCC spent on a losing High Court appeal in the case about the CFMEU requesting that a women's bathroom be put on a work site. That they spent half-a-million dollars on the most absurd cases designed to bully and intimidate workers from organising or participating in union activity is astonishing. This bill would also result in the building code being re-established. The laws made compliance with the building code mandatory for the building companies and contractors tendering for or performing government-funded work. What did companies have to comply with? The bill banned companies from having enterprise-containing provisions covering, for example, apprenticeship ratios on worksites. How about that? We have a housing crisis created by those opposite, and one of their brilliant ideas was to ban requirements for apprentices on construction sites. Now we have a shortage of skilled construction workers. Between 2012 and 2020, apprenticeship numbers dropped from 376,000 to 134,000. That's a 64 per cent decrease in apprenticeship numbers in eight years under those opposite. I can't blame it all on the building code, because those opposite also did a very good job of gutting our TAFE system. But the building code definitely played a major role. Next time you can't find a builder for a home, remember those opposite introduced a ban on agreements on apprenticeship numbers at worksites, which happened between employers and unions. Even in the midst of a housing crisis, they're trying to bring it back. Isn't it brilliant? How smart! Aren't they clever! Don't let a union-busting, workplace-busting, worker-busting policy get in the way of their ideology. The code also made it illegal to have terms in contracts about job security and ensuring contractors or labour hire workers won't earn less than the same pay they would earn under the agreement. To put it simply, the code was about lower wages, lower conditions and lower standards in the industry, because the Liberals and Nationals are all about lower wages and lower conditions. They see an opportunity and they just can't help themselves. That's their deliberate economic plan. They have very few, but they have one very clear plan. The Liberals and Nationals hate it when working people earn a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, but they particularly hate it when working Australians earn well in certain industries, like the construction, maritime or mining industries. What do these industries all have in common? They have a strong union presence. It turns out that, in industries where you have strong unions, workers get a better deal. The only thing the Liberals and Nationals hate more than wage rises is strong unions making those wage rises possible, because those opposite are put in this building by very specific vested interests. These vested interests are the reasons the Liberals and too many of the Nationals are so anti wages and anti workers. Let's take Senator Bragg, whose contribution I was listening to. You don't have to dig deep to find Senator Bragg's vested interests. Before he was elected to the Senate, he was a policy director of a lobby group for the financial sector and he was a director of the Business Council—the lobby group for business. Those are the groups that put up Senator Bragg here. Now, on behalf of the Business Council, he spends all his time attacking unions and workers' rights. On behalf of the financial sector lobby, he spends the rest of his time attacking industry super funds. That's why we have the same old tired arguments about the ABCC this time. The only thing preventing those opposite from gutting the wages and conditions of construction workers again are the Labor Party and construction unions. I look forward to the construction industry having a strong and effective union again, because we've made practical changes in this place to deal with the issues of concern that we all hold—the legislation that we had to drag people on the opposite side, kicking and screaming, to turn around and support. We had to drag them, regardless of the industry backing us and the good people in the union movement backing us. Unlike this mob opposite, the good employers, the good unions, the good workers, the good leadership and the people in the construction industry were backing the changes that we put in place. Yet those opposite came up with this half-baked, half-stupid and obviously completely intended attack on workers and unions. To listen to Senator Bragg, the crypto kid, talk about what should be happening with superannuation is amusing, because Cbus wins award after award for its performance, its engagement and its results. It invests in the construction industry to make sure there are construction jobs, and heaven forbid that it might even expect those construction jobs to be safe. That's what those opposite are against. They're against not only the mission statement but also the practicalities of how safe workplaces come from proper investment. I say this of the members of Cbus and others that invest in the construction industry and development. Those that are doing the right thing—and there are many companies out there that do—know the scoundrels they compete with. They're the mugs that those opposite turn around and support. That's the industry they want to drive us down to: one that's unsafe, has poor super arrangements and has poor contracting chains, and where supply chain, contractors and phoenixing is all over the place. I have been in estimates time and time again and seen nothing done by the ABCC about wage theft and phoenixing of companies. I saw the horrendous nature of how they dealt with the hundreds of exploited Chinese workers in Tasmania. They were part of a deal with one player in the construction industry that's very close to those opposite and always speaks on their behalf. Guess what the ABCC did? They did nothing. They said they investigated and, regardless of the information and the public statements, when it came to prosecuting anybody, they dropped the prosecution. When they had an opportunity to right the wrongs for people that were exploited when they were brought into this country, they turned around and applauded the ABCC. They said what an effective organisation they were. They were defending them in estimates. They defend them in here. They defend them out there, because they are not about a fair playing field for good employers, not about a fair result for hard workers in this dirty, dangerous industry. I remember, when I think about the sixties and seventies, that is was the last industry you went into; you had to be desperate to go into that industry, because of the danger people were in. That's the industry that their policy will drive this back into. And do they care? Not one iota. I know there are good people over there. But those good people are blinded by the ideology that drives them, about crushing the voice of working people. This is not about 22 individuals. This is about the idea of people having a voice in the construction industry and standing up. When that bill finally went through to make this industry better and put the administrator in, it was based on making sure there's still a voice in this industry—a voice for everybody, not just for somebody, not just the good players, not just the workers—and also make sure those bad employers are held to account. I spent lots of years working in conjunction with the construction industry when I was, proudly, at the Transport Workers Union and with the owner-drivers who were getting ripped off time and time again by that construction industry—small business people who were putting their houses on the line, their trucking business on the line, not getting paid for months on end. Well, the actions taken by those workers, by those owner-drivers, in collective fights against some of those outrageous, bad employers and developers is something I stood by in those days, and I'll stand by it these days. If you don't turn around and have a strong workforce with good employers then you have the shonks, the rip-offs, the phoenixing—all the things that have made this industry the way it is. Don't forget: this industry environment is driven by that. That's what drives the problems we've had in this industry. Now, we're taking care of the issues that we see as being important, that this Senate has supported, regarding making sure integrity is brought back into this industry. But put this bill they're putting forward into the dustbin. This is simply about going back to the bad old days. They just can't wait: 'Let's bring back the seventies!' 'Let's see the death rates increase!' 'Let's have less worker voice!' 'Let's let good employers rot!'— (Time expired) 09:47 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) and I thank Senator Michaelia Cash very much indeed for bringing the bill before the Senate to consider. It is a bill that ought to be supported by everyone in this place. I recognise the contribution of Senator Sheldon, someone I have a great deal of respect for. But I've got to say, in this instance he is wrong when he asserts that those on this side don't want to see workers represented in workplaces. There is a very legitimate role for unions in workplaces that operate according to the law and that operate in a respectful way in workplaces, and I think it would be hard to find anyone on this side who would disagree with that fact. But the assertion that we somehow don't want to see workers represented, see their rights represented in workplaces, is an absolute fallacy and an untruth, and it is not something that is really to the point of what this bill is about. This bill is about restoring integrity on construction workplaces—worksites that, as Senator Sheldon was saying, are very dangerous. Obviously the environment of these construction sites requires safety and requires having measures in place to ensure that they do operate safely. But these workplaces have also had a history of involvement of a militant union, a corrupt union, that has been taking advantage of its workers and not properly representing them in the way they ought to—in a lawful, sound way. So this bill is about restoring that justice, restoring the proper operation and oversight of these workplaces to ensure that these workers are provided with protection and indeed that the Australian people can see the value of this, without the interference of unions, which would increase the costs of construction projects. This is important. It's a very good bill. It's a sound bill. It's a bill that ought to be, as I said, supported by everyone here in this place. Senator Sheldon said that we were brought, kicking and screaming, to support the legislation on the administrator. That's another fallacy; that's another joke. It's a bit like a scene out of Monty Python—'nothing to see here; it's just a flesh wound'. The issues that have been occurring on these work sites across Australia are nothing to really—I'm going to take you through some of those instances of the thuggery and the corruption and the unlawfulness of the CFMEU that is occurring and has historically occurred over a long period of time. There are serious issues that need to be dealt, and so for Senator Sheldon to say we were dragged, kicking and screaming, to support that legislation—no; we wanted to actually fix your legislation. And we did. The amendments brought into that administration bill were sound and are enabling the administrator to operate with the transparency and the powers that he needs to be able to root these issues out and to provide the administration that was obviously necessary. If we'd just let you ram the legislation through, if we'd let you get it through, we wouldn't have seen the unlawfulness dealt with, we wouldn't have seen the corruption dealt with, we wouldn't have seen the transparency that was needed back in this place dealt with. Through the amendments that we were able to bring, we brought some integrity, via that bill, to that administrator to ensure that it was able to operate with the powers that it needed. Anyway, this bill deals with a discredited union, the CFMEU. The reason it's discredited, and I think this government is in many ways discredited, is because the abolition of the ABCC was the want and the wish of the CFMEU. It was one of the first pieces of legislation that came into this term of parliament. Once the Prime Minister was sworn in down there at Government House, one of the first things he did when we got back here, after the election, was to abolish the ABCC. It shows the government's priorities. The ABCC was the fair cop on the beat. It ought to have had even more powers. Some of the things they say, like criminal investigations were not able to be seen all the way through, is because the ABCC didn't have those powers. This bill that Senator Cash has brought here actually gives those powers to the ABCC, provides the ABCC, or a future construction commission, to be able to prosecute issues so that they're properly dealt with. Now, the Prime Minister was warned of these issues all the way back in 2022. The AFR reports that Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, was told of union thuggery in 2022. There's an article in AFR. Then you have the Canberra Times saying that self-serving CFMEU leaders 'ruined the union'. That's what's happening. That's what we're seeing. That's what the Canberra Times is reporting. You see the AFR is also reporting that 'CFMEU deals put union in bed with bikies and the underworld'. An investigation reveals the relationships that have vaulted companies with links to criminals into favoured positions at the nation's building sites. It has to be dealt with. The Guardian reports that the 'CFMEU administrator moves for "clean sweep" of union superfund directors at Cbus'. It goes on and on and on and on. The government pretend these issues that have been brought forward through that fantastic investigation by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Nine papers are news to them, that they've only just heard about it for the first time. They pretend that it's news, that this is a recent revelation. But we know that the work of the ABCC was revealing time and time again serious cases of unlawfulness, serious cases of thuggery, serious cases of intimidation on construction work sites across the country. These are not new issues. These are issues that workplaces have been dealing with, that construction companies have been dealing with and that the owners of these construction projects have been dealing with. They want to see the efficient delivery of their construction projects but, because of the interference, thuggery and unlawfulness that is occurring on worksites, they've seen increased costs. There is an opportunity for the government to own up to this and deal with it. The administrator is one thing—that's good—but we need to see the restoration of the ABCC. We need to see the restoration of integrity and a reduction in the cost of construction projects across this country. We know why the government, those opposite, come in here and defend the CFMEU. It's because they get the donations. The rivers of gold that flow into their campaigns primarily flow—you only need to look at the AEC's donation records—from the CFMEU. It was $6.4 million, I believe, prior to the last election. That is an extraordinary sum of money. The Liberal Party does not get anywhere near that money from any business, any single organisation—nowhere near it. You are talking exponentially greater sums of money that come through. And we know that's how their preselections are dealt with. Senator Sheldon was talking about Senator Bragg as if his preselection was controlled by the BCA. That's just absurd. They're not members of the Liberal Party. That organisation is not intrinsically linked in the way the CFMEU is within the Australian Labor Party. The proposition is absolutely absurd. But we know that that's what's happening. We know that that is why the defence is run. We know why the protection racket is run. It's because the rivers of gold, their preselections and their positions in cabinet are determined by what union they're part of and what faction they're in. It's not even a question of a Left or Right ideological position; it's whether you're a Left union or a Right union that determines whether or not you're going to be on the front bench. It's ridiculous. That is why they come in here and defend this. That is why they come in here, Madam Acting Deputy President, and defend the CFMEU. It's because they are absolutely wedded and indebted to the CFMEU, and that needs to be dealt with. When the Albanese government abolished the ABCC in 2022, Master Builders Australia warned: There are no sound grounds to abolish the ABCC or divert from the long-standing bipartisan approach of maintaining special industrial relations laws for the building and construction industry. They said: The work of the ABCC is not yet done and its removal will undo the significant improvements it has delivered for our building and construction industry. MBA also found that, between 2016 and January 2022, '80 per cent of the ABCC's litigations involved some form of unlawful industrial action'. It said: The ABCC has been influential in changing behaviour and upholding the law in the industry, especially given widespread exposures to various forms of industrial action (almost 70% of construction businesses surveyed had experienced industrial action in the past four years). Despite this—despite a key industry stakeholder telling the government what the consequences would be if it removed the ABCC from the building and construction landscape—the government still went ahead and abolished it. As I said, the consequences of that are that we have unlawful behaviour continuing, but we also have increased costs imposed upon building and construction sites right across the country. That means hospitals are more expensive to build. It means that roads, bridges, freeways and tunnels are more expensive to build. It means that train lines are more expensive to build. It means that schools are more expensive to build. Who pays for that? The Australian people pay for it. The taxpayers of this country are paying for that. The costs of construction projects like residential construction and high-rise buildings, which we desperately need to address the housing crisis, have gone up. Costs are up. Why? It's because of the corruption and the impositions that are put on these projects for often frivolous issues, like the right contractor not being selected and so the CFMEU get in there and disrupt it to make sure that their friends and their contract end up with the project. These are the sorts of things that go on and they've been going on forever. And those opposite act like it's the first time you are hearing about it. But this is a major issue. Those opposite tell us that the ABCC only dealt with frivolous issues. They tell us that they only dealt with minor issues that really were wasting the time of the regulator and wasting the time of the CFMEU. Let me read out just one case. In Senate estimates, we asked about a particular case that was before the ABCC before it was abolished. It was in relation to a $428,250 fine that was imposed for breaches of workplace laws at the Adelaide Airport. We asked if we could get a little bit of information about this, and let me read into Hansard what the ABCC said to us in estimates: The decision was handed down by the Federal Court on 13 August 2021, penalising the CFMMEU and six officials $428,250 for making misrepresentations about the requirement to show entry permits, refusing to follow directions and acting in an improper manner during the $165 million redevelopment of terminal 1 at Adelaide Airport. In that case, the court found that while on site, two officials, Desmond Savage and Te Aranui Albert, repeatedly abused a construction employee, with one or both saying, 'Eff you, I'm not dealing with you,' 'You're an effing waste of space,' 'He's a piece of shit,' 'You're an effing idiot'— And, now that the ABCC's gone, those sorts of practices are able to continue in workplaces across Australia without any cop on the beat dealing with that sort of nonsense, often against women and inspectors in workplaces, and this lot over here stand in the way of the ABCC being restored. (Time expired) 10:02 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia What a fascinating debate we're having here. I'm sorry to see that Senator O'Sullivan can only manage to find one example in the seven-year history of the ABCC where it did something that was of note. I rise to, not surprisingly, speak in strong opposition to this so-called restoring integrity bill. The Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) represents a significant step, you might even say a leap, backwards. It seeks to revive a discredited, politically motivated agenda that we have seen play out over many, many years. It is a clear attempt to reignite these old ideological battles at the expense of Australian workers because those opposite just cannot bear them. Senator Bragg has been telling us this morning that there should be an inquiry to look into this bill. Well, most of what is in this bill—if not absolutely everything—has been prosecuted ad nauseam through Senate estimates for more than seven years by Labor senators. We have prosecuted the reality of what was happening at the ABCC and the absurd actions of the ABCC at estimates session after estimates session. If Senator Bragg's looking for something to do on the weekend, he might want to sit down with some of those transcripts and see what the facts around what was actually going on with that useless organisation are. Let's be clear what this bill actually aims to do. It proposes to re-establish the ABCC. We abolished it. The Albanese Labor government abolished it proudly, alongside the unnecessary and punitive building code. The ABCC was never about ensuring integrity or reducing costs. It was about wielding power against unions. That's it. It was about attacking the unions and discrediting workers. The hard-won rights of workers in this country should be protected. But all those opposite did in the nine years that they were in government was attack them, and they used the ABCC as the battering ram with which to do that. As for some of the commentary over there about protection rackets and such like, I want to put on the record that I will stand in this place every single day and defend unions—defend the right of workers in this country to be a member of the union and for those unions to fight for those workers' rights, to stand up for the safety and wellbeing and the wages of workers across this country in every industry. And that includes the CFMEU. So here's a shout-out to all those people in the CFMEU who have never done a corrupt thing in their life, who have never bullied or harassed anyone. Here's a shout-out to those people who are working hard, in an industry that is tough, to protect the workers in that industry. I do not stand for any corruption, abuse or harassment, but I assure you the majority of the people in the CFMEU do not fall into that category. The ABCC's track record speaks for itself. It was far more concerned with punishing workers and unions than ever addressing any of the real issues that we see out there, such as wage theft and safety standards—none of that. There was the laser focused obsession with trivial matters, wasting taxpayers' money—thousands and thousands of taxpayers' money spent pursuing idiotic issues like stickers on hats or people having a cup of tea, and also pursuing the CFMEU over trying to get toilets for women on a worksite. Come on! Seriously? No wonder you're all looking down. This is just ridiculous. You're trying to bring back an ideological battle that doesn't need to be had. It doesn't need to be had. Senator Brockman 30484 Why did you put them in administration? Senator GROGAN 296331 No, I'm going to take that interjection, Senator Brockman, I am going to take that interjection. You are taking one issue and smearing it across a whole range of unnecessary pieces. Yes, we did bring in administration. We brought in administration to deal with one specific issue that's going on right now that needs to be fixed because we won't stand for corruption. We will not stand for corruption in any area, and not in the union movement. So that is why we brought in administration. But you do not get to tar the entire CFMEU with that same brush. You just don't. It's deeply unfair and wrong—wrong, Senator Brockman. Senator Brockman 30484 You put them into administration. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Brockman, your side have been listened to in silence. I'd appreciate it if you could control yourself and let Senator Grogan have her say. Senator Brockman 30484 I shall. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Thank you. Senator Grogan. Senator GROGAN 296331 We've seen plenty of criticism of the ABCC. As I've said, there are years and years and years worth of Senate estimates transcripts on this issue. The kinds of cases, the minor cases that I was talking about, were not addressing those significant problems that we see. They were not addressing the substantive issues on the ground—nothing, nothing at all. It was just an ideological waste of time and money. The ABCC ran for seven years, and in that time it recovered just $5.9 million in unpaid wages. In contrast, the Fair Work Ombudsman, an institution much better suited to the role, managed to recover over half a billion dollars a year across two years. That is a billion dollars recovered by the Fair Work Ombudsman and $5.9 million recovered by the ABCC. Seriously? What a waste of time! So, yes, we abolished it. We are very, very proud of that. In those seven years, there were headlines, there were arguments about stickers on hats, there were arguments about cups of tea, there was concern about trying to put women's bathrooms on worksites for the growing number of women that we have in the construction industry—and they are doing a fine job, too. Not one thing did the ABCC or the coalition government, when they were in power, do to deal with any criminal activity in certain parts of the CFMEU. They're all standing up here this morning, all the coalition people, one by one, telling us about criminal activity and bagging out the CFMEU in its totality, not just in the areas that there may be some wrongdoing in, but not once did they do anything about any criminal activity. They can stand there and bag us out for whatever they like. The facts— Debate interrupted. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 11

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024

First Reading 11 10:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Senator GALLAGHER ING by leave—I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bill The Bill would establish an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC) as a complaint and investigation framework to enforce the Behaviour Code for Parliamentarians, Behaviour Code for Parliamentarians' Staff and Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces (the Codes), which were adopted on an interim basis by both Houses of the Parliament in February 2023. The Codes cannot formally commence until the IPSC is established. Establishing the IPSC would advance the Government's election commitment to implement recommendations of the Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the bill in the 2024 Spring sittings is required to ensure the IPSC can commence work as soon as possible in 2024, allowing time for its recruitment and establishment. Commencement of the IPSC is a precondition to final adoption of the Codes as the IPSC will have an enforcement function for the Codes. The IPSC will give confidence that Commonwealth parliamentary workplace participants will be held to account for conduct that breaches the Codes. This is critical to supporting improved culture within these workplaces. Question agreed to. Second Reading 11 10:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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 purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Establishing the IPSC was one of the recommendations made by the Australian Human Rights Commission in its November 2021 report—Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces—also known as the Set the Standard Report. That report set out a framework for action to ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful. In doing so, it observed that these workplaces should uphold the standing of the Parliament as a worthy reflection of the community it serves. That observation is incontestable. It's why—on the first sitting day of 2022—a joint statement of acknowledgment was delivered on behalf of the cross-party Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce declaring that this Parliament should serve as a model workplace for our nation. And it's why—in progressive updates on implementation of the Set the Standard Report—this place has acknowledged the mistakes of the past and committed to build safe and respectful workplaces. The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—chaired by Dr Vivienne Thom AM—has been working to steer implementation of the Set the Standard Report's framework for action. Much has been achieved. There have been real and important improvements to the culture of this place. Last year the Government, working with the PLT and its Staff Consultation Group, progressed legislation to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS—as it is known—commenced its enhanced operations as a statutory agency on 1 October 2023. It provides centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and their staff. The PWSS also provides services to a broader cohort of people who work in the Parliament to support a safe and respectful workplace. These are its confidential support service and a complaint resolution service. The PWSS also has an interim function to undertake workplace investigations. This 'review' function will sunset on 1 October 2025. It is intended that the PWSS review function would be replaced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission which would be established by the Bill. Following the PWSS's successful commencement last year, the Government turned its attention to progressing the IPSC. These represent two significant structural reforms to our workplace. As such, we considered that their progression in a staged and orderly way would best integrate these entities into our workplaces. Subject to passage of the legislation, our aim is that the IPSC would commence on 1 October this year. The IPSC's commencement will mean that the separate Behaviour Codes for Parliamentarians and their staff—and the Behaviour Standards for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces—can be finally adopted. These codes were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards. They were endorsed by both Houses of the Parliament in February last year pending establishment of the IPSC to enforce them. Together, the Behaviour Codes and the IPSC are about accountability. The Set the Standard Report said that the absence of clear standards of conduct, and the absence of consequences for misconduct, make the Australian Parliament not only out of step with developments in other parliamentary contexts but also with the most basic standards in other Australian workplaces. Consistent with the Report, the Bill would establish the IPSC as a fair and independent workplace investigation framework. Its role is to be an impartial fact finder. The IPSC Commissioners would perform their functions in an independent and impartial way. Where expected standards of conduct have not been upheld, the IPSC will be able to impose or recommend sanctions set out in the Bill, or make a referral for further action in the case of Parliamentarians. If the IPSC finds that a parliamentarian has seriously breached the conduct requirements, there will be a role for the Houses of the Parliament. The IPSC would refer its findings to the Privileges Committee which would then consider the appropriate sanction and report to the relevant House of the Parliament with its recommendation. It is appropriate that the Houses of Parliament make such decisions about disciplining their members. There is accountability through this mechanism, and a recommendation by a Privileges Committee will become public. The structure of an IPSC investigation process in the Bill aligns with the Set the Standard Report. Recognising parliamentarians are elected members of the Parliament, three Commissioners would decide a final report for a parliamentarian respondent. A single Commissioner would make that decision for a staff respondent or other worker. The Bill also provides avenues for internal review of decisions. In all cases, a review panel would be constituted by three Commissioners. Again, this aligns with the Set the Standard Report. Under the Bill, the IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS. While its investigation function will be separated from the PWSS's support and complaint resolution roles, the IPSC would still need to work in a complementary way with the PWSS. It is not intended that the IPSC would investigate a complaint that would be better addressed through the PWSS functions. People who have a workplace issue would be encouraged to contact the PWSS's confidential support service. This should be the front door for help and advice as envisaged by the Set the Standard Report. The PWSS will be able to provide advice on ways to resolve a complaint. It can also provide wellbeing support. This is a confidential service and available to potential complainants, respondents or others who are involved. If an IPSC workplace investigation would be appropriate, the PWSS could assist a person to make a complaint to the IPSC. The Bill is the product of extensive consultations with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and the PLT Staff Consultation Group. A lot of thoughtful and constructive feedback was received. Ranges of views were put forward on various points, and some balancing has been required. A particular point to emphasise is that it is not the intention of this Bill to change existing work health and safety laws. Nothing in the Bill requires people who have duties under work health and safety laws to make reports to the IPSC. The IPSC complements existing work health and safety laws. Importantly, employers in Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces already have obligations and duties under work health and safety laws. The IPSC provides an additional pathway to take action, where appropriate. Because of many variabilities that can arise, if unsure of what to do to meet a WHS duty, parliamentarians and their staff could obtain advice from the PWSS, as they can now. As part of this function, the PWSS can assist with advice on a referral for an IPSC workplace investigation is an appropriate action. The establishment of the IPSC, and the adoption of the Behaviour Codes, will be a significant change in our workplace. The PWSS also has a function to provide guidance on the Behaviour Codes. It will roll out education on the Codes so that people are aware of their obligations when the Codes commence. Consistent with recommendation 2 of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards Report, shortly after the IPSC has commenced, it is intended that the Behaviour Code for Parliamentarians and the Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces would be adopted into the standing orders of each House of the Parliament. As indicated in the Bill, it is proposed the Behaviour Code for Parliamentarians' Staff would be formalised via a determination under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to coincide with commencement of the other codes. However, we know standards in this place are not to set and forget. The legislation also sets out that the newly established Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards would commence a review of the behaviour codes within one year of the first session of each new Parliament, once the IPSC has commenced. As has been said before, the Parliament is a unique workplace, but it is also one of Australia's most prominent workplaces. It should set the standard. Through the Set the Standard report, we heard from so many people who have worked, and continue to work in this place. As a Government we have worked steadily and thoroughly to support implementation of the recommendations of the report. This Bill provides further accountability, and will enable enforcement of behaviours codes and standards to improve safety and wellbeing across Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, which is a goal we all share. 10:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. The nuts and bolts of this bill will be traversed by others in their contributions, so I will use my time to discuss aspects of this legislation which I believe are important to us all. Those in this chamber and those here in years to come, for whatever reason, may look back on this debate and ask, 'How did they get to there?' It was noted in the other place that this bill is not perfect. That's not unusual for any legislative solution to a human problem. Yet, unlike any other bill the chambers debate, this bill is less about our alignment or our party; it has significant implications for us all as individual parliamentarians. It's about how we as parliamentarians carry and conduct ourselves in our roles and go about the business of running the small businesses that are our offices. It's about our staff and our expectations of them. Indeed, it's about the standards of behaviour expected from everyone, from the Prime Minister right through to journalists, security guards, lobbyists and visitors. Many workplaces have codes of conduct that are expected, and remedial action is taken or sanctions are available if they are breached. You can see there already where the conundrum begins in this unique workplace. The implications of this bill cut through to the core of the chamber to which we have each been elected to represent our constituents. Our privileged elected positions come with significant responsibilities, expectations and consequences. Equally, in the execution of certain duties, these positions are afforded protections that make our democracy work. Those protections are not new. In fact, they were first articulated in a bill of rights that was passed nearly 335 years ago. This parliament inherited the protections, privileges and immunities of previous parliaments. They have endured not because politicians think that they are above the law but because they are fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. That is something that we should seek to protect and uphold. But, while we may have inherited the protections and privileges, this parliament should not inherit the culture of another time. That is something which we are responsible for, that we have to confront and that we have to act to amend, and we all agree on that. Our workplace should always seek to raise the bar and set the standard. This bill seeks to change the way that parliament adjudicates behaviour. The Set the standard report of the independent review into the parliamentary workplace known as the Jenkins review found that the culture in this place had failed many—staff, parliamentarians and the public. Everyone deserves to have a safe and respectful workplace. All parties, parliamentarians and staff, have a role in improving parliament's culture. We each have a role. It would serve us all well if, when we consider what role we each have in improving the culture of our workplace, our first instinct is to reflection and self-assessment rather than assuming the worst in others. That would be a great step forward. Since the Jenkins review and before it, the coalition has sought reform through practical and implementable change that respects the institutions of parliament. It's why we implemented the recommendations of the Foster review including creating the first iteration of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service in 2021. It's why the former government accepted the Jenkins review and committed to working towards all 28 recommendations. There have been concrete changes: new training and education programs and a confidential 24-hour support service. Indeed, it was the coalition that first established the parliamentary independent complaints mechanism under the first iteration of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This bill, which addresses recommendation 22 of the Jenkins review, will further formalise and enhance that mechanism by placing it in the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. It's worth noting that it was the Foster review's independent complaints mechanism that first had the power to hold parliamentarians as employers accountable for their actions, and it introduced the concept of referring parliamentarians to the relevant privileges committees if they failed to implement the recommendations of workplace reviews. This bill represents the culmination of a significant amount of work both in the passage of other legislation and consultation around this building. It will establish a new statutory body that will review and consider the conduct in our workplaces, including that of parliamentarians. This is transformative to the extent that this bill provides legislative powers to non-parliamentarians to investigate matters that, before 2021, were conducted by administrative review with few avenues for accountability. This bill fulfils a commitment to apply accountability that has never been given to the many people who have gone through this place and have been subject to conduct that is unacceptable in any workplace at any time. We thank again the people who have contributed to the process since it commenced in 2021 through submissions to the reviews all the way through to the development of this legislation. We are committed to that change and to ensuring that we call out that behaviour when it occurs. The conduct of parliamentarians and the judgement of them is not just a serious matter, it's also a constitutional one. Regardless of any reductionist interpretation, our workplace is one of three that has some element of protection by our first law. This is important because the independence and ability for an individual in this place to discharge the responsibility bestowed on them by Australians at an election is paramount. We have two protections that allow this: freedom of speech and control over the internal proceedings of parliament. Parliament should provide the grounds for the fiercest contests, the sharpest arguments and the strongest views. We are chosen and choose to be here specifically for that purpose. Outside of this place, those views are controlled by laws that constrict expression. They provide protection but also prevent and preclude a freer exchange of views. Here, in this chamber, we are entrusted and unencumbered by design. Those outside are not, but they have chosen us in free and fair elections to use this privilege on their behalf. We are then only burdened and bound by the responsibility to speak on behalf of our fellow Australians, and, when we do, we should be able to give those views their full voice. That's what our parliamentary privilege protects. The fact that it also protects how we go about those debates is also important. Privilege protects our voice and the ability for us and only us to determine how we use that voice. If Australians who put us here wish to withdraw those privileges from any one of us, they can do so via the ballot box on election day. I warn those who would introduce constraints on those fundamental tenants of parliamentary representative democracy that, when you willingly place limits, they can have far-reaching consequences and they cannot be undone at will. Our conduct is important. Standards of behaviour should be exemplary. But I say to those who seek, often for political benefit, to curtail the voices of others, particularly those that they disagree with—particularly within these privileged chambers—that you may instead be seeking to diminish the democracy that you are trying to protect. Past members of parliament, from the lion of the Labor Party, Senator Gareth Evans, to the Liberal father of a current independent MP, John Spender, have opined on this very fact, debating Australia's first privileges act. Even if it seems black and white today, conduct is conduct and behaviour is behaviour. Life is never black and white, and we have to legislate for the inevitable grey. Surely being a parliamentarian teaches us that we are not all alike. To that end, the answer does not lie in the removal of privileges that this institution has protected under our Constitution. The opposition agrees with the government's legislation insofar as it maintains the primacy of the parliament in its own affairs. While an independent body will investigate matters—and so avoid obvious conflicts of interest—it's still up to the parliament to both oversee that body and determine the application of any punitive sanctions on its own members. The process of the development of this legislation has been a cross-party effort, and this is no easy task. It has pushed and pulled each of us from our original positions. We have engaged with respect, not assuming ill intent, we have listened to each other's concerns and we have found agreement after discussion. It has reminded many, I suspect, of the wisdom that it is better to get 80 per cent of something than to go over a cliff with your colours flying. Make no mistake: the implementation of this reform places both the power and the responsibility for change in our hands. Institutions are only as strong as those who are inside them. It is incumbent on us, then, to police and protect ourselves, the people with whom we work every day and this institution through our conduct, always striving to be our very best selves, even when politics is at its most combative. I believe that this bill manages to get the balance right. We will no longer decide whether our conduct in our workplaces was a breach of community expectations. That will now be done by an independent commission. That is a very big change for this place. But we will determine what happens when those breaches of the standards occur, and the electorate will expect that we deal with those breaches appropriately. The coalition would like to thank the many people across this parliament who have worked to develop this significant legislation and, indeed, acknowledge all of the changes to our workplace recommended by the Jenkins and Foster reviews. I want to particularly acknowledge the members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. I would like to thank Senators Davey, Gallagher, Farrell and Waters, as well as the member for Farrer, the Deputy Speaker Claydon and the member for Warringah, who have served on that body. The opposition would like to thank the PLT's Staff Consultative Group and all staff who have given up their time in order to deliver feedback on behalf of their colleagues. The opposition would like to thank the officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who have been very patient in spending their time explaining this legislation. The opposition would also like to thank the Independent Expert Chair of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, Dr Vivienne Thom, and Jenna Parker, who supports her in this role, for their endless patience and commitment to a sometimes thankless but, I hope, still rewarding task. Finally, the opposition would like to thank the minister and her office, in particular her chief of staff, Georgia, and her senior adviser, Sol. I commend this bill to the Senate. 10:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. This has a been such a long time coming. Establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to enforce codes of conduct that apply not just to MPs but also to staff has been an incredibly long wait. It's been desperately needed, and I'm pleased we're here today. But I do have some concerns that I'll be going through in my contribution. We've seen some truly horrific behaviour in this building over the years—some criminal behaviour. And I want to deeply thank all the brave staff who have spoken out about that conduct, and indeed also some MPs, for their courage and resilience. Thanks to their courage and their bravery in speaking out, we have seen a series of reforms to try to clean this place up, to try to improve the conduct and to try to set the standard for workplaces around the country. As everyone will acknowledge, we had been so far from doing that up to this point. Setting up the IPSC has been the next piece of this puzzle. The reason we've needed this is that, prior to this series of reforms with the establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service and today with this bill—the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission—all we had was an internal process run by the Department of Finance. Put yourselves in the position of a staff member, knowing there was a process that was ultimately not really that independent and was run by a department that was overseen by a minister and could never have resulted in consequences if the offender was an MP. What a shit process—excuse my language. Do I need to withdraw that? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Yes, if you could, Senator. Senator WATERS 192970 Okay. What a poor process that was. It is no wonder that staff didn't have confidence. That is why staff had reticence in using it: they thought, 'What's the point of making a complaint about the fact that I've been harassed in my workplace, or bullied in my workplace, because I know my boss is going to get away with it?' This is not an independent process, and they can't even be sanctioned. So I really welcome the fact that we have started to address that problem, acknowledge that it was a problem and are now attempting to fix it. But of course the Constitution is a bit of a barrier in that regard, and this is my main critique of the IPSC that we'll be passing today—and we will be supporting the passage of this bill. Only the chamber can regulate its own. There's only so much an independent parliamentary standards commission can do, and that's because of constitutional limitations. We can be fired by people when they decide not to vote for us again next time, but we can't be kicked out of this chamber except by a vote of the chamber. So there is a fundamental tension at the heart of these reforms in that an IPSC can go only so far. We pushed for it to go as far as it could, and I'll run through some of the things the Greens wanted to see that, sadly, we've not been successful in getting. But we have a fundamental tension here where, by design, the fox is still in charge of the henhouse. That's in the Constitution, and we can't fix that. I wish we could. That's just a bit of context. The other main concern I've got is that it has taken so long to get to this point, and staff are deeply frustrated that it's taken this long. Recommendation 22 of Set the standard was that the houses of parliament should establish this IPSC within 12 months. It's been a lot longer than 12 months. Initially we were hoping and expecting that this body would be up and running a year ago. It's at least one year late. Here we are today, and I'm grateful for that, but it's really been a long time coming. In the meantime, we did endorse those draft codes of conduct for staff and, importantly, for parliamentarians. Both chambers signed off on those. We are meant to be abiding by those draft codes of conduct, but I say that with some mirth, because it's pretty clear that the codes of conduct have not been abided by, and that is because there's been no enforcement body. That's exactly what the IPSC is meant to now be doing, once it's up and running. It will enforce the codes of conduct. My colleague Senator Faruqi, who'll make a contribution a bit later, sat on the committee that drafted those codes and, under a common theme here, they're not as strong as the Greens would have liked them to be and pushed for them to be. They're certainly an improvement on having no code at all, but the codes themselves need to be strengthened. And until today there's been no enforcement mechanism for them. So we do welcome the fact that there will now be sanctions for badly behaved parliamentarians who act in a way that constitutes serious misconduct, harassment or bullying, but the sanctions are not as strong as they should be. They're less transparent than they should be. We pushed for stronger sanctions. We pushed for larger fines for politicians who behave in either a harassing way or a bullying way, or even an assaulting way, towards their staff or anyone in the course of their work. We pushed for those stronger sanctions and, unfortunately, we don't have them. They're not in this bill. They're quite small fines, in my view. We also pushed for automatic standdown provisions so that the public can have confidence that, for the sake of the reputation of the parliament, if someone has been accused of something, they just stand down while that investigation is being resolved. Unfortunately, we didn't get that either. We also pushed for more consequences for ministers where there's an adverse finding. There's this really complicated architecture whereby you've got these codes of conduct that are meant to bind everyone, but then you've also got a ministerial code of conduct. We said, 'Well, if you're found to have breached the code of conduct for all MPs, surely that should be considered an automatic breach of the ministerial code.' But, no, that was not to be. So, at the moment, it's up to the Prime Minister to decide what consequences there will be for a minister who misbehaves, and that seems to make a mockery of the import of what we're doing today. We're concerned that the process is not as strong or as independent as it should be, and certainly not as strong or as independent as then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins recommended, and that's based on all the information that she gathered from the staff in this building who asked to be safe—and who deserve to be safe. One particular beef that I am seeking to fix with the amendments that I'll move once we come to the committee stage is that the bill doesn't allow the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to actually suggest appropriate sanctions for parliamentarians that would then be imposed by the Privileges Committee. Recommendation 22 of Set the standard said that that should happen. This bill is not doing that. At the moment, the IPSC can only impose a range of non-parliamentary sanctions on misbehaving parliamentarians. They can require an apology. They can ask that politician to go and do some behaviour training. They can make them promise to never do it again. Now, those things aren't worthless; they're important too. But if it's any stronger sanction, like a fine or a suspension from the chamber, only the chamber can do that, and, in their wisdom, the two parties have agreed that it's the Privileges Committee that will perform that function. But the Privileges Committee are not trained professionals; they're politicians. We asked for them to have compulsory trauma training, and I reiterate that anyone who sits on the Privileges Committee who will now be in charge of regulating the conduct of MPs' behaviour should have the benefit of trauma-informed training. That's not in the bill. I still want that to happen, and I'd like the government to commit to that happening in a non-legislative fashion if it's not going to commit to an amendment to that effect. The point of the story is that the Privileges Committee won't have the benefit of a suggestion from the IPSC about what should be done in the circumstance and how seriously the breach should be treated, because the IPSC will say, 'Yes, there's been a serious breach finding here and we're going to send this to the Privileges Committee. But we're not going to give them a copy of the full investigation report; we're just going to give them a summary. And we're not going to suggest to them a sanction that we think might be appropriate.' Even if they did, there's no rule that says that the Privileges Committee has to follow that suggestion. We are not arming the Privileges Committee with the information or the training that they need to do a good job here, and we should be doing that. I've got amendments to fix that, which I will move once we come to the committee stage. There is concern amongst stakeholders and the public that lacking that transparency and that accountability will undermine people's confidence, so, as I said, I'll be moving amendments to address that issue. I want to acknowledge the work that Fair Agenda, in particular, and the Australian Democracy Network and Transparency International have done in noticing that key flaw and championing the need for it to be fixed. Politicians who are making decisions about sanctions for their own should at least have the benefit of a suggestion from the commission about the sorts of sanctions that might be appropriate. That would help them do a better job. How else are they to know what's appropriate when they haven't done the primary investigation and they're not getting a copy of the full report? That's a classic transparency measure that the bill lacks. I want to commend the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, who also sought to move an amendment in the House to address this flaw. Unfortunately, he did not get support. I want to make a few other remarks. There is a review provision here in the act. It's a review provision for the codes of conduct. That's very welcome, but we want to make sure that the codes of conduct are strengthened and not weakened, so we have some concerns about that. But I note that there's a review provision in the bill itself for the whole architecture to be reconsidered at the start of each term of parliament. Now, that is good and appropriate because we need to learn from this process. I don't think we've got it completely right this first time, and we need to learn and, I hope, improve and strengthen it. I note that Senator Thorpe has an amendment that requires a review, I believe, 18 months in, as opposed to the clause in the bill which says it's at the start of each parliament. I'm flagging that that's Senator Thorpe's amendment. We're content with the review time that's currently in the bill. I might mention that Senator Thorpe has another amendment that we'll be moving on her behalf and supporting, which says that any currently open matter before the PWSS that really did belong with IPSC—but IPSC didn't exist until today—should be automatically referred, with the consent of the complainant. My understanding is that that is the intention, but I think it's important that that be clear and codified, so I'm flagging that we'll be moving that amendment on Senator Thorpe's behalf. I also want to address some amendments that were made in the House that I believe were to ensure that the two big parties in this place could support this bill. There was an amendment that said that the membership of the IPSC, the governance oversight body, has to be drawn from the privileges committee—that is, the same people who are deciding cases, incidents, of misconduct are also then the people that are oversighting the process: is it working; should it be stronger; should we review these codes? That is a deep conflict of interest. That change should not have been made. Those two bodies should have remained separate. Now the membership of one has to be drawn from the membership of other. You've lost all sense of separateness and distinction there. Without speaking for him, I notice that Senator David Pocock has an amendment that addresses the second aspect of what happened in the House, not that one that I've just mentioned. The other amendment made was that the deputy chair of that governance committee has to be an opposition member. Again, the two-party system is on the decline, folks. Your vote's declining, and members of the public actually want to see a more representative parliament. So it's a bit on the nose that you're essentially earmarking the chair and deputy chair positions for yourselves. It's a bit presumptive, to be honest. So I'm flagging that we'll be supporting Senator David Pocock's amendment that says, no, the deputy chair should not automatically be a member of the opposition. They're the key concerns that we have with this bill. As I said, we will be supporting this today because this has been a long time coming and we need an independent process, but we are so disappointed that it's taken so long and that it's a lot weaker than it should be. The sanctions are weaker, the independence is pretty flimsy and there's not a lot of transparency. I am worried that there will be a perception by the public and by staff who work in this building that this will be a protection racket for politicians and that we will all protect each other. Now, I hope that that's not the case. I hope that's not what happens. But you can't deny that's the perception out there. I'm disappointed that we haven't designed a stronger system to meet that concern and to make sure that it doesn't become a reality. I very much look forward to continuing to engage on this when the review rolls around. I really think we need to track how successful this is between now and then by asking staff how they feel and by genuinely consulting people who engage in this process, to learn from it and improve it. This should not be a set-and-forget. Australians need to trust that their elected officials will be held responsible if they misbehave, and you need a strong and transparent process to have that confidence. I too want to thank everyone who's worked on that Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—it was very gracious of Senator Hume to do that; I endorse those remarks—as well as the secretariat. Lastly, I want to say, to all of the staff who have suffered and to other MPs who have been subjected to misconduct here, I'm sorry this isn't better. Thanks for really pushing as hard as you could to get us here. This is a real improvement. I'm just sorry it's not as strong as it should be. 10:39 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I thank everyone for their contribution to this so far. I promise I won't labour on. I want to endorse the commentary of my colleague Senator Hume on this and a bit of the background that went into it. One of the things we keep hearing about and people keep focusing on is past poor behaviour. There has been poor behaviour in this place over a long period of time, but we have also seen some really positive change. I want to acknowledge that change and reinforce that this is an evolutionary process. There is no silver bullet. Just as we have seen poor behaviour in other large-scale workplaces, such as in the Defence Force, universities, corporate Australia and the mining industries, so too, unfortunately, have we seen poor behaviour in this place, which, let us not forget, in a sitting week sees around 6,000 people working in this one little ant hill in the middle of Canberra—6,000 people in one building. One thing I would say is that I'm amazed we haven't actually seen more poor behaviour, and that is testament to the fact that people who come in here come because they want to see positive change in their communities. That is not to say that we don't need what is before us today, because I think this is a continuation of the positive change that we are seeing. And it is time. I do agree with Senator Waters; it is time. The first time a code of conduct was proposed for federal parliament was actually back in 1975. So it's finally time—I agree with Senator Waters. It was 1975 when they first discussed it and we're finally going to see it today. I commend the work that was instigated under the Morrison government. Preceding anything focusing just on this workplace, the Morrison government commissioned the Respect@Work national inquiry by Kate Jenkins. It was the first one, which reported through the Set the standard report and made some very significant recommendations which the Morrison government responded to. Then, following the airing of some very serious allegations very publicly in 2021, the Morrison government established two further inquiries. One was the Foster review, which Senator Hume has spoken about, and then there was further work done specifically about parliament, also by Kate Jenkins. I really commend Kate Jenkins on the work that she has done across the board on these issues. I thank her profusely because that is the groundwork that has led us to where we are today. Congratulations, as well, to the Albanese government on the further work they've done since coming in. They provided a further response to Respect@Work, facilitated amendments to the Fair Work Act and brought in the PWSS legislation. The Morrison government established the PWSS but that was legislated by the Albanese government. There has been a bipartisan approach to ensuring that we make this place a safer and more respectful place to work. Many of the recommendations of the Set the standard report have now been implemented. We do have a digital platform to receive complaints. We do see an improved package of inductions for MPs and staff. And we have, as I said, seen a change in the behaviour in this place. I want to come to the concerns raised by Senator Waters about the Privileges Committee being the committee to enforce sanctions recommended against parliamentarians. I think that that is the correct method. They will be taking the advice of the IPSC commissioners. They will be taking the advice in the summary of the review. But the Privileges Committee are elected representatives too, and, as elected representatives, we can't always be devolving our responsibilities to others who don't face the voting constituency. And it is fair for the chair and the deputy chair to be drawn from the parties that form government or may form government. In the case of a minority government, the government of the day can choose whichever chair representative they want. It may be, in the case of a minority government, that they aren't from one of the major parties, but that is for a future parliament to decide. It is correct for the government of the day and the alternative government of the day to be in the chair and deputy chair roles. This has been a long and drawn-out process, but I'm comfortable that we have taken the time to make sure we now have a process that can be implemented and that provides procedural fairness to both complainants and respondents. It is fair that we took the time to have the thorough debates and conversations we had to make sure it was implementable, because the last thing we want is to set up a system that, in practice, does not work as intended. We want to make sure there is fairness, we want to make sure that there are supports in place for complainants, and we want to make sure there are fair processes, including appeals processes, to enable due process. I take exception to Senator Waters' claims that this will be a protection racket for MPs. The one thing that does provide MPs protection is the due process—but not to cover up. It provides them the confidence that a process will be followed and any reports or findings will be justified. I think we've taken care to develop this. I do support the reviews that are built into this bill so that every parliament can review the IPSC and the codes of conduct. I think that is fair. I really want to thank all members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, who have worked on this in good faith. I thank them all for their time. I thank the chair and I thank the staff who have supported the PLT. I thank the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service for the work they have done to date. They have established some really good foundations on which the IPSC can build, so I thank the PWSS, their staff and their CEO. I also thank the parliamentary staff who have supported us through this process. I commend this bill to the chamber. 10:49 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to fully support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. It is a vast improvement on the previous system, and I sincerely wish it had been brought in sooner, as my colleagues have raised. In the efforts to raise the standards in this place, it brings more rigour to the process and higher standards of review, which will ensure that the review is more just. This bill is essential for strengthening accountability and improving workplace standards in parliament, addressing the critical need for reform highlighted by the Jenkins review. I welcome the bill. It's important that the processes within it uphold fairness for all involved. We must maintain rigorous standards when handling allegations of misconduct. This will help prevent vexatious allegations and hopefully prevent the political weaponisation of that complaints process. This bill will also strengthen the procedural fairness in these complaint processes. It is heartening to see the strengthening improvement of this bill, and I also support Senator Thorpe's amendments that we will debate later. I thank Minister Gallagher and her team, Georgia and Solange; they have been amazing. Thank you for working with me on this and bringing about this much-needed reform. 10:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank senators for their contributions on this bill. As others have said, it has taken some time to get to this point and a lot of work has gone into getting this bill in the shape it is today. The purpose of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 is to establish the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Establishing the IPSC was one of the recommendations made by the Australian Human Rights Commission in its 2021 report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, also known as Set the standard. I join others in acknowledging the fearless work of the team led by Kate Jenkins in putting that report together. The report set out a framework for action to ensure that Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful. In doing so, it observed these workplaces should uphold the standing of the parliament as a worthy reflection of the community it serves. That observation is incontestable. It's why, on the first sitting day of 2022, a joint statement of acknowledgement was delivered on behalf of the cross-party Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce declaring that this parliament should serve as a model workplace for our nation, and it's why, in progressive updates on the implementation of the Set the standard report, this place has acknowledged the mistakes of the past and committed to building safe and respectful workplaces. The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, chaired by Dr Vivienne Thom—and I thank her and Jenna for the incredible work they have done in helping to steer the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—has been working to steer the implementation of the Set the standard report's framework for action. Much has been achieved. There have been real and important improvements in the culture of this place; I strongly believe that. Last year, the government, working with the PLT and its staff consultation group, progressed legislation to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS, as it is known, commenced its enhanced operations as a statutory agency on 1 October 2023. It provides centralised human resources support to parliamentarians and their staff. The PWSS also provides services to a broader cohort of people who work in the parliament to support a safe and respectful workplace; these are its confidential support service and a complaint resolution service. The PWSS also had an interim function to undertake workplace investigations. This review function will sunset on 1 October 2025. It is intended that the PWSS review function will be replaced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, which will be established by this bill. Following the PWSS's successful commencement last year, the government turned its attention to progressing the IPSC. These represent two significant structural reforms to our workplace, and they are historic reforms. As such, we considered that their progression in a staged and orderly way would best integrate these entities into our workplace. That provides some of the background to the reasons and the concerns raised by Senator Waters—I acknowledge them—around the time it's taken to get to the IPSC. Through the work of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and through other discussions, the decision was made—and it was the right one—to concentrate on the PWSS, to get that in place, and ensure we had time to work through all the issues that would be raised through the establishment of an IPSC, which was always going to be the one that was going to be harder to put together and enshrine in legislation. That is why we took the decision, supported by many of the discussions we had across the parliament, to get this right. This is long-lasting structural reform. Meeting a timeframe that was set down is certainly one path, but doing it properly and having the time to make sure we got it right, that people felt consulted and that we did all the work we needed to do with staff was another reason we split these important works. But these reforms are here for the long term, and I think that was a much more important way of progressing it so that we could hopefully move, once we vote on this bill, with the agreement of all in this place. Subject to the passage of this legislation, the aim is that the IPSC would commence on 1 October this year. The IPSC's commencement would mean that the separate behaviour codes for parliamentarians and their staff and the behaviour standards for the Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces can be finally adopted. These codes were developed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards. They were endorsed by both houses of the parliament in February last year, pending establishment of the IPSC to enforce them. Together, the behaviour codes and the IPSC are about accountability. The Set the standard report said that the absence of clear standards of conduct and the absence of consequences for misconduct make the Australian parliament out of step not only with developments in other parliamentary contexts but also with the most basic standards in other Australian workplaces. Consistent with the report, the bill would establish the IPSC as a fair and independent workplace investigations framework. Its role is to be an impartial fact finder. The IPSC commissioners would perform their functions in an independent and impartial way. Where expected standards of conduct have not been upheld, the IPSC will be able to impose or recommend sanctions set out in the bill or make a further referral action in the case of parliamentarians. If the IPSC finds that a parliamentarian has seriously breached the conduct requirements, there will be a role for the houses of the parliament. The IPSC would refer its findings to the privileges committee, which would then consider the appropriate sanction and report to the relevant houses of parliament with its recommendation. It is appropriate that the houses of parliament make such decisions about disciplining their own members. There is accountability through this mechanism, and a recommendation by the privileges committee will become public. The structure of an IPSC investigation process in the bill aligns with the Set the standard report. Recognising that parliamentarians are elected members of parliament, three commissioners would decide a final report for a parliamentarian respondent; a single commissioner would make that decision for a staff respondent or other worker. The bill also provides an avenue for internal review of decisions. In all cases, a review panel would be constituted by three commissioners. Again, this aligns with the Set the standard report. Under the bill, the IPSC would be established as part of the PWSS. While its investigation function will be separated from the PWSS's support and complaint resolution roles, the IPSC will still need to work in a complementary way with the PWSS. It is not intended that the IPSC would investigate a complaint that would be better addressed through the PWSS's functions. People who have a workplace issue would be encouraged to contact the PWSS's confidential support service. This should be a front door for help and advice as envisaged by the Set the standard report. The PWSS will be able to provide advice on ways to resolve a complaint; it can also provide wellbeing support. This is a confidential service and available to potential complainants, respondents or others who are involved. If an IPSC workplace investigation would be appropriate, the PWSS could assist a person to make a complaint to the IPSC. The bill is a product of extensive consultations with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and the PLT staff consultation group. A lot of thoughtful and constructive feedback was received. Ranges of views were put forward on various points, and some balancing has been required. A particular point to emphasise is that it is not the intention of the bill to change existing work health and safety laws. Nothing in the bill requires people who have duties under work health and safety laws to make reports to the IPSC. The IPSC complements existing workplace and safety laws. Importantly, employers in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces already have obligations and duties under work health and safety laws. The IPSC provides an additional pathway to take action where appropriate and, because of the many very variabilities that can arise, parliamentarians and staff who are unsure of what to do to meet work, health and safety duty can obtain advice from the PWSS as they can now. As part of this function, the PWSS can assist with advice on whether the referral of an IPSC workplace investigation is an appropriate action. The establishment of the IPSC and the adoption of the behaviour codes will be a very significant and structural change in our workplace. The PWSS also has a function to provide guidance on the behaviour codes. It will roll out education on the codes so that people are aware of their obligations when the codes commence. Consistent with recommendation 2 of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards report, shortly after the IPSC has commenced it is intended that the behaviour codes for parliamentarians and the behaviour standards for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces would be adopted in the standing orders of each house of parliament. As indicated in the bill, it's proposed that the behaviour code for a parliamentarians' staff would be formalised by a determination under the Members of Parliament Staff Act 1984 to coincide with the commencement of other codes. However, we know that standards in this place are not 'set and forget', and the legislation also sets out that the newly established Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards would commence a review of the behaviour codes within one year of the first session of each new parliament once the IPSC has commenced. I would say that I expect that, as one of their first items, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards would be looking at how to operationalise the behaviour codes as they have been designed—consider those and make recommendations about any adjustments if needed. If not, great, but I think for the first time there is an opportunity to look at how those behaviour codes can be implemented smoothly. As I've said before, and many others have also, the parliament is a unique workplace, but it is also one of Australia's most prominent workplaces. It really should set the standard, as the title of the Kate Jenkins report said all those years ago. We've heard from many people who have worked and continue to work in this place. As a government, we've worked steadily and thoroughly to support the implementation of the recommendations of the report. I would like to thank all of the members of the parliamentary leadership taskforce, many of whom sit in this place. There is Senator Hume, Senator Davey, Senator Waters, me and Senator Farrell. On the other side, in the other chamber, there is Ms Lee, Ms Steggall and Ms Claydon—have I forgotten anybody? That group has worked very collegiately to try and ensure that we get the implementation of Set the standard right. I really, genuinely thank everyone for their engagement. It really has been a structure that has improved the legislation but also made sure that we have been accountable to a decision taken in the previous parliament to support and implement all the recommendations of the Set the standard report. To all of those staff who came forward—to those who have worked here in the past and this workplace hasn't lived up to the expectations that we hold—this parliament has already recorded an apology for that and a commitment to make sure that, as we go forward, this workplace continues to strive to be the best workplace in the country. I would like to thank those who were courageous and took part in the Jenkins report and also through all the staff consultations to date about what needs to happen. These are big changes to our workplace. This is a very traditional workplace in many senses—through federation and decisions taken by people many years ago about how this building operates and the culture that exists within. In my time sitting in parliament, I have seen a noticeable change in the last two years about the expectations of conduct and of the responsibility taken by leaders in this place to make sure not only that we hold each other to account but that we look after the people who work in this building. This should be the best workplace to work in. I acknowledge that it is probably the most unique workplace in the country. I want to acknowledge all of the people involved: the PLT, the people who have taken part in the consultations, the Jenkins implementation team, who are sitting here today, as well as my staff, Sol and Georgia, who have, of course, been incredible and have been acknowledged in the chamber today for all the work that has gone into this. I think this is a moment when we look back in time and look at how these structures and changes were implemented and see that we have displayed the leadership that was required. We've taken it seriously. We haven't shied away from the challenges set out in the Set the standard report, and we've taken our time so that we could move as one, as a parliament. I strongly believe that that gives the IPSC the strongest chance of being successful, and it is up to us to make sure that that is the case and that it doesn't become something that is used to weaponise or play politics with but is a genuine feature of a workplace that is serious about making sure that, if complaints are made, they are dealt with fairly and with appropriate protections for all involved. Thanks to everybody for all of the work that has gone into this. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) In Committee 21 11:10 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Finally, this long-awaited and vital deal to set up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission is here. It has been two years since the behaviour codes of conduct were developed and 18 months since parliament endorsed these codes, so this legislation has been a long time coming—but, of course, 'better late than never,' as they say. We all know that this place needs a desperate shift in culture. Everyone knows that. Hardly a day goes by without an example of bad or unacceptable behaviour. Intimidation, bullying, racism and sexism—I think, 'Finally, we can put it to bed,' is not robust debate, and people should just stop justifying it as such. It is vile behaviour that should not be acceptable nor tolerated in any workplace, including our own. While developing these codes we received overwhelming evidence that the workplace culture in parliament was broken in so many ways for so many people. First Nations people, people of colour, people with disability and LGBTQIA+ people experience discrimination, microaggressions and role segregation. We should be leaders in making the safest workplace, especially for those who are most marginalised in society. Instead, it has been toxic, cutthroat, hypermasculine, whitewashed and exclusionary on multiple levels. I do thank people, especially my colleague Senator Waters, for working so hard in bringing this bill here. It is good to see a few more people speaking up against racism in this place as well. But, honestly, it is still far too easy to fling around racism and racist commentary in here without any consequences. In fact, here's the rub. Those calling out racism are the ones who are called to order and gaslit, but the perpetrators still get away scot-free. Developing and endorsing the behaviour codes was a step forward, but implementation and enforcement of behaviour codes of conduct have been the missing pieces here. Without the enforceable behaviour codes, we are really tinkering around the edges. This bill will hopefully mean that the commission can be set up quickly, and parliamentarians will be held to account for unacceptable behaviour and face real consequences for this behaviour which actually change it. The Greens, as Senator Waters has said, are concerned with the suggested MP sanctions, which are weaker and less transparent than they should be. Senator Waters will be moving amendments to change that. This is a real problem. The real problem here is that only the privileges committees make a decision on sanctions against parliamentarians for serious breaches, without the IPSC having the power to even suggest sanctions to the committee. This seems so much like self-regulation, which has never worked. It's like Dracula being in charge of the blood bank! This is not going to improve public trust or transparency. On top of this—and I have to point this out—the make-up of the privileges committees and the complete lack of diversity on those is a real issue. They are all white. There are no First Nations people, no people of colour and no-one with a disability, as far as I can tell. So how do we expect to trust decision-making and sanctions issued by committees that are so unrepresentative when it comes to the experience of unacceptable behaviours of bullying, racism and discrimination that we all want to end? It is really the entrenchment of power and privilege, which is unchecked, that needs to be addressed by enforceable consequences, because that is the root cause as to why this place has a toxic and harmful culture. If there is any place that needs unpacking of white privilege and white fragility, it is this place. I want to end by saying thank you to all the people—the staff past and present—who have come forward with such courage and shared their experiences and stories over and over again. It is not easy, so thank you from the bottom of my heart. We are here only because of you all, because you put your necks on the line, spoke out and took action. We need more people like that if we want real change in here. 11:14 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, I want to thank you very much for the constructive work that has gone into this bill, and I want to thank everybody from around the chamber for their contributions today, which I think have been extraordinarily valuable, and for the work that has been done in the lead up to this bill. I have some questions for the minister, but I think that they can wait until after the hard marker. Progress reported. NOTICES 22 NOTICES Presentation 22 COMMITTEES 22 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 22 Report 22 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the 10th report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 10 OF 2024 12 September 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Gerard Rennick Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 7.14 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024 and Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Aged Care Bill 2024 Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 •Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024 Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 12 September 2024 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Stakeholders and interested parties . Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): September and October Possible reporting date: 31 October Print name: Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Consider details Possible submissions or evidence from: Experts, stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Mid October Possible reporting date: 31 October Print name: Nick McKim Appendix 2 Name of bill: Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation and allow interested parties the opportunity to provide evidence into the proposed legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Stakeholders, legal representatives, interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October Possible reporting date: 14 November 2024 Print name: Wendy Askew Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of significant legislation which underpins the Government's Future Made in Australia legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Climate change and renewable energy sector stakeholders Emissions-intensive trade-exposed entities Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 31 October 2024 Print name: Senator Anne Urquhart SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To provide proper scrutiny over this legislation and to ensure that all impacted parties have their opportunity to voice concerns about these Bills. Possible submissions or evidence from: Impacted entities, organisations and interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): September and October Possible reporting date: 31 October Print name: Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: 4x FMIA (Guarantee of Origin) Bills Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Complex policy—want to get experts and stakeholders views on the legislation. Want to explore if there are any integrity issues with it. Possible submissions or evidence from: Climate Council, ACF, clean energy council, renewable energy companies Committee to which bill is to be referred: E&C Possible hearing date(s): Mid October Possible reporting date: 31 October Print name: Nick McKim Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024, the bill not be referred to a committee". 11:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move an amendment to the amendment: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024". 11:16 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory The coalition requires that this bill be sent to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for consideration. We all agree in this chamber that proper consultation is an important part of our democratic process. The proper consultation process is all that we are asking for with regard to this bill. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the Albanese government does not want to support one of those most fundamental tenants of our democratic system. While there is a need for land claims to be determined in a timely manner, that must not come at the expense of being thorough and making decisions that are properly considered. We as the coalition are not satisfied as things currently stand—that there has been the appropriate level of consultation to support this bill. As such, we are not willing to support it until we are satisfied that there has been the chance for the relevant stakeholders to appear before the committee, the chance for them to be heard and listened to. It's important to bear in mind that this piece of land is already subject to exploratory licences for petroleum and minerals. That means that there are people and companies who have potential interests already in the relevant sections of this land. It means there is potential for economic activity to be undertaken on this land. These matters need to be properly considered before this land is added to the act. A real consultation process would exist if this matter were referred to a committee and allowed for that consultation process to occur. Not only does the committee allow for the relevant people to be heard on the matter but it is also an incredibly important opportunity for a wider examination with respect to handing land to land councils in a more general sense. What is blaringly obvious is that the current process isn't working. Significant amounts of land are being added to the land rights act and coming under the control of the relevant land councils, yet the condition and the quality of life for Indigenous Australians in these communities is not in fact improving. In this case, there are exploratory licences already in place on this land. We know that there is the opportunity for traditional owners to engage with those licence holders for the purpose of creating wealth and economic development on their own land. It is becoming evident that those large amounts of land that are being added to the act are then being managed by land councils, which are proving to be dysfunctional. They are bodies that I've certainly lost faith in, and many Indigenous Australians that I speak to, Territorians in particular, have lost faith in their ability to protect and advocate for the interests of traditional owners. As I've been trying to tell these Albanese government for such a long time now, including the traditional owners who were in just this week, something is seriously wrong with the system of adding land to the Land Rights Act when the bodies that oversee it are not fit for purpose and, instead of protecting the interests of traditional owners, are exploiting them. We have situations where pastoralists are being charged by land councils who are offering backburn on the land of traditional owners—pastoralists who are trying to be helpful, to mitigate dangers of fire, to protect the land and do something that would benefit traditional owners. Yet the land council simply says: 'Give us some money. If not, then no; go away.' It is not good enough. This is using the interests of traditional owners, who are supposed to represent this land, to do nothing more than rent seek. This kind of behaviour by land councils is why we cannot make decisions like the one being proposed by this bill lightly. We must be convinced that proper time and thought have been given to adding land to land councils. Referring this matter to the committee would of course allow this to happen. The Labor government must not try to ram these things through at the expense of proper process and very possibly at the expense of the interests of what actually benefits Indigenous Australians the most. So, for the sake of democracy and for the sake of encouraging economic development and independence for our most marginalised Australians, the coalition will not rush into supporting this bill. And if the Labor government took a minute to think about it, well, they shouldn't either. The PRESIDENT 112096 If there are no other speakers, I'm going to put Senator Duniam 's amendment first. The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Duniam, to Senator Gallagher 's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. 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. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. 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. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:31 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2024". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:36]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. 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. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 BUSINESS 29 BUSINESS Rearrangement 29 11:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion no. 613 standing in the name of Senator Lambie, relating to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 29 11:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today: (a) Senator McCarthy, on account of ministerial business; (b) Senator Marielle Smith, for personal reasons; and (c) Senator Sterle, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. NOTICES 30 NOTICES Postponement 30 COMMITTEES 30 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 30 Reference 30 11:39 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 December 2024: The proposal for the Australian Government to assume complete responsibility for federal highways, with particular regard to: (a) the funding, construction and maintenance of federal highways; (b) the training and utilisation of military engineers to construct and maintain federal highways; and (c) any other related matters. 11:39 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 Under Australia's system of federation, states and territories have responsibility for building and maintaining our highways, while the Commonwealth government contributes funding. Having the Commonwealth and the ADF assume responsibility for highway construction and maintenance from states and territories would present significant constitutional and practical barriers that would make such a suggestion impossible. While the ADF is there in moments of greatest need, the primary role of the Defence Force is the defence of the nation. The Albanese government is focused on delivering practical outcomes to improve our roads. This includes an unprecedented increase in maintenance funding, which, after being frozen for nine years under the coalition, has now been indexed at 2½ per cent per year and backdated to when the freeze was brought in. Question negatived. DOCUMENTS 30 DOCUMENTS Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 30 Order for the Production of Documents 30 11:41 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that orders for the production of documents nos 541, 550 and 568 relating to the final report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review have not been complied with; and (b) until the Senate resolves that the orders have been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion can be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 11:41 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 government has been transparent in making clear to the Senate in writing and in statements that this review will be released when consultations have concluded with stakeholders, including Defence, other agencies and the families of ADF personnel who have lost their lives while serving. Offers for Senator Lambie to be briefed and to read the review remain. Motions of this nature are not constructive for the Senate's ability to scrutinise the government's legislative program. Other avenues exist under the standing orders to raise these matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that notice of motion No. 586 standing in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 19 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. (Teller) McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 11:48 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 October 2024: (a) the reporter's 2022 report as mentioned in the explanatory statement from the Minister for the Environment and Water (the minister) on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (Kings Plains) Declaration 2024 (the declaration); and (b) all correspondence between the minister, her department and the consulting groups in relation to the consultation rounds mentioned in the minister's explanatory statement on the declaration. Question agreed to. BILLS 31 BILLS Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024 31 First Reading 31 11:49 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to facilitate the construction of a gold mine at Kings Plains, New South Wales, and for related purposes. Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024. Question agreed to. 11:49 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 32 11:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The introduction of this bill is aimed at providing a sensible response to a nonsensical decision. In short, it offers senators a practical opportunity to have their say on the disastrous actions taken on 13 August 2024 by the Federal Environment Minister. That was the day on which Ms Plibersek decided for reasons known only to herself—literally—to uphold an Indigenous cultural heritage application. This claim was made against the tailings dam of Regis Resources' proposed McPhillamys gold project near Blayney, in central west New South Wales. More to the point, the introduction of this bill provides an opportunity for Australia's Federal parliamentarians to try to reverse that dreadful decision. The Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024 actually very closely replicates the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997. That's no accident. It's very specifically because, when we first became aware within the Coalition of Ms Plibersek's decision on the McPhillamys tailings dam, our minds almost immediately flashed back to that famous case in South Australia of more than a quarter of a century ago now. The cases are remarkably similar in nature. In each one, a Labor Minister has been seduced by the stories of a small group of people claiming to be the custodians of highly secretive and sensitive cultural histories and ancestries. All the while, Elders and other highly respected members of the respective local Indigenous communities have said that the tales by which each Minister has been captivated have actually been fabricated. The echoes of the Hindmarsh Island case in the Blayney one have also been noted by journalists and by many members of the broader Australian public over recent weeks, too. Indeed, it's especially worth reflecting on the words of Chris Kenny in this respect. Above, and as part of, a column in The Weekend Australian on 31 August, Mr Kenny said of the two cases that "three decades after the Hindmarsh Island fiction, another secret cultural claim is blocking a crucial project". He also said that, "Plibersek has kicked a hornet's nest by ignoring the most appropriate heritage custodians and making judgments about cultural interpretations that at least are contested and, in the view of some Indigenous people, may have been fabricated". Kenny, of course, had direct involvement in the Hindmarsh Island affair—as he worked closely with the very brave group of Aboriginal women who exposed that fraud. He is now seeing very clear parallels in the Blayney case, too. It's worth stressing that, by the time of Ms Plibersek's decision of 13 August, many important things about Regis Resources' Blayney project were already absolutely clear. Among these were that it would have delivered profound benefits and opportunities not just to the people of Blayney but also to people in other communities in the surrounding region, the State of New South Wales, and our country as a whole. Foremost among these were the approximately 800 local jobs and $1 billion in direct investment into Australia. As a very important part of this, it was also poised to deliver a swathe of job opportunities to local Indigenous people—and significant social and economic empowerment to them in the process. Not to mention that the company successfully passed an exhaustive set of compliance, consultation and regulation processes—over more than seven years—even to get there. Regrettably, I am talking about each of those things in the past tense. That's because, at least for now, the Environment Minister's actions have rendered the entire project unviable. As things stand after her decision, it can't realistically go ahead any more. The company has made clear that it would take at least another five to ten years to develop an alternative tailings dam option. And, even then, who's to say that another Labor Minister wouldn't then intervene to stop the project again? That we all find ourselves in this position is also attributable to the weakness of the Prime Minister. It has now emerged that, remarkably, from at least as long ago as the first week of June, he failed to even so much as reply to warnings he was given about what Ms Plibersek was contemplating, and the damage that she was about to inflict. The whole situation is now an utter mess. One totally of the Albanese Government's own making. To sabotage the very future of this mine—which is exactly what they have done, no matter how much they try to spin their way out of it, with weasel words—is the epitome of incompetence. In such circumstances, it is entirely justified that a national outcry has greeted Ms Plibersek's decision to uphold the section 10 application. A rejection of that section 10 claim would have signalled that the Albanese Government—at least occasionally—respects due process, and values the importance of mining to our country. It would also have offered at least some hope that the Government recognises the phenomenal social and economic contribution that our resources sector makes to Australia. Alas, this terrible government did the opposite and sent the completely wrong message. Yet again. To return to the words of Chris Kenny about the result of the Hindmarsh Island case all those years ago, he says: "I wonder now whether it was worth (it) because it seems the nation, or at least the Labor politicians, have learned nothing". In their contributions on this bill, Labor senators will presumably fall in behind Ms Plibersek's lame excuses that Regis Resources could easily shift the tailings dam to another location; that former Minister Ley once did something similar; and that the potential risks at Blayney right now are akin to those at Juukan Gorge in 2020. Given that all of those claims are false and have been totally discredited, this is their chance to do better. Including by rejecting the excruciating excuses and blame shifting of a Minister who has been hopelessly exposed and is completely out of her depth. On Indigenous cultural heritage, genuine environmental protection and basic economics, in particular, their approach to this bill will not only demonstrate exactly how many of them are prepared to reverse course from Labor's past. It will also tell us exactly how willing—or unwilling—they are to disown a truly disgraceful recent decision as well. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 33 First Reading 33 11:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator HANSON BK6 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. 11:51 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 The Greens will not allow One Nation to use parliamentary privilege to deny the existence of the trans and gender-diverse community. We will not give Pauline Hanson a platform for hate. Trans rights are human rights and they are non-negotiable. We must work towards a safer world for the trans and gender-diverse community. The gender-diverse community deserve to feel safe, respected and valued, living their lives treated as equals and free from discrimination. The immediate and widespread backlash against the Prime Minister's decision to exclude questions on gender, sexuality and intersex characteristics from the 2026 census proved that the wider community will always reject bigotry and hate. It's a relief that the government has half-reversed that decision, but there is still so much work to be done. The Greens will always stand in solidarity with the trans community against hatred and bigotry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, I remind you, when addressing senators in this chamber, to use their correct titles. 11:52 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor and other crossbench bills that we have had opposition to. The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken, and it should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances— Senator Faruqi 250362 Yes; hate speech is extreme! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Please continue, Senator Duniam. Senator DUNIAM 263418 lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation, especially where a bill has not had the opportunity to be subject of a normal internal process. 11:53 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 I wasn't going to make a statement but, following on from Senator Duniam's contribution—he is correct in many of his remarks—we have also chosen not to support the first reading on matters that are extremely serious and do cause significant division and harm in the community. The Senate has chosen when that is appropriate, and it is very rare to not support the first reading. Certainly the government believes that this bill falls into that category, and we will be opposing the first reading of this bill. The division, the hurt, the pain that that causes for gender-diverse members of the community is real, and the sooner the Senate realises that and takes responsibility for causing that harm the better. We should not be allowing something like this to come into this chamber. We have to stand up and support all members of our community. 11:54 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the first reading on Senator Hanson's introduction of the bill be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. 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. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 35 Order for the Production of Documents 35 12:00 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 30 September 2024, all documentation by the United Nations or other third party peer review verifying the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's revision of methodologies in the December 2023 quarterly update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Question agreed to. NOTICES 35 NOTICES Withdrawal 35 12:00 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Due to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee resolving to extend the reporting date, take further submissions and hold another public hearing in relation to its inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 615 standing in my name for today. COMMITTEES 35 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 35 Reference 35 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the following motion moved by Senator Hanson: 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. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. I will put the question. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. 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. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 36 BILLS Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 36

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024

In Committee 36 12:09 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2852, revised: (1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)". (2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add: (2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose. (3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert: (2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose. (4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under subsection 24CY(2A). (5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert: (1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions. As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct. As I went through before, at the moment, you've got a situation where, unfortunately, because of the Constitution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission can't discipline parliamentarians. Only parliamentarians can do that. Only the chamber can do that. So the system that's been proposed and agreed to between the two big parties is that the privileges committee is the one to perform that function. They're not people who are trained in dealing with trauma and they're not investigators; they're parliamentarians. So the very least we can do is give them trauma training. I again reiterate to government that that must happen. Otherwise we could see some serious miscarriages of justice, as my colleague Senator Faruqi referred to, with a bunch of non-diverse people on that committee. But also the IPSC should be required to make a suggestion to the privileges committee. It can only be a suggestion because the privileges committee can't be told what to do by IPSC because of the Constitution. But the folk who have done that primary investigation and who formed a view that there's been a serious breach should give the benefit of that knowledge to the privileges committee in the form of a suggestion as to what sort of parliamentary sanction should apply. It will still be up to the privileges committee to decide what to do, but they will at least have the suggestion and the benefit of the wisdom of the IPSC. That's exactly what this amendment does. It says, 'You've got to at least make a suggestion.' The privileges committee, of course, can choose to depart from it. But, if they do choose to depart from it, this amendment also says that the committee should explain why they don't think that suggested sanction is appropriate. This is because, at the moment, there's a perception—and I fear that that perception might become a reality—that this is not a transparent process and that there are not going to be the strongest possible decisions taken by the privileges committee not only to discipline parliamentarians who breach the code but to deter others from breaching the code in future. I assumed—perhaps naively—that this wouldn't be a problematic amendment. It turns out that this is such a big deal, and we're not going to get support from anyone on it. What a crying shame! Please let's make this system work more effectively. Please let's ensure that the privileges committee can be armed with the best information to make the right decision. Given that we can't tell them what to do because of the Constitution, at the very least let's give them the best information to make the right decision. Aren't we meant to be setting the standard here? Shouldn't we be making sure that the best-quality decisions are made for not only the delivery of justice but the appearance of justice, both of which are important? I commend this amendment. 12:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The opposition will be opposing this amendment, noting that the privileges committee shouldn't be directed, or shouldn't be bound, in a deliberation. But I note that, before, Senator Waters suggested voluntary trauma informed training for privileges committee members. It's not something we would have a problem with. Again, it would need to be voluntary because the privileges committee should never be bound or directed in any deliberation or any action, and that's certainly not something we would stand in the way of. It's not appropriate for it to be put into legislation, but it's certainly something that should be considered. 12:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting these amendments, either. I agree with Senator Hume that trauma informed training may be very sensible for privileges committee members, considering the new roles that they are taking with this legislation. We would leave that up to the privileges committee, but we'd certainly see the sense, Senator Waters, in ensuring that that training is available to members of the privileges committee. On the broader point, this is clearly a disagreement about how the system should work, essentially, and we've had lots of discussions about this. I don't come at the establishment of an IPSC and the role of the parliament to enforce or impose sanctions on parliamentarians from a lack of faith in that process. I think, Senator Waters, you come at it with an approach that starts from a point of lack of trust, whereas I'm coming from a point where I trust. And I think the responsibility of all of us in this place is to make this system work. To make the system work means that, when a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct is made—and there are safeguards in the legislation that require the privileges to report—that is accountability, because they have to report. It will be clear that, by reporting, they have been considering a serious breach of the code. If they were to consider a serious breach of the code and say, 'Nothing to see here,' then that is open and clear for the public to see, and they would have to defend that decision. It is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that members of the privileges committee are trained and understand their responsibility and do all those things, but we have confidence in the system that we are establishing here. I don't come at it from a view that there is some inherent problem with privileges considering what the sanction should be. The legislation itself sets out what some of the sanctions for serious breach of the code should be. That in itself I think is also very clear and transparent for people. On this amendment, accepting your position, we fundamentally disagree. I think we're coming at it with a different view of how the system will work in operation. 12:16 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I have just a brief retort to that. Minister, it's not about your level of trust in privileges. Surely, it needs to be about the level of trust that staff in this building have in a process that will finally exist to potentially hold their boss to account if their boss has committed harassment, assault or bullying against them. I take your point, but I just want to push back and say that it's very easy for us in these privileged positions to have confidence and trust, but unfortunately the system hasn't worked for so long for people with less power and privilege than we have. I commend the amendment. 12:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On that point, I would say again that the responsibility falls on all of us to make sure that trust is there. If this system is to work and have the confidence of staff, MPs and senators—let's face it; all of our colleagues have to trust it—then the responsibility falls again to all of us to make sure that's the case. 12:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I want to ask the minister some questions about the appointment of commissioners. Can I confirm, Minister, how the commissioners will be appointed? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 Minister, if you would not mind, resume your seat for a moment. It might suit the chamber if I put the amendments moved by Senator Waters before moving to other matters. Senator Faruqi? 12:18 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I just have a question on Senator Waters's amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'll come back to you, Senator Hume. 12:18 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, can you tell us how people of colour, people with disability, First Nations people and other diverse people can trust committees that are made up of all white members, and what are you going to do about that? 12:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The appointment of members to privileges committees is a matter for individual parties. For example, if the Greens political party wanted to appoint you or another member of the Greens to privileges, that's a matter for the Greens. I disagree that people representing the groups that you have outlined in your question can't have faith in a process that it is being overseen by senior and professional members of parliament. Again, it's our responsibility and those members' responsibility to make sure people are dealt with fairly through the process we are establishing by this legislation today. 12:20 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, those committees are dominated by Labor and the coalition. Are you telling me that you won't even consider diversity on those committees? I mean, I can't trust white people making decisions all the time. A full committee with no diversity making decisions on issues of racism—that is illogical. It is illogical to do that. Would you consider, at least, that these committees should have some diversity and that Labor and the coalition have the vast majority of members on those committees and there are enough people in parliament, in your parties, to be able to have more diversity in those committees? 12:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The matter of who gets appointed to those committees is a matter the parties. That is as it is on every committee in this place. The broader point that you raise is that the committees themselves are not the investigators of complaints. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, you can shake your head, Senator Faruqi, but they are not the investigators of the complaints. Senator GALLAGHER ING You said— Senator Faruqi 250362 They are enforcers. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call. Senator GALLAGHER ING You asked the question. If you have another question, that's fine, but you asked how you can have faith that someone would perhaps make a finding of racism. For a start, the IPSC would undertake to investigate the complaint. If they were to find that there was a serious breach of the code of conduct then that matter would be handed over to the privileges committee, but the privileges committee does not investigate that; they determine a sanction. That is the big difference there. So the point you raise wouldn't happen, because the privileges committee is not conducting the investigation. If there was a finding of a breach of the code based on racism, that would be determined by the commissioner undertaking the investigation. 12:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I don't think I spoke about investigation. It is that the committee will be enforcing sanctions, and that's the issue here. It's beyond me, and I'm flabbergasted that you can't actually say that the committee does need more diversity. Some diversity exists in this parliament, and more people with lived experience of these issues should be deciding what the enforcement should be. It's not that hard, Minister. If we want to change this place, we need to make it more diverse. Why can't you just say, 'Sure, we can look into this'? That is one of the cruxes of the problem: the privilege that people have had which has been entrenched for such a long time. I ask you again: will you consider that those committees need to be more diverse to make a more just and considered decision on experiences of people who, at the moment, don't have a place on that committee? 12:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can take responsibility for the government members, and, representative of the most diverse group of politicians in this parliament, we consider all of those matters as routine, Senator Faruqi. I don't need to give an undertaking, because we are the most diverse group in this parliament, and we consider all of those things as part of our core operations. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [12:27]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Walsh)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:29 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On behalf of Senator Thorpe, I move her amendment on sheet 2899: (1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 97 (lines 18 to 20), omit subitems (2) and (3), substitute: (2) If the complainant consents to the complaint being referred to the IPSC, the CEO must refer the conduct issue arising from the complaint to the IPSC. (3) If the complainant does not consent to the complaint being referred to the IPSC, the PWSS must finish the review. (4) A referral under subitem (2) must: (a) be made in writing; and (b) include the following information: (i) details of the conduct issue; (ii) any evidence relevant to the conduct issue. (5) The new law applies in relation to a referral under subitem (2) as if it were a conduct issue referral under section 24CB of the new law. (6) If subitem (3) applies, the old law continues to apply in relation to the review and in relation to the complaint for the purposes of the review. This amendment is important to move because the nub of the amendment is to make sure that complaints that are being investigated by the PWSS—because the IPSC hasn't existed until now—can now, with the consent of the complainant, be transferred to the IPSC if that's where they belong, given the severity of the conduct under investigation. My understanding is that that's the intent of what's meant to happen anyway, but I think it can't hurt to have that clarified and confirmed in the bill. I proudly support and move the amendment on sheet 2899 on behalf of Senator Thorpe, and flag that the Greens will be supporting it. 12:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Clearly, the evidence in the Set the standard report about some of the things that happened here, in the heart of democracy, is something that should be a source of national shame. I thank the government for the way they have taken this seriously. I thank Senator Gallagher and the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce—Senators Davey, Hume, Farrell and Waters in this chamber, and Ms Steggall, Ms Claydon and Ms Ley in the other place— for their work and for their consultation in landing on a place where we will have a way to deal with the sorts of things we can all agree are totally unacceptable. We should be setting the standard here. We should be the safest, most respectful workplace in the country. That an independent commission is required to lift and enforce appropriate behaviour in this place is a very sobering thought, and I think we should all be reflecting on the individual role we can play in ensuring that there's not a lot of work for this independent commission going forward. There are, however, a few key places where I think the bill falls short, especially when it comes to transparency—and I note this has been well canvassed in the other place. I'll be supporting a range of amendments that seek to remedy these shortcomings and that were flagged by crossbench colleagues in the lower house, as well as moving my own that seeks to reverse a last-minute deal done between the government and the opposition regarding membership of the joint committee. Fortunately, the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, was in the chamber when this came up and brought it to the attention of the parliament, a parliament that today is split roughly into thirds—the duopoly of Labor and the coalition changed by an influx of community Independents, a growing crossbench. I believe the committee should reflect this new reality and it should be for the parliament to decide who fills the deputy chair position. The bill also departs from the Set the standard recommendations in a number of key aspects; this was highlighted by the member for North Sydney in the House in her second reading amendment and the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, in a substantive amendment which Senator Waters moved and we've just voted on; the major parties voted against it. The bill doesn't guarantee that findings of parliamentarian misconduct will be made public. I think this is a serious shortcoming that needs to be remedied, and it's incredibly disappointing after everything we learnt from the passage of the NACC. We saw the major parties team up to say, 'Yes, we'll have a NACC but we'll make it secret.' I, and many, argued at the time—and I think history is starting to prove—that when you have something that is totally secret you undermine public confidence in something that needs trust, that people should be able to look to and say, 'Yes, they're in there, they're doing their job.' What do we have? Labor and the Libs saying, 'Yes, we'll set this up but let's make it secret.' Just as we've seen with the NACC, with people saying, 'Well, what's going on?' with the lack of action on robodebt, people are asking questions because we just don't know. It's incredibly disappointing to see this. Whilst the bill makes the privileges committee the ultimate arbiter, the commission should be able to make recommendations to it. To go back to the amendment that was just voted on, there should be a public explanation if the commission makes a recommendation, which is why we're setting it up—to have an independent body to look at things and make recommendations— and the Privileges Committee decides something otherwise. It shouldn't just be a black box where you don't actually know what's happening in there. The final issue I wanted to touch on is the scope. Department of Parliamentary Services staff should be included in this. I have had multiple constituents come forward with deeply disturbing accounts of their treatment in this building. Just today, there's an account in the Canberra Times from a former DPS employee who describes Parliament House as a 'toxic bin fire' of a workplace. This needs to be addressed. I thank Senator Thorpe for her amendments, which I will be supporting and which would allow the complainant in an open PWSS case from pre the code of conduct to choose if they would like their case to be referred to the IPSC rather than it remaining with PWSS. This is clearly a critically important bill. It absolutely needs to pass. But, Minister, I'd like to ask, to my point about the secrecy—as we've seen with the NACC—why has the government agreed to deviate from recommendations and have no transparency over why recommendations may or may not be agreed to by the privileges committee? 12:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We dealt with this just before with Senator Waters's amendments. Fundamentally, we believe there is accountability and transparency. The fact that a report has gone to the privileges committee in itself means that there has been a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct—the fact that there has been a referral. There's a timeframe for the privileges committee to consider that—I think it's 60 days—and then make a report. That is the transparency that comes with that. But there's very clear delineation between the independent investigator, the fact-finder and the assessor of the complaint, and then handing on that responsibility for the imposition of sanctions. The sanctions are set out in the bill as well, clearly, and the privileges committee must report publicly on their deliberations. So there is that transparency and accountability. Those deliberations would be made public, and that is the way that you enforce the accountability mechanism. But we strongly believe in a very clear delineation between the investigation, the finding of the breach and then the sanctions imposed. Obviously, this has been consulted on heavily. Legal advice has been taken to make sure that it's robust and it can stand up to people opposing being considered through this process, and part of that was to make sure that that very clear delineation between responsibilities is made. 12:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. I have just a quick follow-up on that. So, if there is a deviation between the recommendation and the sanction, will that be made public? 12:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The IPSC won't be making a recommendation. They determine if there's been a breach and the level of that breach. If it's not a serious breach, then they have responses available to them, like training, apologies and things like that. If they believe that it's a serious breach of the code of conduct, they make that finding and that goes to the privileges committee. They then have essentially 60 days to consider that and make a determination on a sanction. 12:39 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria For the sake of clarity, the opposition will be opposing the amendment that's been put forward by Senator Waters on behalf of Senator Thorpe. We haven't been provided time to consider the implications of this, but I think that our natural inclination is to oppose it. 12:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On the amendment—this is the one relating to transitional provisions—the reason we won't be supporting it is so that the rules of engagement are not changed midstream for all the people involved in those. I acknowledge that for people who are involved in any investigation it's very difficult, and it's very important that people are able to seek wellbeing support from PWSS. This has been one of the most significant reforms this parliament has put in place in recent times. It is being well utilised. It's highly respected. And we believe that ensuring that those investigations that are ongoing can be concluded through the transitional arrangements is preferable to this amendment. 12:40 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I would like to move on and ask the minister some questions about consent. I don't know whether you would like to deal specifically with the amendment before us, before we do that. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 Well, I was about to say, if your questions are not in relation to this particular amendment, I might go to Senator Van to make his contribution on that, and then we'll deal with the amendments and come back to you, Senator Hume. 12:40 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I will be supporting Senator Thorpe's amendment. The process as it stands at the moment is not working. There deserves to be an off path to the IPSC for matters to be reviewed in a far more professional way than is being done currently. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If no other senators wish to contribute to the debate on that amendment, then I will put it. The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 2899 in the name of Senator Thorpe, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to. Question negatived. 12:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I ask that the Australian Greens' support for that amendment be recorded in lieu of a division. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Waters. 12:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, I'd like to ask a question about section 24CH(1)(b), which allows for the commissioner to investigate a matter without consent. Could the minister confirm that this provision is intended to be used only when there is no identifiable complainant to consent to an investigation? 12:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Generally IPSC commissioners would investigate a complaint only if the complainant consented to an investigation. As an exception, the bill provides that a commissioner may decide to investigate a complaint without complainant consent if they are reasonably satisfied that a serious risk to work health or safety arises or could arise from the conduct concerned. This is entirely consistent with the Work Health and Safety Act where that act does not require complainant consent to take action to address a work health or safety issue. However, consistent with the Set the standard report, the IPSC could not investigate an allegation of sexual assault or assault without the complainant's consent. It should be emphasised that the IPSC has a discretion to investigate under the work health and safety ground. Whether a workplace investigation is warranted will depend on the circumstances. And if a complainant does not want to be involved then commissioners will need to assess whether it is practical and appropriate to investigate. 12:43 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Minister. I want to ask about section 24CH(5)(b), which allows for the cessation of an investigation where there has been a withdrawal of consent only where the commissioner deems that it's reasonable and fair. Could you explain to the chamber why a commissioner might proceed with an investigation, even without the consent of a complainant? 12:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The bill has a strong focus on complainant consent as a general principle. But in circumstances where consent is withdrawn, this could be a ground for the commissioner to decide not to investigate further if an investigation has already commenced. However, a provision in the bill recognises that this may not always be a fair outcome, particularly for a respondent who may wish to have their name cleared, when an investigation has substantially progressed. For this reason, if consent is withdrawn, the bill indicates that a commissioner may consider the progress of the investigation and fairness between the persons affected by the investigation. 12:44 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I have some questions for the minister about the independent review. Minister, can you confirm that the amendments in this bill will be subject to an independent review under the existing act's section 68? 12:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, I can. They will. 12:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, can you confirm that this will mean there will be a review of these amendments within the next two years at the latest, given the section that will cause a review within one year of a new parliament? 12:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, that's right. 12:45 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I have some questions around limitation on criminal matters within this bill. Minister, could you confirm for the chamber that the bill does not intend to allow for findings of criminality, noting that this body is not a court and makes findings only on the balance of probabilities. 12:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, the bill makes very clear that the IPSC cannot make findings of criminal guilt and includes sections stating such. For the avoidance of any doubt, I think it is section 24CY. 12:46 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, could you confirm that the commission will investigate matters that may be civil or criminal offences only after they have engaged advice from the relevant authorities in order to not prejudice any potential civil or criminal proceedings? 12:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The bill gives commissioners the flexibility they need to inform a decision on whether it is appropriate to investigate or not. The bill has information sharing provisions to support this. This includes permitting a commissioner to confer with police to assist them to decide if it is appropriate for the IPSC to investigate. 12:46 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I have questions around legal and professional privilege. Minister, could you confirm that the legislation does not waive, in any way, the privilege against self-incrimination? 12:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My answers are quite short, in the interest of time and getting this bill passed, but the answer to that is: that's correct. It does not waive, in any way, the privilege against self-incrimination. 12:47 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, could you also confirm that the legislation does not waive, in any way, legal professional privilege? 12:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That's also correct. 12:47 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, could you also confirm that the legislation does not waive, in any way, parliamentary privilege? 12:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That's right. And the bill does allow for commissioners to confer with presiding officers on matters that may engage parliamentary privilege. I would just say this is an area that a lot of people involved in the drafting of this legislation have focused on, which is: how do we ensure that parliamentary privilege is protected through this? 12:47 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I have some questions about the reviews of the code of conduct. In your second reading speech, you mentioned that the behaviour codes that will be established by this bill will apply to staff of parliamentarians, and we were informed that in their drafting there was little consultation with the established staff employment bodies, such as the work, health and safety committee and the employee consultative group. Minister, can you commit to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards consulting fully with these bodies on codes that will directly impact staff during any future review? 12:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Hume, and for the ongoing dialogue we've had around this. Obviously staff consultation is incredibly important. There was consultation through the joint select committee process and we have no problem with further consultation with staff. The explanatory memorandum is clear that it would be expected that there would be further consultation with staff. We're very supportive of ensuring staff consultation. We're very happy to commit to ensure that this would happen and would expect that all members of the PJCPS, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards, once established, would share this goal. And we will work with my colleague the Special Minister of State to ensure we get the consultation right, including working across the parliament to make sure that we are addressing everybody's needs. 12:49 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I just have one further line of questioning around assessments of complaints. Minister, the explanatory memorandum to the bill outlines how each complaint will be assessed. What guarantee can you provide to staff that steps such as assessing the appropriateness of progressing to an investigation will be followed in practice? 12:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This is an important part of the bill. The legislation does give that guarantee. It sets out a detailed framework, including the matters that a commissioner would need to consider on whether investigation should be commenced. We're confident that the legislation allows for this process balancing well the flexibility for commissioners considering appropriate approaches to investigations. However, this is setting up a new system, so if there are any issues with this process in operation, we would imagine they would be dealt with or assessed during the review of the legislation. I think we've tried to set out the framework to make it as good as it can be, but obviously we will learn from how it's operationalised in practice. 12:50 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Finally, Minister, can you confirm that the decision to progress an investigation by a commissioner assessing a complaint will be a justiciable decision—that is to say, able to be assessed by a court? 12:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes. There's nothing in the bill that prevents people having the right to seek review of decisions under existing law. That is, a decision to investigate conduct is open to be judicially reviewed according to existing laws. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 I'm in the hands of the chamber. There are a number of other amendments that I know have been circulated that haven't yet been moved. 12:51 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I move my amendment (1) on sheet 2898: (1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 16), at the end of subsection 24CY(1), add: Note 4: To avoid doubt, in paragraph (1)(a), being satisfied on the balance of probabilities means that the decision-maker must be satisfied that it is more probable than not that the respondent engaged in relevant conduct, taking into account matters such as the gravity and inherent improbability of the allegation (see Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336). [clarifying meaning of 'balance of probabilities' ] This amendment simply seeks to clarify the burden of proof that the independent parliamentary body will have. Senator Gallagher ING Senator Van, could you repeat that? Senator VAN 283601 Yes. I was simply moving the amendment. But I might ask you some questions if you have any commentary on it. 12:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The opposition will be opposing this amendment, as we haven't had time to consider the implications. 12:51 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The Greens will be opposing this amendment. We think it's unnecessary. 12:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting this amendment either, for the same reason. Question negatived. 12:52 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland In the absence of Senator David Pocock, who has circulated an amendment that I presume he would like moved, I'm standing and perhaps giving him some ample time, as he may be making his way to the chamber. If he doesn't appear momentarily, then I'll speak to his amendment on his behalf. It's an amendment that the Greens will be supporting. It's in relation to amendments that were moved in the House that said that the opposition automatically gets the deputy chair on the oversight committee for the IPSC. Now, I did refer to this in my second reading contribution. It's not appropriate for the two-party system to continue to stack the deck in its own favour, when support for both of the big parties is diminishing at every election—and, frankly, for good reason. It is overreach in the extreme to pre-emptively dedicate these positions to particular political parties. On that basis, the Greens will be supporting this amendment, and, in the absence of Senator Pocock, I might take the liberty of moving it on his behalf. Therefore, I move amendment (1) on sheet 2895 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (line 23), omit "a member of the Opposition". 12:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The opposition will be opposing the amendment from Senator Pocock. The opposition, no matter what hue it is and which party it represents, will always represent the second-largest number of parliamentarians and the second-largest number of staff in our workplaces and, therefore, should be given the responsibility of representing them on the oversight committee. Question negatived. 12:54 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—Chair, could you please record the Australian Greens support for that amendment. And if I could be so presumptive, I'm sure Senator David Pocock would also like support for his own amendment to be recorded. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 I think you can be that presumptive, Senator Waters. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 45 12:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 45

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

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

Second Reading 45 12:56 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Before I speak to the specifics of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, I want to share a personal story—one that highlights why I care so deeply about manufacturing in Australia and why this legislation is close to home for me. My dad, Vince, spent all of his working life in manufacturing. For some of this time, he worked as a maintenance worker at the Kodak factory in Coburg, in my home state of Victoria. He started there in 1997. Like many working Australians, he put in years of hard work and dedication to support our family. The Kodak factory was a landmark of our area, a sprawling site that employed hundreds of workers, and it was central to the local economy. It was part of what made Coburg such an important manufacturing hub in Melbourne for many years. At its peak, Kodak was a household name, and its factory was a symbol of Australia's manufacturing strength. The Coburg site was the largest factory in the city of Moreland, known as Meri-Bek now, spanning 21 buildings. It opened in 1961 and remained a key part of the community until its closure in 2004. For decades, it was one of Melbourne's most well-known factories—a place where generations of workers like my dad earned their livelihood. I saw firsthand how manufacturing jobs gradually were offshored. The closure of the factory in Coburg was part of a significant wave of change that reshaped not just the local economy but the lives of countless families, including mine. When the factory closed its doors, it wasn't just the end of a job for my dad; it was the end of an era for the entire community. Coburg, once a manufacturing stronghold, saw its landscape transform. Countless jobs were lost, and Australia's manufacturing capacity continued to decline. The northern suburbs of Melbourne, including Coburg, were changed forever by the loss of these jobs. This is why I stand with such passion for this bill here today. I know what it means to lose manufacturing jobs. I've seen it in my own family and I've seen it in my community. I'm determined to make sure that future generations of Australians won't have to experience that same loss. That's why the Future Made in Australia Bill is so important. It's about protecting and revitalising industries, like the one my dad worked in, and it's about ensuring that Australian manufacturing can not only survive but thrive into the future. This legislation is what good governments do. They invest in their people and their jobs, building skilled and satisfying careers, and they invest in communities and the future. For decades, Labor governments have led the way on nation-building policies, from superannuation to Medicare and more recently paid family violence leave and the creation of the Net Zero Economy Authority. These are the kinds of nation-building reforms that ensure the Australian community has economic security and opportunities not just for now but for generations to come. They're about protecting and advancing working people and creating a fairer society for everyone. For over 20 years, I've worked to improve the lives of working Australians by fighting for fair wages, better conditions and safer workplaces. The Future Made in Australia Act is all about that. It's about making sure the jobs of the future are good jobs that pay well, are secure and benefit Australian workers and their communities. It's about creating pathways and opportunities for our young people to build satisfying careers in trades, technology and innovation. At the core of this bill are a set of community benefit principles, which ensure that the investments we make as a government benefit workers, local communities and industries that drive our economy, across the country. These principles are essential to ensuring that the economic growth that we generate is shared broadly, not just concentrated in the hands of a few. They are about making sure that every dollar that we invest serves the public good. The five community benefit principles at the heart of, and enshrined in, this legislation ensure that (1) we promote safe and secure jobs that are well paid and offer good conditions; (2) we develop a skilled and inclusive workforce by investing in training and skills development, and broadening workforce participation; (3) we engage with, and support, local communities, including First Nations communities and those most affected by the transition to net zero; (4) we strengthen Australia's industrial capabilities by enhancing local supply chains and boosting domestic manufacturing; and (5) we ensure transparency and accountability in how public investments are managed, particularly when it comes to the benefits received under the Future Made in Australia framework. These benefits are critical to ensuring that the principles described are not just aspirational or 'nice to have if those businesses we partner with can fit them in'. It will be mandated that they be delivered. They will not just be words on paper. In terms of requiring these principles to be followed, they will be practical, but they will also be enormously impactful. They will ensure that, when the government invests in industries like clean energy, advanced manufacturing or critical minerals—the modern manufacturing industries—it is the Australian people who will benefit, and not just the companies involved. My home state of Victoria still remains the biggest manufacturing state in the country, with a $33.5 billion industry. It remains a cornerstone of our economy. It's home to more than 23,000 manufacturing firms and over 279,000 workers. In fact, Victoria accounts for 31 per cent of Australian manufacturing output. That's a huge number, and it speaks to the importance of this sector, not just in Victoria but also across the entire country. But Victorian workers know there are different approaches to manufacturing. They remember how the coalition chased out car manufacturing and killed more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs. They and I remember the devastating impact that that had on families and communities, particularly around the regions of Geelong and Campbellfield, and the downstream manufacturing shops further afield that lost their major contracts supplying the vehicle industry. I remember the ripple effect across the economy as workers' years of loyal service were taken away as their jobs were offshored. The car industry is but one example of this devastation, as we've seen the decline in Australian manufacturing industries. But Labor is seeking, with this legislation, to repair that damage, and our industry policy has already seen us create 70,000 new manufacturing jobs. The opposition only talk about manufacturing to talk it down. On this side of the chamber, we back our manufacturers, and we always have. This legislation is about securing that legacy and building on it. It's about ensuring that Australia can be a manufacturing powerhouse into the future. It's about making things here. It's about aligning economic incentives with the national interest. It's about investing in skills and training. And It's about investing in clean energy, green metals and critical minerals processing. We know that climate change is the most pressing challenge of our time, and this bill allows us not only to meet this challenge but to grasp the opportunities in front of us. It ensures that the industries of the future, the industries that will power our net zero economy, are built and sustained right here in Australia. It does this through the National Interest Framework, which identifies sectors where Australia has a comparative advantage or where investment is crucial to our economic security. This framework focuses on sectors that support global decarbonisation and where Australia has a reasonable prospect of sustained advantage. The government has already identified five key industries that will be the focus of this investment: (1) renewable hydrogen; (2) critical minerals processing; (3) green metals; (4) low-carbon liquid fuels; and (5) clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains. These are sectors that have the potential to create thousands of jobs and drive significant economic growth. They are the sectors that will revitalise and renew our manufacturing industry and secure Australia's place in the global clean energy economy. We're also investing in making sure that the things Australians rely on are right here, through the economic resilience stream of the Future Made in Australia plan. This is about learning the lessons of the pandemic and preparing Australia to deal with future challenges, building domestic supply chains to make sure we aren't relying on things overseas in a crisis. Labor want us to make things here and ship them everywhere. The opposition want us to make nothing here and import everything. Yes, the coalition have opposed this bill and resisted the necessary investments in clean energy and domestic manufacturing. Under their watch, factories have closed, jobs have been lost and opportunities to build sustainable futures have been squandered. They failed to invest in renewables, with 22 failed energy policies in 10 years, leaving Australia vulnerable to the shifting dynamics of global energy markets. Even now, three years into the parliamentary term, they haven't got a single serious or costed economic policy. All they have to offer is an expensive nuclear fantasy. Their opposition to this bill reflects a lack of ambition for our country and a short-sightedness we simply cannot afford. They've failed to recognise that clean energy investment and manufacturing are not mutually exclusive. They are intertwined, and this bill makes that clear. They've made it clear to every worker installing solar, every worker making batteries and every worker in critical minerals that they won't have a job under a coalition government. By contrast, the Albanese government understands that the future of manufacturing lies in clean energy. That's why we are making significant investments through the $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia budget package. This package includes production tax incentives for hydrogen and critical minerals, the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, the Solar Sunshot program, the Battery Breakthrough Initiative and the National Interest Account. These initiatives will make Australia an indispensable part of the global supply chain and cement our place as a renewable energy superpower. Now, that's the kind of vision we should all get behind. A future made in Australia requires a skilled workforce that is ready to meet the needs of a transitioning economy. Recently, I attended the launch of the Electrical Trades Union's Charged up report, which highlighted the urgent need for an additional 32,000 electricians by 2030 and a staggering 85,000 by 2050. This is a wake-up call for us. The coalition spent years running down skills in our economy, leaving us without the workforce we need for the future, but this government is about fixing that. We've invested in TAFE, with 500,000 fee-free places, and we're expanding our programs to train workers in clean energy industries. The government is also investing $91 million to accelerate the development of the clean energy workforce through expanded access to the New Energy Apprenticeships Program and VET courses. The Albanese government is also building a hydrogen centre of excellence in Queensland and a clean energy centre of excellence in Western Australia. We're committed to increasing women's participation in these industries, with initiatives like the Building Women's Careers Program and support for STEM diversity. With this bill we are building a strong, skilled and inclusive workforce. We are making sure that our regions, those that have traditionally powered Australia, are at the forefront of the net zero transition. This is about realising the opportunities for workers, communities and businesses right across the country. We are planning for the long term and we are doing it with the Australian people in mind. I am proud to stand in support of this bill today. 13:10 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I think this legislation, the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, is an absolute train wreck. I ask those listening to this debate this question: do you believe that, if there's a business in this country that can't find private shareholders and investors who are prepared to put their money into it, or that cannot find a lender—a bank or someone who provides debt finance—who's prepared to lend it money, the government should invest your taxpayer dollars, which you work hard for, in that business? Do you think that's a good idea? Do you think that's sustainable? If these businesses can't find equity capital contributed by the private sector or if they can't find banks prepared to lend to them, why should your taxpayer dollars go into financing those businesses? Why? This is what I believe— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Scarr. Senator Chisholm. Senator Chisholm 39801 A point of order: I'd just ask that the senator direct his comments through the chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Chisholm. Senator Scarr, please remember to direct your comments through the chair. Senator SCARR 282997 Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I always get excited when there are people in the gallery. When I'm here I do like to make sure that we include them in the proceedings, but I'll do my best to adhere to Senator Chisholm's rebuke. In this respect, and this is an extraordinarily important point, I believe that the government should focus on its core responsibilities—that is, creating firstly an investment environment in which capital in the private sector comes to this country from overseas and is generated within the borders of our country, and the private sector makes investments in the businesses of the type we're talking about. The government should then use taxpayer dollars to provide the roads, the hospitals, the schools and all the other government services needed, which provide an environment whereby businesses can be established and provide wealth and prosperity across the whole country. That's my belief. I do not believe that taxpayer dollars should be used as some sort of government process to pick winners, and I'll tell you why. History tells us that government—and this may come as a great surprise to those listening to this debate—doesn't have a really good track record of picking investors and winners amongst commercial enterprises. The government finds it hard enough to keep its own infrastructure projects within budget and on time. Why would you possibly trust the government to decide whether or not it should invest in a private enterprise? Why would you possibly trust the government to do that? I had 25 years in the private sector before coming to this place. One of my jobs as a senior executive in a mining company was to travel the world and look for investment opportunities, and I can tell you that the best way to destroy shareholder value is to make an investment that is the wrong investment, to make an acquisition of an asset that is the wrong acquisition. I've seen billions of dollars of private sector money lost through those sorts of investment mistakes. So, given that environment, why would you possibly support a policy whereby the government is going to use taxpayer dollars—and all government money is taxpayer dollars—and go out and try to pick investment winners, effectively playing the share market? Why would you possibly support such a policy? And let me tell you what the other issue with this policy is. What happens once the government puts its foot on the sticky paper? What happens when the government makes that initial $100 million investment into an enterprise, becomes a shareholder in an enterprise? It's put its foot on the sticky paper. What happens if the economy turns, the market turns against that individual enterprise, and that enterprise says, 'Well, we're going into liquidation unless we have another $100 million.' What does the government do then? Does it write off the investment and walk away? Ah! That's hard. That's political because the government has got its foot on the sticky paper and so if the government withdraws any future investment, then it's going to be heavily criticised. It'll be criticised first for making the wrong investment. It'll be criticised because the employees and unions—rightly—will beseech the government to provide additional support. It'll be criticised because it is not supporting the manufacturing industry. And all the arguments we've heard used in the context of the automotive argument will once again be used. It'll be deja vu. The government will then be trapped to continue to use your taxpayer dollars—the taxpayer dollars of the people in the gallery, the people listening to this debate, the people who don't even know we're having this debate about their money, their taxpayer dollars. The government would be trapped to continue to provide additional support to those businesses. That is the fundamental risk of government sponsoring businesses. Businesses that can't attract equity and debt themselves, because private investors don't want to invest in them, will need to go, cap in hand, to the government. That's the fundamental risk—that is, those businesses that are unable to raise that equity and debt in the private markets are coming to government because they cannot otherwise raise it. They become dependent on the public support, and then the government gets trapped because it has its foot on the sticky paper. It knows, if it cuts them loose, then it's going to be heavily criticised. So then the government starts to make irrational economic decisions, with taxpayer money. We've seen it before. What the government needs to focus on is productivity, energy costs, our regulatory system and providing the environment for businesses to prosper. If all of these businesses that the government is talking about have this great net comparative advantage, why can't they raise money from the private sector? Why do they need to go to the government? They can't answer that question. And the answer to that question is: because they don't have robust enough projects. If you have a project that's going to be profitable and the risks can be mitigated, you'll be able to raise the money. But if you don't, you go to government. And the Labor government is proposing to use billions—not millions but billions—of your taxpayer dollars to invest in these projects. Billions of dollars. What could go wrong? What could go right—that's probably a less elaborate question. And then consider the opportunity cost. The basic rule of economics: scarcity of resources. The government only has so much in taxpayer dollars. There's only a particular pool of taxpayer dollars. Would you rather your taxpayer dollars go to investing, go to picking winners in the private sector and investing in those companies? Or would you rather your taxpayer dollars go to addressing the recommendations which were brought down in the report of the royal commission into veterans suicide? I know what my preference is. Would you rather your government go out there and invest in businesses that can't raise money from the private sector? Or would you rather your taxpayer dollars go into the NDIS system, helping some of the most vulnerable people in our community? Or putting additional funds in the aged-care system. Or providing for the defence of the country? Or doing any of the other things that we talk about in this place? This is the choice for every taxpayer dollar, because it can only go so many different ways. And bear in mind that these are taxpayer dollars, because, as a country, we've got net debt. We owe hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. Even worse, the government is going out and borrowing these billions of dollars and then investing. It's like going down to your local bank, borrowing from the bank and then putting the money on the share market. What could possibly go wrong? Time and time again through Australian economic history we've seen these issues arise, and policies such as this one end up as public policy debacles, where billions and billions of dollars in taxpayer moneys are spent and there's an inevitable conclusion: the business fails and taxpayer dollars, which could have been allocated elsewhere, are wasted. These aren't just observations that I've made. This country has had the benefit of a productivity commission, which has been an outstanding institution providing detailed, objective advice with respect to economic matters. This is what Danielle Wood, the Chair of the Productivity Commission, appointed by the Labor Party, said in relation to these sorts of schemes: 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. That was the productivity commissioner, appointed by those opposite, speaking. She also said: We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more. That's the sticky paper phenomenon: once the government makes an investment into these businesses, the government's foot is on the sticky paper, trapped. Former productivity commissioner Mr Gary Banks described Future Made in Australia as a 'fool's errand' that risks repeating mistakes of the past by propping up 'political favourites'. So it's not just picking winners; it's picking political favourites. That's not a politician in this place speaking; it's the former productivity commissioner, Gary Banks, one of this country's most well-credentialled economists. He likened the scheme proposed by the government to 'Hotel California'—you know the song by the Eagles, Madam Acting Deputy President?—saying that many will enter into the program 'but few ever leave'. Again, it's the sticky paper phenomenon. Do you know what our Prime Minister said in response to Gary Banks—a prime minister who, with all due respect, has spent nearly the whole of his working life in this place, not out in the private sector or building businesses but as a politician? He said that Mr Gary Banks was a flat-earther. That's how he described Gary Banks. That's like calling Galileo a flat-earther—absolute nonsense. Gary Banks is a very, very well-respected former productivity commissioner of this country trying to bring light to the mistakes of the past because he considers this bill a fool's errand which will actually lead to us committing exactly the same mistakes, and he gets called a flat-earther by the Prime Minister. Why couldn't the Prime Minister of this country actually engage in a sensible debate and explain to the Australian people why we shouldn't be concerned at the risk? If a company is going cap in hand to the government for funds, why should the taxpayer invest in that company, if it can't raise money from the private sector or from banks? He doesn't answer the substance of the argument. He doesn't engage in a civil debate with respect to the substance of the argument. He gives the good one-liner: 'Mr Gary Banks—a flat earther.' Another eminent economist, Professor Richard Holden, defended Mr Banks, saying the Prime Minister's insult was 'wrong and uncalled-for'. Again, they're not my words. It was another economist who'd leapt to the defence of Mr Gary Banks. Professor Holden said: The PM says all the wrong things … And his main argument for subsidies is that other countries are doing it. Like a primary school kid telling a teacher: "but he started it!". These are not politicians; they are people who study this area and know the history. 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. …   …   … I thought we'd learned these lessons, but apparently not. The bad old days are back. To those listening to this debate—through you, Acting Deputy President Chandler: billions of taxpayers' dollars are going to be spent on investments as the government goes out there trying to pick winners, playing the stock market and playing political favourites. Good luck! 13:25 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I, too, rise to speak on our government's Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. I'm very proud do so because these bills are about our plans to deliver a future made right here in Australia. It's our actions now and it's this government's leadership that will guide us through the net zero transformation that will bring forward significant new investments, harness our strategic advantages and entrench our national resilience—all the while ensuring the benefits of the investments we make are returned to the economy and to communities. These bills are part of our plan to deliver the next generation of Australian prosperity. As the Prime Minister has said, we are in the middle of the biggest change in the global economy since the Industrial Revolution. At the same time of these economic changes, we are in a period of geopolitical and strategic uncertainty. But we can chart a path to prosperity and opportunity through all this. We can utilise this opportunity to secure Australia's place in the international transition to net zero, to make the most of our natural advantages and to transform ourselves into a clean energy superpower. Here in Australia, we are so fortunate to have many natural and human made advantages, from our natural resources, our abundant critical minerals, to our sun and our strong wind, to our proud history of manufacturing, research, innovation and technological change. It is all these advantages, it is this expertise, that make it absolutely critical for us to capitalise on and make the most of the opportunities before us to modernise and strengthen our economy. These bills are about setting us up to prosper from change, not to protect ourselves from it. They will provide an appropriate framework to modernise our economy and deliver industrial policies backed by the evidence and the rigour that is needed to grow investment in priority industries. We are not looking to replace private capital; we are looking and working to attract private capital, and we'll use the power of government and the private sector to maximise economic benefits. And the investors are already lining up. We're creating the framework for an ambitious industrial policy that will move Australia beyond 'dig and ship', because we can do better than that. This is just the start of our plans. These bills establish our national interest framework—a framework to guide the decision-making of government, that highlights what our national priorities are and that sends a clear signal to investors on where public support will be available to bring forward investments, to grow our critical industries and to deliver a future made in Australia. The national interest framework will have two streams—net zero, and economic resilience and security. The net zero stream acknowledges the industries of the future—industries like green metals, hydrogen and low carbon fuels that will be critical to decarbonising our industries here and abroad. The economic resilience and security stream acknowledges our place in the world. It sets us up to play an important role and to back ourselves in. These bills also set up the processes for the Treasury to undertake sector assessments. These will be commissioned by the Treasurer in consultation with relevant ministers, and they'll be based on our National Interest Framework. They assess the case for providing public investment, and they'll provide much-needed rigour and justification based on evidence for public support and public investment. Critically, they'll be done— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. Senator Walsh will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 50 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS St Lukes Health Insurance 50 13:30 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania If you ask anyone about their experiences with health care in this country, no doubt you will hear many horror stories about a system crumbling under the pressure to provide adequate diagnosis and treatment options. There is a sentiment in the community, and it is a sentiment often repeated in this place, that health care in Australia does not meet the standards demanded by our communities for those who both can and can't afford private health insurance. This is no more prevalent than in my home state of Tasmania, where we lack options for private hospitals and our public system is overburdened with many people struggling to afford the health care they need. While this situation seems dire, there is a glimmer of hope on Tasmania's health horizon, and it comes in the form of a not-for-profit health insurer. I had the opportunity recently to visit the new St Lukes wellness hub in Launceston with my colleague shadow health minister Senator Ruston to meet with St Lukes CEO Paul Lupo. St Lukes is a Tasmanian company that has provided private health insurance to Tasmanians since 1952. They are locally owned and not-for-profit, meaning everything they do is for their customers. The wellness hubs offer a range of programs and initiatives to inspire fitness and proactive, preventive health, while events run from the centres in Launceston and Hobart five days a week—some examples include yoga, meditation and breath work, children's first aid and circle dancing. St Lukes established the wellness hubs as part of their commitment to their ambition to make Tasmania the healthiest island on the planet, a great ambition. Preventive health is the most underrated form of health care there is, and, as governments, we tend to focus on diagnosis, treatment and prognosis services. We should, however, acknowledge that prevention is always better than the cure. St Lukes is a health provider that focuses on people, not a policy number, and I was delighted to have the opportunity to show the important work they are doing to Senator Ruston, not because of any request for government support but simply because of their— (Time expired) Albanese Government 50 13:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria It remains an incredible privilege to serve in this role each day as a member of the Albanese Labor government, Australia's first majority female government. This wasn't by accident. Our government is a powerful example of the positive impact of quotas. This month marks 30 years since the 1994 Australian Labor Party National Conference, where the ALP adopted affirmative action quotas for women to be preselected into winnable seats. We now have the most gender balanced federal parliament in Australian history. Despite the success of gender quotas, full representation is still lacking. Only seven per cent of current parliamentarians have a non-European cultural background, despite approximately half, or 48.2 per cent, of Australians having at least one parent at home born overseas and 18.6 per cent of Australians identifying with a non-European cultural heritage. The make-up of the 47th Parliament shows that we are absolutely on the right track. We know that our intentional and intersectional approach to diverse representation has played a key role in our ability to make informed policy decisions that benefit the lives of all Australians, but particularly women and families. Today, the Albanese government will introduce legislation to lock in funding for a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood education and care workers, a primarily female workforce. Today's announcement recognises the important role our early educators play. It's better for parents and it's good for the economy. Under the Albanese Labor government, we've seen Labor deliver the lowest gender pay gap on record, down from 14.1 per cent when the opposition were in government. We've delivered record women's workforce participation of 63.2 per cent, a genuine prioritisation of women's health with $4.7 billion towards— (Time expired) Black Lung Disease 51 13:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Black lung disease remains a serious and persistent health issue for coal workers in Queensland, including in my hometown of Gladstone. Currently, former coalmine and quarry workers are able to access free screening for mine-dust lung diseases every five years, often via the HEART 5 mobile unit, or the black lung bus, which serves regional and remote Queensland. But that service is not available to former workers who handled or transported coal—people who worked in the railway and the port and power station workers. Recently, I stood up in Gladstone with Ian, a former Gladstone port worker. Ian has black lung disease and has been a leader in fighting for all coal workers to be eligible for the free black lung screening program. Together Ian and I called on both Labor and the LNP to commit to making former railway, port and power station workers eligible for black lung screening, and to increase testing frequency from five to two years, regardless of who forms government in Queensland in October. This is a very small and reasonable ask. Coal dust is coal dust, whether you're working in a mine, in a coal-fired power station or at the ports or transporting coal by rail. Coal communities have literally powered the country for decades, often at great risk to their health. If Labor and the LNP want to stand next to coal workers for press conferences and election ads, they should also listen to them when they ask for help fighting this deadly disease. Labor Government 51 13:36 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Labor is bad for my home state of Western Australia. I've only got two minutes so I can't tell you all the reasons why Labor is bad for WA, but I'll go through just a few of the top reasons. Firstly, there is their disdain for the mining industry. Just a few minutes ago in this place, someone described the mining industry as 'dig and ship', which ignores the amazing investment in technology, in R&D and in high-paid jobs in my home state of Western Australia. Secondly, there are the nature positive laws, which Labor has now slipped into the bottom drawer until after the next election and which would destroy the economy of Western Australia. Thirdly, there is the return of union thuggery to the Pilbara. It's back to the bad old days of the 1970s when the iron ore industry was absolutely brought to its knees by the inefficiencies and ridiculous demands of the union movement on mine sites. There were 26 shop stewards in a small mine doing nothing but 'representing the workers'. And, after those mine sites were cleaned up and the union thuggery was dispensed with, they actually became safer mine sites. Next, of course, they are destroying the great Western Australian sheep industry by cutting off one of its chief markets: the export trade to the Middle East. This Labor government has been a disaster for Western Australia, a disaster for the mining industry and a disaster for agriculture. The sooner we can get to the polls and show them what we think of them the better. Morton, Mr Ken 51 13:38 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise today to acknowledge the remarkable career of Ken Morton, one of Tasmania's most influential, respected and successful football managers, as he steps down from his role as head coach of South Hobart Football Club after an extraordinary 16-year tenure. Ken's football career began back in the 1960s when he joined Manchester United as a young player. He continued to play in English football leagues before making his way to Australia, and he began coaching in Tasmania in 1979. Ken went on to coach teams in Australia's top football competition, spending time at the Wollongong Wolves and Heidelberg United Football Club before returning to Tasmania. Since joining South Hobart in 2008, Ken has led the team to an unprecedented level of success, securing five consecutive premiership titles from 2008 to 2012, as well as multiple state championships. His leadership and passion for the game have shaped South Hobart into a powerhouse of Tasmanian football. Ken's contributions to Tasmanian sport extend to player and coaching development, particularly through his work at the Morton's Soccer School, nurturing young talent and investing in the future of football across our state. Ken's dedication to fostering the next generation of players reflects his lifelong commitment to the game. Legacy: it's what we are all remembered for. It represents our passion, character and impact in the life we've led. Ken leaves a legacy on a game loved by billions in a humble state that has always punched above its weight. His mark on this beautiful game will be remembered in the Tasmanian footballing community for generations. Ken's leadership, vision and passion have left an enduring mark on Tasmanian football. Ken, I know the South Hobart community and football fans across Tasmania will celebrate your immense achievements and contributions. Thank you for your dedication. I wish you all the best in your future endeavours. Australian Defence Force: Afghanistan 52 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It's been a big week for current and former soldiers, sailors and aviators, but it's been made worse by this government reminding our veterans that it chooses the top brass over them. Veterans are sick of being kicked in the guts by governments that are in lockstep with the top brass. Just four days after the royal commission handed down its final report, the Minister for Defence released his response to the Brereton report. What was he thinking? As he always does, Minister Marles has thrown our diggers under the bus once again. This response has been in the works for four years, but he decides today is the right time to release that response. You have to be kidding me. How insensitive. In his response, he still managed to forget one key thing: the accountability of the top brass. Up to 10 current and former soldiers will be stripped of their medals—surprise, surprise. Apparently, Angus Campbell isn't one of them. He was a commander of Joint Task Force in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012, and he didn't know what was going on? And he calls himself a leader? You're kidding me! One of the 143 recommendations of the Brereton report was accountability of the top brass. Yet Minister Marles and Minister Keogh resort to their natural instinct—throwing our diggers under the bus. This government keeps turning its back on diggers. They can't get the mental help they actually need. I want the government to tell me how many mental health beds there are and where they are located by four o'clock this afternoon. As a guess, I reckon they have no idea. This absolutely stacks on diggers while the top brass and generals go without any accountability. It has to stop, and it has to stop today. Just as the top brass need to be held accountable, so do Minister Marles and Minister Keogh. Once again I have to ask: why would the Albanese government release a royal commission report on Monday, in which thousands of soldiers have told their stories, and then throw this in their face today when you've had four years with that report? What were you thinking? Australian Football League 52 13:42 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It's a very important rule for life that a person should never be trusted if they have changed their football team. I just wanted to put on record that the reason I've never changed my football team, despite representing New South Wales, is because of that rule but also because it would be a great shame not to be able to follow the Geelong Football Club, which has started very well in this final series. I know that this final series is giving great joy to people all around the country as we celebrate the magnificent Australian Football League, formerly, of course, the Victorian Football League. I just wanted to put on record that it was a real pleasure to be able to go to the GWS Giants training facility at Homebush recently and to be given a tour of that facility, which was the beneficiary of a very generous grant from the former coalition government. It was a really fantastic facility to see. Not only do GWS have a great song; they have done a great job of engaging the Greater Western Sydney community. I just want to put on record that the GWS team is definitely the best of the two New South Wales Australian Football League clubs. I look forward to GWS defeating the Brisbane Lions on Saturday night. It was a great opportunity to go and see their facilities. It's really quite an amazing thing to see how many children now in New South Wales and Sydney are playing Australian Rules football. It is the Australian game. I'm very pleased to see that overtake many Rugby League and Rugby Union aficionados. Agriculture 52 13:44 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Chisholm—on another subject, I hope! 13:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It is on another subject, but it's a very important subject, which is opening doors for Australian agriculture and processing industries to grow and diversify their overseas markets. We know that, when our farmers do well, Australia does well, and under our government the industry is going from strength to strength when it comes to exports. ABARES analysis of exports has shown that, in 2023-24, agriculture, fisheries and forestry exports were worth $76 billion, the second-highest value on record. In 2024-25, agriculture exports alone are forecast to reach $68.5 billion. We are committed to building on this success and supporting the industry's ambition to reach a farmgate value of $100 billion by 2030. We recorded 88 technical market access achievements in 2023-24, including opening 10 new markets and 44 improvements to existing markets. These achievements include the removal of duties on Australian bottled wine exported to China, restoring commercially viable access for Australian exporters; maintaining access for canola to the EU, representing $2.1 billion of exports in 2023; and new access for Hass avocados in Thailand—662 tonnes have been exported since access was opened. And, just this Tuesday, we secured another export win, with new-market-access agreements signed between Australia and Vietnam which will see Aussie grown plums in Vietnamese supermarkets. There is more work to do to open new opportunities for Aussie farmers. The opposition spent nearly a decade eroding and neglecting our relationships with many of our trading partners. Our government is getting these relationships back on track because we know that trade means more jobs and better wages for workers, and that's what we continue to deliver. Tibet 53 13:46 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak on the issue of Tibet. I want to thank my former colleague Janet Rice who was a passionate defender of human rights in this chamber. Having taken over her role as co-chair of the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet, I'm proud to continue her advocacy for the Tibetan Australian community and the fight for the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people. Monday was Tibet Lobby Day. Thank you to the members of the Tibetan Australian community who came to parliament and made their voices heard. Thank you to Pema Tarasang, Tenzin Rabten and Tenzin Nyidon, who shared their stories with me. I heard of the immeasurable impact that fleeing Tibet has had on each of them and their families—of crossing the Himalayas at just six years old, of being unable to talk freely to their family in Tibet because of language barriers, and of the loss of Tibetan language and culture. Millions of Tibetans in Tibet are living in oppression, unable to speak out or protest the occupation of Tibet without fear of arrest and torture. We must call out human rights abuses wherever they occur. The Tibetan community are asking us to listen and to help. They want an end to the colonial boarding-school system and the cultural genocide that they are experiencing. They want to protect the future succession of the Dalai Lama. They want Magnitsky-style sanctions on five Chinese officials who are committing human rights abuses and have been called out by many other countries using Magnitsky-style sanctions. It is possible for us here in the Australian parliament to make a real difference, much like we did with apartheid in South Africa and like we did in Cambodia. We must show our solidarity with Tibet on the global stage. Medical Workforce 53 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Today I want to thank our GPs. GPs play a huge role in our health system. I've been privileged to meet with quite a few in the ACT over the past two years, and, from what I can see, it is very tough work. I've heard stories of GPs spending hours on Saturday mornings finding mental health beds for patients, or working into the night, looking through lab results and writing notes. Unfortunately, we're just not training enough GPs to meet demand now, let alone in the future. In Canberra, we have fewer GPs per capita than in any other capital city in Australia. We need more. More GPs will help with bulk-billing rates, but, importantly, it will help with both accessibility and burnout in the GP workforce. One thing we could do straightaway is work to address the clear financial disincentives doctors face when they are looking at a career in general practice. In some cases, it can amount to a $40,000 pay cut for someone to move from working in a hospital to private practice. That's something we can work to fix, and I believe it would make an immediate difference to the next generation of GPs out there. We could also tell states and territories to keep their hands off Medicare rebates. Payroll taxes on Medicare rebates aren't just squeezing bulk-billing rates; they're squeezing margins and practices. They're a cash grab that is making our job in repairing general practice much harder. Thank you to our GPs for all that you do. I look forward to working with you more on this in the years ahead. Nuclear Energy 53 13:49 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales No matter what side you're on in the nuclear debate going forward, there are so many great people I've got to meet as part of this conversation. The New South Wales Nationals Women's Council, ably led by Kellie A Sloane—who, unfortunately for her, resides in my office most of the time—has gone around and got a series of really prominent and powerful Australian women and others to talk about their roles in nuclear. Their skills and devotion and the things they have done are really uplifting. I had the pleasure of doing a 1½-hour broadcast interview with Helen Cook just a couple of weeks ago. Helen is part of GNE Advisory. She has gone around the world. She's been part of the nuclear regulation approvals process in the UK, the USA, UAE, Turkiye, Bahrain, Denmark and Estonia. She went through a whole lot of work on that, as well as being a single mother of two kids—just the power and the energy it must take to do that. We also had Olivia Kerr, another fine young Nationals woman, interview Jasmin Diab and Kirsty Braybon. Jas is the president of Women in Nuclear Australia. She's part of the ARPANSA safety committee. They're out there dealing with this stuff all the time. Their level of knowledge and their level of commitment around the world to the things they do—their passion for an emissions-free energy grid, their passion for energy to be out there and accessible for people. It 's really great to see the propensity and the skills we have in Australia amongst these women. For the next interview coming up—so this will be the third interview in the group—again Olivia Kerr will be running that. Olivia, who is a Nat, is doing a PhD in nuclear engineering at UNSW, and she previously got a Master of Engineering from there also. These are the skills we have. She'll be introducing Grace Stanke, Miss America 2023, who is a nuclear field scientist. Kean, Hon. Matt 54 13:51 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The chair of the agency that helps set the price of carbon credits is paid a government salary as the federal adviser and regulator and will simultaneously be on the payroll of a company that makes money out of carbon credits. In June the Albanese Labor government appointed Matt Kean as the Climate Change Authority chair. Given his track record, how can Matt Kean be considered a qualified choice? As New South Wales Treasurer, his last budget tripled their deficit and put them on track for a $160 billion debt. As energy minister he left their grid facing blackouts with the proposed shutdown of Liddell and Eraring power stations. Matt Kean's glaring incompetence, though, pales beside his conflict of interest. The Climate Change Authority that Kean chairs, from which he advises the government, influences the price of carbon credits. Two months after getting the job, Matt Kean accepted a second job. The Climate Change Authority mustn't be doing too much if the chair has time to shop himself around for other part-time jobs. When the chair is chasing other careers, do we really need a Climate Change Authority? That second job is with Wollemi Capital, who will make millions from investing in carbon credits. Matt Kean is chair of the government agency that helps set the price of carbon credits while he works for a company that will make money out of carbon credits. It seems that Australia has the best politicians that money can buy. What does the Albanese Labor government say about this blatant conflict of interest? Nothing. Silence. The government is happy to put the fox in charge of the henhouse, and Australians will continue to pay. The government's appointment confirms that climate fraud is all about transferring wealth from us the people to corporations and to billionaire parasites taking solar and wind subsidies while fleecing carbon dioxide credits. Only One Nation will end the wind and solar subsidies rort, ditch the net zero plans and rorts, and fire Matt Kean. Grocery Prices, Paraquat 54 13:53 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Every day, Australians are making impossible choices—choices between food, medicine and paying their rent—all while corporations like Coles and Woolworths are taking off with billions in profits. And what has the Labor government done in the face of this corporate greed? Absolutely nothing. But the Greens are forcing them to pay attention and act, by introducing a bill to make price gouging illegal. The bill will rein in corporate greed and reduce the cost of food and groceries. We are taking a stand against the unchecked greed that is fuelling the cost-of-living crisis, and we're urging the parliament to support these critical reforms. So the choice is yours, Labor. Support the Greens' bill and help everyday Australians or keep siding with the big corporations that are profiting from people's pain. As a fifth-generation farmer from central Victoria, I was devastated to see the ABC's reporting of the cluster of Parkinson's disease cases near Ballarat and links to paraquat herbicide. Paraquat is a chemical that has been banned in 67 countries, including Europe, China and the UK, yet, instead of banning paraquat here, Australia's pesticide regulatory body produced an unpublished paper to dismiss health links—a paper that was funded by the global agriculture giant responsible for paraquat's production. The failure of the regulator to ensure farmers' safety and, instead, the choice to back the interests of megachemical corporations is a clear display of industry capture. We join calls to ban paraquat, a chemical that continues to be used not only by farmers but on school ovals and sports grounds and by council workers. The government must ensure that Australia's pesticide regulator is truly independent and properly funded to do their job. The health of our farmers and their families is on the line, and the government must act. Electric Vehicles 54 13:55 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Imagine a Sunday drive that doesn't damage the planet and where every kilometre cleans the air instead of polluting it. Switching to electric vehicles is a powerful step towards cutting carbon emissions. For many, the dream of owning a car that's kinder to both their wallet and the environment feels out of reach, sometimes because of costs but, more often than not, because of range anxiety. By plugging in more EV chargers, we can turn this dream into a reality, making clean driving accessible and affordable for everyone. Think of our streets lined not just with trees but with opportunities—power poles utilised for kerbside charging, offering a convenient place for EV owners to charge and roll on. We have the technology and the evidence. Ausgrid have trialled it, and Energy Networks Australia and L.E.K. Consulting have modelled it and reported on it. But the energy market operator, AEMO, hesitates, while the rest of the world charges on. The government needs to mandate distribution network service provider led rollout of kerbside public EV charging infrastructure. We need to switch up our regulatory framework and recognise EV charging as a distribution service. Limited charging options leave drivers hesitant to make the switch, stalling progress at the kerbside. Investing in a network of EV chargers empowers a wave of change that benefits everyone. We need to plug in more EV chargers and power up with clean, affordable and sustainable transport. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 55 13:57 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania In Australia, one in three women has experienced physical violence and one in five has experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. Such violence against women is experienced at all ages and stages of life and in every location across Australia. In a modern society such as ours, this is simply unacceptable. With so many women experiencing violence at the hands of men, often fatally, it shows just how far we are from reaching gender equity in our country. We must do more, and I'm proud to say that the Albanese Labor government is taking action. Last week, following National Cabinet, the government committed an additional $4.4 billion in new funding under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 to address the scourge of gender based violence. This is on top of the $3.4 billion that we have already invested in this plan since coming to government. Of the additional $4.4 billion announced last week, $3.9 billion will support frontline legal assistance services through a new national access for justice partnership with the states and territories. This includes a critical increase of $800 million in funding over five years to the legal assistance sector, with a focus on legal services responding to gender based violence. Other investments announced last week include $351 million over five years to fund a renewed national partnership agreement on family, domestic and sexual violence responses and frontline services to be matched by states and territories and $169 million in targeted initiatives to support the national plan and address gender based violence. Despite these significant investments, we know that the job is not yet done and that there is more work to do. Addressing gender based violence is an absolute priority of the Albanese government, and we will continue to show leadership through action on this for as long as it takes. R U OK? Day 55 13:59 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland It's R U OK? Day today, and most Australians aren't okay because they've got a terrible Labor government— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The time allotted for senators' statements has expired, and we will move to question time. Senator Wong 00AOU It's probably not the thing to trivialise. Senator McGrath 217241 Oh, really? Oh, here we go. Senator Wong 00AOU Yes, really. Senator McGrath 217241 Maybe you should be a better government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McGrath! You've made your contribution. MINISTRY 55 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 55 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I advise changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator McCarthy will be absent from question time today on account of ministerial business interstate. In her absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 55 14:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised, 'All families will be better off.' However, since the election, prices have increased across the board by 10 per cent. Rents are up 16 per cent, health costs are up 11 per cent, food costs are up 12 per cent and gas is up 33 per cent. Economist Brendan Rynne said last week, 'High government spending is also hampering the Reserve Bank's efforts to control inflation.' The Reserve Bank itself has said similar. Why can this government not manage inflation and, instead, is making the problem worse? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This government's first priority is to deliver cost-of-living relief, and you've seen that by the priorities that the government has put in place and has delivered on: every Australian taxpayer getting a tax cut, not just some; every Australian household getting $300 of energy bill relief; 2.6 million low-paid workers getting their third consecutive pay rise; stronger Medicare and cheaper medicines in every community; HECS debt relief for everyone with student debt; more homes built more quickly in every part of the country; cheaper groceries by strengthening the food and grocery code—all cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation. And, of course, we are planning the Future Made in Australia. There is more to do, but this is this government's agenda. I remind the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, when he comes into this place talking about the cost of living, that those opposite have opposed every piece of cost-of-living relief we have provided. You've offered no help. You've offered no plans for people who are doing it tough. What you have offered is relentless and pointless negativity. And, of course, what we do know, is that those opposite are planning $315 billion in cuts. This is their recipe to get the economy back on track, they say. This is their recipe for a stronger Australia: cuts to Medicare, cuts to pensions, cuts to payments, cuts to housing and cuts to TAFE. This is what those opposite think leads to a better economic outcome for families. Given that you're the party that has always believed in lower wages as a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy, I don't think Australians will think very highly of your $315 billion worth of cuts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Before the election, the Prime Minister promised cheaper mortgages, but, under Labor, interest rates have increased 12 times, meaning a family with an average mortgage is paying $24,000 more per year. Interest paid on mortgages has nearly tripled under Labor. As Labor has handed down three budgets, economists have said the extra spending is keeping interest rates higher for longer. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Does the Labor government accept any responsibility for interest rates staying higher for longer in Australia, even as they come down in other countries? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Minister Wong, Senator McGrath, withdraw that comment. Senator McGrath 217241 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 You referred to a senator in a derogatory way. You seem puzzled, but you referred to a senator in a derogatory way. That's why I've asked you to withdraw. Minister Wong. 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia One thing we are not going to do is take the prescription of those opposite. These are the people who would prefer Australia to be in recession. That is what they are effectively saying. Looking at the last national accounts, we have, as the Treasurer and the finance minister have gone through in great detail, made the calls to ensure that we deal with cost of living relief in a responsible way while at the same time recognising where the economy is. The prescription those opposite are calling for would mean Australia is in recession. How is that going to help working families? That has always been your only prescription, hasn't it—that people have to do it tough. That's why you voted against energy price relief. That's why you voted against cheaper medicines. That's why you voted against the Medicare reforms. And that's why you've always opposed higher wages for Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In June 2022 Australia's inflation was 6.1 per cent, but in the eurozone it was 8.6, in the US 9.1 per cent and in Canada 8.1 per cent. Today inflation is 3½ per cent, but in the eurozone it's 2.2 per cent, in the US 2.9 per cent and in Canada 2.5 per cent. Why was inflation better in Australia than in other nations when Labor was elected but is significantly worse today? Why are Labor's budgets keeping Australia's inflation rate higher for longer? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make two points about both inflation and growth. First, in relation to countries overseas, inflation peaked later and lower here than in most comparable nations. Rates started rising here later than in most comparable nations, and they rose by less in Australia than in most of these nations, including the ones you've outlined. Remember also that some two-thirds of the OECD have had a negative quarter of growth. Your prescription would ensure that we'd be amongst them. That is their economic prescription for this country: lower wages, less cost-of-living relief and fewer jobs. This government is spending because we want to cut $315 billion out of the federal budget, which would include Medicare and pensions. Well, you can't get to $315 billion without doing that. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Then come out and tell us what you're going to cut. Everybody knows what's in the Liberal DNA. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I remind you of standing order 203. I've called you a number of times already and we're not even 10 minutes in. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Parliamentary Delegation: National Assembly of Vietnam 57 14:08 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of Vietnam, led by vice-president Her Excellency Ms Nguyen Thi Thanh. Last month I had the privilege of visiting Vietnam on a delegation with Senator Anne Urquhart, the Hon. Kevin Hogan MP and Ms Dai Le MP. I thank Her Excellency Thanh for her warm hospitality. I wish to also express my deepest sympathies to you and the Vietnamese people as your nation faces extreme weather events triggered by Typhoon Yagi. 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 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aged Care 57 14:08 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government went to the election saying we would reform aged care—for residents, for families and for aged-care workers. Over the last two years we have implemented reforms, including 24/7 registered nurses on site, increased care minutes, wage increases for workers, star ratings, and better care and practices across the sector. How is the Albanese Labor government working to lift the standard of aged care in Australia? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question and in particular acknowledge the work she has done throughout her career to support workers in the aged-care sector through her union. A lot of the work we've done and work with that union over time has supported those wage increases into the sector that have been so critical in ensuring we have a workforce to care for elderly Australians. Since the election the Albanese Labor government has made it a priority to deliver on our promise to older Australians and to the people who care for them. Today there is a registered nurse onsite in aged care 99 per cent the time. Older Australians are receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every single day. We've delivered that 15 per cent increase to the minimum award wage for more than 250,000 aged-care workers, with more to come, and the feedback from the sector is that that's made a real difference not only in appropriately remunerating those workers but also in retention of those workers in this critical system. This week, we reached another milestone for older Australians and their loved ones. Today the Minister for Aged Care, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have announced a $5.6 billion package that will make sure older Australians have access to the aged-care services they need and deserve. This delivers a massive $4.3 billion investment in support at home, starting on 1 July 2025; essential changes to improving the funding, viability and quality of residential aged care; new laws to protect older Australians in aged care, with stronger powers to investigate bad behaviour; and civil penalties for breaching standards. These reforms will deliver an aged-care system that older Australians deserve. I acknowledge Senator Ruston for the work she has done with the Minister for Aged Care, Minister Wells. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:11 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Minister. I, too, note the work of the Minister for Aged Care, Ms Wells, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mr Butler, in leading these reforms. The aged-care royal commission was shocking and an undeniable call to action. How are the Albanese Labor government's once-in-a-generation aged-care reforms responding to the findings of the aged-care royal commission? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. The aged-care royal commission found that the system was failing older Australians. The final report can be summed up in the title of the interim report, Neglect. Since we were elected the Albanese government has worked tirelessly to address all the problems across the aged-care system. The reforms we've announced today will deliver more and better care for older Australians. Today we addressed the first recommendation that was made by the commissioners: the government will introduce a new aged-care act to replace the Howard era Aged Care Act 1997. This act will deliver once-in-a-generation reform to aged care. It will ensure that older Australians will be treated with dignity and respect, and it puts the rights of older Australians at the centre of our aged-care system. This act will deliver certainty in the future of aged care for older people, their families and carers, workers, advocates and aged-care providers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:13 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Minister. It's really wonderful to hear how we're moving from a system characterised as neglect to one of dignity and respect for older Australians. How will these reforms support older Australians choosing to retain their independence and remain in their homes as they age? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. This new system will respond to the feedback we have received through the taskforce and other reports about what older Australians want. Increasingly, they want freedom, support and choice to remain in the home and the community they love. There will be 1.4 million Australians who will have the opportunity to stay in their homes for longer through a new program called Support at Home. That program will start next year and will help older Australians to age at home. Support at Home will cut wait times to receive in-home aged-care services. It will deliver more tailored support, increasing levels of ongoing care from levels 4 to 8. It will ensure fast access to assistive technology like walkers and wheelchairs, and increase the maximum support available from $61,000 to $78,000. Support at Home will offer a temporary boost through more transitional assistance. It will also provide access to palliative care, which is so important for older Australians. Middle East: Migration 58 14:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. How many of the almost 3,000 Palestinians granted a visa by the Albanese Labor government who have arrived in Australia since 7 October have had their visa cancelled on character grounds. 14:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Paterson, for the question. As I have previously indicated, we know that the opposition has been determined to make this issue a highly political one, and we know— Senator Cash I0M That's not the question! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Cash! Senator WATT 245759 I'm sorry, Senator Cash. I'm answering the question. We know that the motivation of opposition is to make this a political contest. We also know that the background checks that were undertaken before the granting of any of these visas were exactly the same processes as those that occurred under the coalition. That is a factor that they seek to ignore every time they seek to make this into a political issue. I will search for the figures to answer the specific question. I'm sure they're here somewhere in my brief, but, obviously not being the minister responsible, they're not top of mind for me. Our focus in managing these visa applications, as is the case for all issues surrounding the current conflict in the Middle East, is to ensure that we maintain social cohesion at all steps along the way. Again, that is something that the opposition has had no interest in, and they have sought to make this a political issue at every step of the way, most recently in relation to these Palestinian visas— Senator Paterson 144138 A point of order on direct relevance. Perhaps the minister now has the answer, but this was a straight question. There was no preamble. It was a question for factual information. If the minister doesn't know, he should take it on notice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Paterson. The minister indicated that he thought he did have the figures. Let 's see if he has them at the moment. Otherwise, as you suggested, I'm assuming the minister will seek to take that on notice. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 What I can tell Senator Paterson is that the government 's position is that if a person supports an extremist ideology, their visa will be rejected or cancelled. That is something that Mr Burgess, the Director-General of Security with ASIO, has made clear as well. It's rather unfortunate that members of the opposition have consistently sought to misrepresent the words of the director-general of ASIO. They have completely ignored his request of politicians to mind their language around these issues and not inflame situations. The opposition continues to ignore it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I'll try my luck on a separate question, but, given the minister wasn't able to answer the primary question, I have my doubts. How many Palestinian document holders who have had their visa cancelled have been deported from Australia? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I can tell Senator Paterson—I can repeat the comments that Mr Burgess has made—anyone who fails character tests and fails to the security vetting by ASIO, doesn't get a visa in the first place, and should further information come to light, their visas are cancelled. As I said, we have repeatedly seen the opposition try to make this issue into a political football and break down social cohesion. Mr Burgess, the Director-General of Security with ASIO, has appealed to members of parliament to take a responsible attitude towards this, but the opposition continues to ignore that advice from Mr Burgess. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson? Senator Paterson 144138 I just want to give the minister an opportunity to read the brief he has been passed, and perhaps he has the answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, you asked your question. I assumed you had a point of order. It is not an opportunity to get up and make a statement. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 It's pretty easy to be a smart alec in this place, and Senator Paterson is doing his best to impersonate me. I know a lot about being a smart alec in this place, and, Senator Paterson, you are a pale imitation! The bottom line is that this government takes the security of our citizens seriously and that involves— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Last month, the Minister for Home Affairs said: Certainly no country in the world would send people back to Gaza at the moment. Minister, can you confirm that Palestinian document holders in Australia who have their visas cancelled will remain in Australia instead of being deported? 14:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not going to participate in the latest attempt of the opposition to try to whip up political fear and fear in the community around this issue. We know that the opposition—and Senator Paterson is one of the worst offenders in this—are determined to whip up fear in the Australian community. They have no regard whatsoever for social cohesion in this country. I'm not going to participate in that and I'm not going to fuel it by participating in these kinds of games from the opposition when we have said, and Mr Burgess at ASIO has said, that the Australian community's safety will be the most central issue that we consider when considering all of these matters. As we have said and as Mr Burgess has said, if a person supports an extremist ideology, their visa will be rejected or cancelled. Anyone who espouses violent extremist ideology while in Australia will have their visa cancelled by the minister. Our government will also use character grounds to cancel the visa of anyone we believe is a threat to our country, and that's the way that it should be. Middle East 59 14:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. The UK recently cancelled 30 military exports permits to the State of Israel, including the direct transfer of F-35 fighter jet parts, because this equipment could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. United Nations experts, back in February, specifically urged Australia to immediately halt arms transfers to Israel, with the UN Human Rights Council making clear that this includes 'direct and indirect transfer or sale of arms, munitions, parts, components and dual use items'. The Albanese government currently has 66 military exports permits active with the State of Israel and over 70 companies pumping out parts into the F-35 global supply chain. Why hasn't the Albanese government followed suit and cancelled these permits in relation to Israel? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Shoebridge for the question because it gives me the opportunity to respond to some of the misinformation he and others in the Greens political party are putting out. I would start by making this really clear. Senator Shoebridge has spoken with approbation of the UK government's decision. He may have seen that I have made comments about the UK government's decision, but I would make the point that we have actually been ahead of where the United Kingdom is because we have not been exporting weapons to Israel, or ammunition, for the last five years. Perhaps, when the Greens come in here and make political statements which are incorrect, they might want to see the facts. They are very happy to be supportive of the decision that the United Kingdom has made, but they fail to recognise that, in fact, Australia— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Shoebridge! Senator WONG 00AOU is not in the same position because we are not exporting weapons as you describe. Senator WONG 00AOU You are continuing to interject, Senator Shoebridge, and what I find interesting is that you continue to run a line—in this place and publicly—in the face of the, frankly, violence and aggression and disharmony we have seen in these last 24 hours and you know it not to be true. That is irresponsible. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary? 14:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Perhaps we'll get an answer to this question. Last week the Irish government sought legal advice on the import of goods from the State of Israel and stopped the importation of defence or military equipment from Israel. The Canadian foreign minister has also announced the suspension of some 30 weapons permits, including weapons permits that are going through the US to Israel. Why hasn't your government stopped contracts with Israeli arms manufacturers and weapons being sent to Israel via third countries? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator. I again would invite you to look at where we are compared to the two jurisdictions that you have outlined. This is just, again, a proposition which is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, you've asked your question. I had to call you to order during the last response. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, you are not in a debate with me! I've called you to order; that is what I expect. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. Again, I am very happy for you to refer to those two jurisdictions, Senator Shoebridge, but, if you do so, it would be the honourable thing to do, the decent thing to do, to recognise where Australia is in comparison to those jurisdictions, which is that we have not exported weapons or ammunition to Israel for the last five years—that is, in a different position to those other countries. Senator WONG 00AOU The reality, Senator Shoebridge, is you don't acknowledge that— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU because it doesn't suit your narrative, it doesn't suit your political purposes— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge! Senator WONG 00AOU it doesn't suit your political campaign. You are happy to foment social disharmony in this country— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge. Just a few seconds ago I called you to order. You are not in a running commentary with the minister. I've asked you to listen in silence. That is what I expect. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU What I again would say is that Senator Shoebridge and others in the Greens continue to peddle stories on this which are not true. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:25 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales You've never seen an F-35 fighter jet, huh? The ICJ, the highest legal authority, said very clearly in July all countries must: … abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory. Why has your government done nothing, nothing at all, to follow that direction? Senator Polley e5x Why don't you tell the truth? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, it applies equally to you! 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I would say to Senator Shoebridge is I have made very clear, on behalf of this country, our view about the importance of the observance of international law. We have been clear and consistent that Israel must protect civilians. We have been clear and consistent that Australia's view is Israel must act in accordance with the orders of the International Court of Justice, including in the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance. I have said repeatedly that Palestinian civilians cannot be made to pay the price of defeating Hamas. We have worked with partners— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Words! Senator WONG 00AOU This is called diplomacy. This is about working with other countries—like Canada, like the United Kingdom, like Jordan, like the United Arab Emirates—towards a common solution. It's about bringing people together, actually. I know that what you are about is division. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 61 14:27 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, we have moved on. I expect you to acknowledge that. Senator Grogan, please start your question again and I'll restart the clock. Senator GROGAN 296331 My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. I know that all Australians want to ensure that the energy system is reliable and affordable, and I would also draw people's attention to the recent evidence from the CSIRO that firmed renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Can the minister please update the chamber on how the government's renewables plan is delivering reliable and affordable energy to Australians? 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Grogan, for your question. I can update the chamber that last week the government was able to announce backing for the six large-scale batteries for Victoria and South Australia. Having gone out to tender for 600 megawatts, these projects will deliver nearly 1,000 megawatts of storage. The projects are being underwritten by the Capacity Investment Scheme as part of the Albanese government's Reliable Renewables Plan. This scheme will deliver for our future generation needs by underwriting 32 gigawatts of capacity. We are investing in the cheapest form of energy and as the Australian Energy Market Operator said back in April: We are increasingly seeing renewable energy records being set which is a good thing for Australian consumers as it is key in driving prices down … Our plan overall is working. We've seen a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national grid. We have seen record investment in batteries and in storage. We have green-lit 60 renewable projects. But, on top of that investment, we are providing direct relief. We're delivering $300 in energy price relief to every household, and that comes on top of $3 billion in energy relief for millions of people, including pensioners, veterans and low-income families. This is relief that those opposite voted against. And in their relentless negativity, they have been completely unable to vote for this or any number of other measures that are designed to support people with the cost of living. When it comes to energy, Senator Grogan, we are seeing encouraging signs. The impact of the recent DMO and our rebates mean that this year all DMO states are at least 10 per cent and up to 22.8 per cent cheaper than they would have been. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I note that previous attempts to underwrite new energy generation have not been as successful as the government's Capacity Investment Scheme. Can the minister update the chamber on further progress on how the government's Reliable Renewables plan is attracting investment in renewable energy? 14:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I can inform the chamber that the government's Capacity Investment Scheme is working and, as I indicated in my answer to your primary question, Senator Grogan, there has been enormous interest from the private sector. This does stand in contrast to the 22 failed energy policies from those opposite. Mr Taylor's Underwriting New Generation Investments program, the UNGI program—do you remember that? It could perhaps have been titled the 'underwriting no generation investment program', because it failed to underwrite any new generation whatsoever—any at all. In contrast, we were able to support six projects in Victoria and your home state of South Australia, and more than 100 bids were made—a pipeline of viable projects. I can also update the chamber on the first Capacity Investment Scheme tender for Western Australia. It has been massively oversubscribed by over six times what was tendered. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you for that information. I would also note that the government has not taken the path of supporting nuclear energy, which the CSIRO has identified as the most expensive form of energy. Can the minister explain why the government's approach is the best pathway to Australia's energy system? 14:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Just as we listen to the experts when it comes to climate science, we also listen to the experts on the energy system, and the experts—for example, those at the Smart Energy Council—say that the coalition's nuclear plan could cost around $600 billion. Now, the shadow Treasurer, of course, would need to deal with this. Mr Taylor knew that nuclear wasn't viable when he was a minister in the last government, and he certainly did nothing about this issue as minister. Here is what he said about nuclear in May: Well, at the end of the day, all generators, if they're going to be successful in delivering affordable, reliable energy and bring down emissions, have got to deliver a return on capital. What did the Leader of the Opposition actually announce? It was not that. It was not letting the market decide. It was not even underwriting anything. It was state-owned nuclear plants, paid for by the taxpayer, delivering the most expensive form of energy that there is. Poor Mr Taylor! He doesn't have a lot of luck in shadow cabinet, does he? DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 62 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Edwards, Mr Sean Edwards 62 14:32 The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery former senator Sean Edwards. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE McPhillamys Gold Project 62 14:33 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister McAllister. A meeting is planned for the 121 New South Wales Aboriginal land councils in Orange to discuss the implications of Minister Plibersek's decision to block the Regis goldmine. Minister, do you accept that this decision by Minister Plibersek has caused serious concern among elected New South Wales land councils by undermining 40 years of New South Wales land rights legislation? 14:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price, for the question. As you are aware, we've talked about this issue in this chamber for a number of weeks now in response to questions asked by people opposite. As I've made clear repeatedly, on this side of the chamber we apply the law, and there are a range of reasons why it should be obvious to those opposite that that is an important principle. In a decent society, the law is not an instrument to be weaponised, and we know what happens when governments don't apply the law—when governments take a different approach. We know what that looks like. We've seen it. It looks like robodebt. It looks like resources allocated on the basis of colour coded spreadsheets. It looks like car parks and sports rorts all over again. Working outside the law is a dangerous way to operate. It is a recipe for uncertainty and it's designed— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Minister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 It's a dangerous way to operate and it's a recipe for uncertainty that will scare off investment— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Nampijinpa Price? Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 President, it's just a point of order on direct relevance to the question. The minister appears to be veering away from answering the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant to the question but I will continue to listen closely to the answer. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thank you, President. As I was indicating, the approach that we take in this and all other decisions is to apply the law, and the minister has been very clear about that. Now, doubtless, that will excite strong views. There will always be people in communities who seek to see projects go ahead and there will always be people in communities who oppose projects for a variety of reasons, and we're always interested in the opinions of all stakeholders. Indeed, it is why, in considering the particular project that your question refers to, Senator, the minister took advice from a range of organisations, and the advice I have was that— (Time expired) 14:36 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Minister, within those 121 land councils I referred to, does the government accept the assessment of the Bowraville land council CEO, Phillip Hall, a veteran of the 1965 Freedom Ride, that this decision causes a lot of confusion and it brings division within the community? 14:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, I did see those remarks reported in the media this morning, and, as I was indicating in my answer to your primary question, of course decisions like this draw attention from a range of people in the community. It was certainly the case when a similar decision was made by Ms Ley in the previous government, under the same act, under the same section. There were a range of opinions in the local community, some supportive, some very disappointed. But the fact remains that the act requires the minister to consult on the application before her, and in this case she did so. She took advice from three different Indigenous organisations in the local area, as I understand it, and the advice I have is that two of them were opposed and one of them was neutral. And that was amongst the evidence considered by Ms Plibersek in making the decision that she made under the law. 14:37 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Will the minister seek out a meeting with these groups to hear their concerns? 14:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Again—and I refer to the answers I've already provided—the government is aware that the protection of cultural heritage and the way that we approach that inevitably is of interest for all Australians, and we are of course interested in the views, most particularly, of First Nations groups in New South Wales and across the country. I think most people in this chamber will recall that after the destruction of Juukan Gorge all major parties—yours, ours—agreed that that couldn't happen again, and both parties agreed at that time that there were opportunities— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Nampijinpa Price? Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 Once again, it's a point of order on relevance. The question was: would the minister seek out these bodies and hear their concerns—a simple yes or no. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will draw the minister to your question. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thanks very much, President. As I indicated, this chamber has had the opportunity previously to consider the need for reform to cultural heritage arrangements, and, as I understand it, there is a bipartisan understanding that such reform should take place, and consultation will be core to that. (Time expired) Health Care 63 14:39 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Private hospitals, especially not-for-profit services, are losing money and fast becoming unsustainable. If private hospitals in Tasmania and other regional areas close down, it will become even harder for us to access healthcare in an overstretched system. At the same time, private health services have told me they have empty elective surgery and psychology beds. What is the government doing to address underutilised and unsustainable not-for-profit private health services and ballooning elective surgery and psychology waiting lists in our public system? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and for her ongoing advocacy and interest on health care in Tasmania. The question Senator Tyrrell asks really goes to a state government responsibility here, because, whilst the Commonwealth funds and makes a contribution to hospitals, they are owned and operated by state governments and state health services. Whilst there have in the past been public-private partnerships with private hospitals to ensure that, if there is excess capacity in those hospitals, public lists can be delivered through private arrangements, they have been— Senator GALLAGHER ING Sorry, Senator Ruston keeps interjecting. I can't hear her. I can't hear what you're saying, Senator Ruston, but you are interrupting. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, it's not so much if it's a one off. It's just that when it's persistent it does distract you from your answer. But the point you raise is one where I think most state governments that I know have entered into arrangements with private hospitals for exactly those sorts of things, including in mental health services and definitely elective surgery. So there is nothing stopping that. I know the Department of Health and Aged Care, under Minister Butler's leadership, is looking at the issues that private hospital providers, particularly those not-for-profit providers, have raised about viability and pressures in the system, and I think it's in everyone's interests to make sure that the private and public hospital systems continue to operate. Obviously, they do rely on each other. The private system often does the high-volume, low-acuity work, and then the public sector does all the other areas. But it's absolutely important that they work together, and I know the Department of Health and Aged Care is looking into some of those viability issues. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania During the COVID-19 pandemic, as you mentioned, Tasmanian private hospital services were used to reduce the elective surgery waiting lists, so we know that it can be done. Will the government consider a shared-care model where elective surgery and psychology services are provided in private hospitals that are operating under capacity so private health services can become more sustainable and elective surgery waiting lists are reduced? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're really keen to work with the state governments and anyone else who's interested to ensure that demand for health services more generally is being met. That's why we've had a lot of focus on urgent care clinics and ensuring that, under Medicare, people are able to afford, basically, to go and see a GP, because that helps public hospitals by keeping people out of hospital. But the point you raise is: when you are needing hospital care, how do you make sure that you can optimise the arrangements there? Certainly, from our point of view, we have no issue with public health systems engaging with private health systems to deliver the programs and operations that are needed. It really is a matter for those state hospitals, though. We work very closely with the Tasmanian government in these areas and are very open to suggestions from the Tasmanian government. I acknowledge you've got a small health system in Tasmania, and the public and private systems need to work together. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Department of Veterans' Affairs cost model provides a minimum fee to private hospitals to provide care to eligible patients receiving care in private health settings. Will the government consider this already proven model as a way both to support private hospitals providing care and to ease elective surgery waiting lists? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, in a sense, when public hospitals do engage the private hospitals, it's usually done on a model like that of Veterans' Affairs, so it's usually for the national efficient price of that particular procedure. That underpins the arrangement. So I think that largely exists now. I think it really is a matter of what the public hospital system can afford. Obviously they are paying for all their operating theatres and their staff. They are dealing with all the emergency work that comes in as well as the elective work. Something the private system can offer is that they are not constrained by emergency work. But it really comes down to what's affordable and how you manage all the work that's required. But definitely utilising the private system to help is part of the solution in the longer term, as is keeping people out of hospital and using new technology to make sure people don't have to undergo operations as well. Australian Defence Force: Afghanistan 64 14:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell. Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell 's command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for his question. Senator Roberts, as the Deputy Prime Minister has stated to the House of Representatives today, we finalised our commitment to close out the recommendations of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence ForceAfghanistan inquiry report, known as the Brereton report, which was commissioned in 2016. The report found credible information of alleged unlawful killings of 39 individuals in 23 separate incidents. Further, there was credible information of a subculture of elitism and deviation from acceptable standards. It made a broad range of findings and 143 recommendations. As the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined, we have taken final action as a consequence of that report resulting in the closure of 139 of these recommendations. Two recommendations of the report related to command accountability and the treatment of honours and awards given to commanders during the relevant period. These recommendations relate to a small number of individuals who held command positions during the period in which the inquiry found evidence of unlawful conduct. The Deputy Prime Minister has written to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 President, on a point of order: the question was very specific about Angus Campbell's Distinguished Service Cross. Why won't it be stripped? The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Roberts. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Roberts, I was seeking to respond by way of explaining how we are dealing with the recommendations of the report which relate to command accountability. I understand that the Minister for Defence, the DPM, has written to those whose awards were referred for consideration to advise that there has been a conclusion to that consideration of those awards. Decisions that have been made in relation to those awards are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Brereton report. Decisions around command accountability are consistent with those same findings. Obviously we're not in a position, given the Privacy Act, to disclose the details— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 14:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability. The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined. Why are Defence's most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel's advice? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will see if I can get any further information to respond to the assertion in relation to the panel because I don't recall the facts being quite as you assert them, Senator Roberts, but it isn't in my portfolio and so I will certainly have a look at that. But, as I read out in my primary response, two of the recommendations of the Brereton report did relate to command accountability and the treatment of honours and awards given to commanders during the relevant period. There was an alternative assertion in your question, and that is not the advice to me. We have acted on the basis of and in a manner consistent with those recommendations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be 'in action', meaning in direct contact with an enemy, yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action. Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Roberts, I think that is a slightly different question to the one you asked me, which related to the Brereton report. In relation to the actual awarding of those honours, that's obviously not a political decision but a decision that is governed within that honours and awards system. I would make the point that these matters have been canvassed at length by, I think, Senator Lambie in a number of estimates, and I'd refer you to those answers, including direct answers—to my recollection, including before the change of government—from General Campbell himself. First Nations Australians 65 14:50 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. The regrettable outcome of the Voice referendum has deepened the divide and left a profound sense of betrayal among many First Nations people. As we confront the worsening conditions in Indigenous communities, it is crucial to reflect on how we arrived at this juncture. According to the New horizons report in 2014, as little as just 26 per cent of the demand for alcohol and other drugs services was being met, and since then the funding for AOD treatment services has not increased. I travelled around WA listening to many Indigenous communities who raised with me many local issues and feel they don't have a voice. Will the minister develop an Indigenous-specific alcohol and other drugs strategy informed by the needs of First Nations people, as recommended by the WA Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies report? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for the question. This government has a proud record in these last two years of focusing on delivering practical progress in Indigenous health. Since coming to government we've been taking a lot of different steps to tackle the critical gaps in health outcomes for Indigenous Australians, under Minister Burney's leadership, under Assistant Minister Kearney's leadership and under Minister McCarthy's leadership. There are a range of different programs, Senator Payman, that are going into training First Nations health workers across the country, where we already have 180 students being enrolled, because that is key to providing services to remote parts of Australia—also around cancer care and around renal care. I will take further advice on the issue you raise around alcohol and other drugs. I'm sure that there is work going on in that area. I don't have it in front of me, but I know we are taking a very broad approach to supporting First Nations communities. I also agree with Senator Payman that it was a regrettable outcome from the referendum. Certainly, from our government's point of view, right throughout that time, that debate and subsequently the vote, we haven't changed the amount of effort that's going into the practical delivery of services and supports to First Nations communities right around the country, whether it be in metropolitan areas or more remote areas, as you outlined in your question, in WA, in the Northern Territory or anywhere else. We are a hundred per cent committed to making a difference and improving the health outcomes of First Nations Australians in this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Thank you, Minister, for the answer, and I look forward to getting more information on that strategy. How does the government plan to address the alarming overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system, where they are 13 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous Australians? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As Senator Payman may remember, we took some commitments to the last election about justice reinvestment. That was led by Senator Pat Dodson—also a Labor senator from WA—and Minister Burney, and those programs are being rolled out because we recognised in opposition and argued for many years from opposition about the need to tackle the high imprisonment rate of First Nations adults and young people in this country, and we committed to reducing imprisonment rates. There are 30 community led justice reinvestment initiatives across Australia, with 20 of them being funded already. These are based on successful programs which seek to provide support to reduce the amount of recidivism going on and to make sure we are providing culturally responsive justice reinvestment programs in those local communities. There's plenty of evidence— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:55 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Considering the significant gaps in year 12 completion rates and life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, what specific measures will the government implement to give Indigenous Australians a voice to improve educational outcomes and life expectancy? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory All of those areas are covered by Closing the Gap, where there are programs. This is an important report that is provided annually to the parliament on improving the educational outcomes of First Nations Australians, ensuring that we are dealing with some of those health issues that we have outlined, looking at issues around justice and offending. There are a whole range of areas that we have to continue to work on. We are making progress in some areas, but we need to do more. I can tell you that the amount of effort and investment going into this area is unprecedented. In housing, which is also a critical issue, we have a record housing investment, which Minister Burney led when she was in that position, which will actually make a difference. If you have a house and you have stable living arrangements, you're more likely to finish school. All of this is interconnected, and we're all focused on improving the lives of First Nations Australians. McPhillamys Gold Project 67 14:56 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It follows the environment minister's cultural heritage declaration on old the McPhillamys gold mine project. On 29 August, New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council chair and local Wiradjuri man, Roy Ah-See, said: We've got an Aboriginal elder, he's a man who speaks with authority, and he believes— the section 10 application on the McPhillamys gold mine near Blayney was 'fabricated'. Will the government now review Ms Plibersek's declaration, including to investigate whether the claims she upheld were falsified? 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator McDonald, for the question. I think that really goes to the same issue that Senator McAllister has responded to on numerous occasions in relation to questions on that side—that is, that the environment minister has a statutory role under the legislation, which, from recollection, was actually passed whilst the Liberal Party was in government. I may be wrong on that, but certainly the original federal legislation— An opposition senator: We would have applied it a little bit differently. Senator WONG 00AOU Fair enough. She has a responsibility under the law and the minister has sought to apply the law. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, first supplementary? 14:57 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Why did the government oppose the position of the Aboriginal Land Council chair, who is the cultural authority in the area, under New South Wales government laws? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia President, through you: Senator McDonald, that is an assertion of law. I'm not in a position to respond to your primary assertion in that question. But I again revert to what I've said earlier, which was that Minister Plibersek is the relevant environment minister who has a role under the legislation, and she has applied that in accordance with the law. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The minister has repeatedly said that First Nations Australians have been asking for and offering for decades to be listened to on matters that impact on their lives, so, why, in the case of her rejection of the construction for McPhillamys gold mine tailings dam, is the government not listening to the legally recognised local elders and members of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, you make an assertion in that about Indigenous representation. I'm not in a position to respond to whether or not that assertion is accurate. But I would say to you again, Senator, that Minister Plibersek has applied the act in accordance with the law. That is what a person in her position is expected to do, just as the former minister, Ms Ley, also applied the act in respect of the law. Cost of Living 67 14:59 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria My question is to the Minister presenting the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Cost-of-living pressures are top of mind for all Australians, particularly in the regions. When I speak with my constituents in regional Victoria, they tell me they're thinking about things like housing affordability, the cost of energy, prices at the check-out and their wages. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering meaningful cost-of-living relief while creating secure, well-paid jobs in our region? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Darmanin, who has been making an outstanding contribution since she joined us here in the Senate. I know we all look forward to seeing much more from her in the coming years as well. Under the Albanese government, there have been nearly one million extra jobs created in the last couple of years, including many in regional areas. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Cash, I didn't think I'd be hearing from you until the second supplementary, so well done. You beat my expectations. In regional New South Wales, there have been more than 128,000 extra jobs created, mostly full-time positions. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Yes, I think that is something worth shouting about, so I'm glad that you're shouting with us. Senator Henderson, there are nearly 68,000 new jobs in regional Victoria. Back to you, Senator Cash: there are 17,000 in regional Western Australia. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Watt, may I remind you to address your questions through the chair. Senator WATT 245759 In my home state of Queensland there have been 99,600 extra jobs created outside Brisbane, including over 56,000 that are full time. That includes an extra 48,000 regional women joining the workforce and almost 40,000 more young people. The measures brought in by the Albanese government, like cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, apprenticeship initiatives and other support designed to fill skill shortages are supporting this growth and delivering more career opportunities in our regions, particularly for women and young people. This matters because one of the most important things governments can do to assist regional Australians with the cost-of-living pressures that they're facing is to ensure they have a job. Under those opposite, we had one million fewer jobs in Australia, as well as lower wages and less secure work. They've said that they want to take Australians back to those dark times if they are returned to office. We've already seen Mr Dutton and the coalition promise to repeal casual workers' rights, repeal the right to disconnect and repeal other, as yet undisclosed, workplace laws. They've said no to energy bill relief, no to housing, no to tax cuts and no to universal superannuation on paid parental leave. They just say no. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, first supplementary? 15:02 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has announced a raft of measures designed to help all Australians respond to the cost-of-living pressures. These measures have included things like a tax cut to every taxpayer, $300 energy bill relief and record investment in social and affordable housing. Why is the Albanese Labor government's plan the best way to deliver cost-of-living support to regional Australia, and what would be the impact on the regions of an alternative plan? Senator Birmingham H6X My point of order goes to the relevance of the question to the minister's portfolio responsibilities, an issue raised earlier this week. Senator Darmanin named three specific policy areas. She asked about tax changes, she asked about social housing and she asked about energy bills. To my knowledge, none of those specific policy areas cited are responsibilities of the portfolio minister or the minister that is representing her. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will check with the Clerk, because I understand that at the beginning of question time Senator Wong did reassign some responsibilities. I will double-check. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, we're not in a debate. I said I would check, and that's what I am doing. I advise the chamber that I am advised that Minister Watt is also repping regional development and he can answer in that capacity those questions that you identified, Senator Birmingham, and which were asked. Please continue, Minister Watt. 15:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Why don't they like the regions? Why don't they want to hear about the regions over there? Why don't they want to hear about tax cuts for the regions? Why don't they want to hear about jobs for the regions? Why don't they want to hear about wage rises for the regions? Why don't they want to hear about housing for the regions? You know why they don't want to hear about that? Because they say no to all of it. They say no to regional Australians, and they say no to urban Australians. They say no to the men. They say no to women. It doesn't really matter what we talk about; they always say no. They even say no to a supplementary question. That's how negative they are. And you're absolutely right, Senator Darmanin. Our government is focused on delivering cost-of-living relief for regional Australians. We're doing that by backing multiple wage rises that have put an extra $143 per week in the pockets of 2.6 million low-paid Australians, delivering tax cuts for every regional Australian worker and delivering $300 in energy bill relief for every regional Australian home and businesses. We say yes; you say no. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, second supplementary? 15:05 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria After a decade of failed energy policies, deliberate wage stagnation and telling hardworking Australians the only way to own a home is by raiding their superannuation, what are the key barriers to delivering the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief to all Australians? 15:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Darmanin, you asked what the key barriers are to delivering the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief to all Australians. There they are. I can see Simon. I can seem Michaelia. I can see James. I can see all of you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I remind you— Senator Birmingham H6X I can see a child. Senator WATT 245759 You're the child. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I remind you to refer to senators by their correct titles. Senator WATT 245759 We all know that those opposite treat superannuation like the bogeyman, like it's something to be feared. They opposed it when it was created, and they've opposed it ever since. This week, they're at it again trying to strip back superannuation rights, this time for Australian women through paid parental leave. It's not right that regional women be denied a decent retirement, because of the ideological obsessions of the coalition. And, when it comes to housing, the Albanese government would already be rolling out housing across regional Australia if it weren't for the 'no-alition' of the Libs, the Nats and the Greens, teaming up yet again to block our investments, to delay funding and even try to block legislation about helping people to buy. You say no all the time. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 69 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 69 15:08 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. I was particularly interested in the questions in relation to the economy from Senator Birmingham to Senator Wong. The question Senator Birmingham asked was specifically around why this government can't manage inflation. Instead of actually getting an answer to that question, we got an answer around the tax cuts and around the energy relief. I think we need to stop and reflect for a little while. There is this $300 of energy relief over a 12-month period that every household gets, and we also have this scenario where we have the tax cuts that Senator Wong spoke of. But let's just look at one element of what Australians are dealing with as a result of the current inflationary and cost-of-living crisis in this country: the average Australian home loan, which is $750,000. That is an additional $35,000 a year in mortgage repayments for those families. I'm really sorry, but a $300 energy rebate does nothing to dampen the impact of that. These are catastrophic conditions for many Australians, primarily for young Australians who have only purchased their first home in the last couple of years who have actually seen their expenses just blow out exponentially. That has turned what was meant to be their Australian dream into an Australian nightmare. We need to reflect on that and actually think about it. It's fundamentally unfair. We need to address the issues at hand, and those issues specifically point to this government's inability to manage that inflation, and it is a really important question that didn't get answered. Something that also struck me in that answer was a comment that there are more homes in more parts of the country being built more quickly. I think I took that down accurately; that's my recollection of it. Now, that is inherently untrue. There are fewer homes being built. They are more expensive, and it's happening less across our country. So, the exact opposite of what was said in response to Senator Birmingham's question is the lived experience of Australians who are trying to get into a new home. The homes are not being built, and that is an absolute fact. In my state of New South Wales, the state Labor government's targets for new housing will not be met. That's a given. There's no    question about that. We know it won't happen. So, we absolutely know that more homes in more parts of the country are not being built. Senator Paterson asked Senator Watt some questions in relation to Palestinian visas. I observed with interest that it was a very straightforward question from Senator Paterson: how many of the 2,922 Palestinians who have been granted a visa by the Albanese Labor government since October 7 have had their visa cancelled on character grounds? That is a very straightforward question that would have a numerical answer. So, either the minister knew the answer to that question and could provide it, or he didn't know and could take it on notice. Instead, for a full two minutes, we had a preamble and a discussion around background checks and visa criteria and pointing to the opposition and different things that they've done in government, when the answer was a simple statistic: how many? It's a number. A discussion wasn't required. A preamble wasn't required. A background as to the construction of different character grounds or character tests for visas wasn't required. So, that is quite a significant concern as well. Finally, Senator Nampijinpa Price asked a question about the Regis goldmine—again, just asking whether the minister will seek out a meeting with a group to hear their concerns. And there could not be a simple answer of yes or no—again, there was a broader discussion about different things but no simple answer. Sadly, today's experience with questions without notice is very reflective of this government and its lack of transparency and the lack of willingness to answer questions directly. 15:13 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Let's just get a couple of facts on the record in response to that contribution. As a fellow New South Welshwoman, I have great respect for Senator Kovacic and the people who elected her, but I do sense some glee when she describes concerns about housing. I'm very concerned about housing and about people getting access to housing. But one thing they need to come to terms with and tell the truth about in this place is their permanent opposition—when they team up with the Greens to prevent the advance of legislation to support the delivery and development of housing. If anybody is getting in the way of the hope of getting a house among young people in New South Wales—and the not so young—and the people whose lives have fallen apart and who are starting again on their own later in life, it's not this government. It's the whingeing opposition and the chorus of Greens who support them in blocking the movement of this government towards the delivery of a vital need of Australians, which is housing. So let's just get that one on the record. With regard to the visas, with all the hand-wringing that goes on, let's just be clear. It doesn't matter where you come from or what visa you are on. The reality in Australian law is that everyone who applies for an Australian visa is subject to the same security standards. There's no special deal for one group over another. The reality is that the same standards apply. Those standards are not set by anybody who's in here; they're set by the agencies. The same personnel are applying those same security standards without fear or favour to everyone from everywhere and continuing exactly what happened under the former government. So let's be clear about that in response to some of the nonsense that has been put forward by those opposite today. But I dare say that most people who might be in a car somewhere, driving and listening to this reflection on what just happened in question time, will be much more interested in the things that Labor is actually doing to help them, their fellow Australians, their family, their friends and their workmates. Let's just go through a few of the things that Senator Wong put on the record once again. Unlike the opposition, the Liberal and National parties, who are almost dying for a recession to come on, we know that we want to support Australians, and that's why we are delighted to have seen and supported 2.6 million low-paid Australian workers getting their third pay rise. That's very different from those opposite, who said that low wages are a design feature of their economic policy. There is a huge difference in the vision of what's fair for Australians from those who sit on this side to those who would be the alternative government if they could get the votes together. You want to be very careful about thinking about giving any consideration to the Liberal and National parties, who claim to be great economic managers. Let me tell you that they're after $315 billion. I wonder if they're going to cut the $315 billion from people who are getting support from this government with regard to Medicare. There are a million Australians, some of them your friends and some of them your family, who are on low incomes. They're earning, but nine per cent of taxpayers are on low incomes. They are continuing to be exempt from having to pay a Medicare levy charge under this government, or they pay it at a reduced levy rate, and that helps them with their cost of living. I tell you who it helps the most: it helps women, because 57 per cent of the beneficiaries who get that assistance so they don't have to pay that Medicare levy are Australian women. That's $640 million. Is that part of the $315 billion that they want to cut? What about the energy rebates that 10 million Australians are going to get? The government is investing $3.5 billion to assist Australians in this time when there is a struggle. A $300 rebate is nothing, according to those who spoke this morning here. The reality is that we want to help 10 million Australians, not take away from them. 15:18 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I'm going to accept the invitation from the Labor senator from New South Wales to put some facts on the table. Western Australians are beginning to write up their report card on Labor's first term in office, and it's not good. Savings accounts are shrinking. Average household savings ratios are just 0.9 per cent, a historical low. Mortgage repayments are increasing. A family with a $750,000 mortgage is now paying an extra $24,000 a year in mortgage repayments. Two years ago, Western Australian voters trusted Labor. Today, they are filled with disappointment, and that disappointment is turning to anger. The Perth consumer price index in the last year rose by 4.6 per cent. Think about that. The Perth CPI rose by 4.6 per cent when the national average was 3.8 per cent. Why is it that Western Australians are paying a higher price for Labor's economic mismanagement than everyone else in the country? In the June quarter, the Perth CPI rose by 2.1 per cent—twice the national figure. Again, why are Western Australians paying a disproportionate and higher price for Labor 's mismanagement? The latest RBA data provided to the Senate Economics Committee shows that the share of borrowers now facing 90-day arrears on their mortgage repayments has surged from 0.43 per cent in Western Australia to 0.62 per cent. That is a 44 per cent increase in the number of people facing 90-day arrears on their mortgage repayments in Western Australia. That figure is second only to Victoria. The same RBA data shows that every state and territory is now experiencing increases in the number of households in 90-day arrears on their mortgages. This week, we had more bad news. That bad news is that Australian households are now fearing for their job security. Westpac's most recent consumer sentiment bulletin said: 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. Not so long ago, Australian families were saying to themselves: 'We don't like the cost-of-living pressures. We don't like the inflation challenge that the government chooses not to tackle, but we might just manage this because we've got job security.' Well, guess what? The safety of job security is no longer safe in the minds of many Western Australian households. People are fearing for their mortgages, fearing for the rising cost of living, fearing for the rising level of inflation, and now—according to Westpac's most recent consumer sentiment bulletin released this week—Australians and West Australians particularly are fearing for their jobs. They are now more fearful than they have been for a very long time about their job security. That pain is also being felt by businesses—2024 is starting to feel very much like 2008. Last year, over a thousand businesses became insolvent in Western Australia. That is twice as many as there were at the peak of the GFC in 2008. Western Australians are feeling vulnerable, and they can't understand why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers are hurting Western Australian families when just over two years ago they put their trust in Labor. That trust has been broken. That disappointment is turning to anger, and Labor is on notice in Western Australia. 15:23 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I feel like the strong overarching theme for today's questions from the opposition is hypocrisy. I'll just go through a couple of examples about why that is. I feel like the really obvious one is that we campaigned pretty hard to enshrine a voice in Constitution for First Nations people. Those opposite campaigned relentlessly against it in a pretty ugly way, and then they come in here lecturing us about listening to First Nations people when they denied just that. It is absolutely laughable that they are trying to lecture us about listening to First Nations people when we campaigned on just that. As someone who has worked with traditional owner groups to resolve conflicts in their groups and to repair relationships amongst family groups in traditional owner groups, I know firsthand the damage it does when politicians pick their favourites. That is exactly what's happening here. They are choosing to elevate the voices of some of the people that they think are more important in this place to get their political point across, and it's a disgrace because that will entrench generational conflict amongst families in New South Wales. That is what they are doing every time they get up and politicise this. The other point I make is we've heard that the minister made a decision speaking to the same traditional owner group about a go-kart track. We've heard those opposite laugh about that, saying it's not comparable. I don't know about you but I don't think that the value of cultural heritage decreases because the size of the project is more valuable. That's not how it works. The size of the project does not make the cultural heritage less significant. It is still worthy of protection. That is exactly the decision the minister has made. After Juukan Gorge, this side, the opposition and everyone in this parliament said, 'We can't allow things like that to happen again.' If we truly believe that we can't allow the destruction of cultural heritage in that way, then why wouldn't we be backing the decision of Minister Plibersek here? If those opposite have changed their position on how valuable cultural heritage is to our nation's identity and to First Nations people, they should come clean. We have an incredibly proud and rich history in this country that we should absolutely protect, and those opposite seem to be backflipping on that commitment. Another point of hypocrisy that I want to draw to the attention of the chamber is that those opposite say they care about the cost of living and the burden being felt by Australians across the country, but that is absolutely opposite to the actions they take in this place when they vote against every single cost-of-living measure we bring to this parliament. Those of us on this side understand the pressures facing working families. We have taken decisive action to make sure Australians get the relief they need, and those opposite are showing they could not care less; despite what they say, their actions demonstrate otherwise. We're rolling out tax cuts for every taxpayer, not just some, and energy rebates for every household, and we're helping to make rents cheaper for nearly one million households. We're finalising the rollout of 60-day dispensing for additional medicines. We're indexing payments for people on JobSeeker, the aged pension, the disability support pension, the carers payment and the parenting payment as well as Commonwealth rent assistance. We're doing all this in a responsible way that helps fight inflation—and those opposite have opposed all this. Those opposite want higher power prices, higher grocery prices, higher housing prices, higher taxes and lower wages; that is what their actions in this place have demonstrated. They've said they will cut $315 billion from the budget. That includes all the cost-of-living relief we've delivered. Where are these cuts coming from? Are they coming from our schools, roads, community services or social services? Those opposite need to own up to the Australian people. 15:28 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland One of the great traditions of politics in Australia is the scare campaign being run by the Labor Party. We witnessed that today in question time in response to the questions put by the coalition to Labor ministers. The scare campaign that we can see coming down through social media channels, free-to-air or, if you're old-fashioned, a newspaper is a $315 billion scare campaign that this so-called Labor government are going to run at the next election. They can't run on their record, because the record of the Labor Party in power shows a Labor Party who have failed to understand how the modern Australian economy works, how modern Australian businesses work and, indeed, how Australian workers work. We have the worst of the worst in this Labor Party—a party that is so focused on its own future it forgets about how normal Australians are living their lives. When the Labor Party are in power, they are focused on the bubble that is Canberra. It's only the Labor Party who would promise to employ an extra 24,000 public servants at a cost of $36 billion—public servants who will be employed in Canberra—as a solution to Australia's economic concerns at the moment. When you leave Canberra and you go to my home state of Queensland, I'll tell you what people are saying. They are not marching in the streets of Hughenden, Townsville or Cairns saying: 'What do we want? We want more public servants, and we want them now!' What they're saying is that they want a government that understands that the No. 1 issue impacting Australians is cost of living. But we've got a Labor Party government that has spent the last two years failing to address that issue. We've got a Labor Party that hadn't talked about the cost of living until a focus group that was being run by the general secretary of the Labor Party told them that cost of living is the No. 1 issue. Remember that this is the Labor Party who spent half a billion dollars on the divisive Voice referendum, rather than dealing with the cost-of-living issue. When you look at the figures under Labor, gas is up 33 per cent and electricity is up 14 per cent, and that's even after the taxpayer subsidies that the federal Labor Party and, in Queensland, the failing and flailing state Labor government have sent out. Rents are up 16 per cent, health costs are up 11 per cent, education costs are up 11 per cent, food costs are up 12 per cent, and finance and insurance costs are up 17 per cent. That's a lot of statistics there, but what that says is that people outside of Canberra are doing it tough. But, when you listen to the Labor Party, they're like the Marie Antoinette of modern government—'Let them eat cake'—or Harold Macmillan—'You've never had it so good.' They are tone deaf to what is happening in Australia at the moment. There's a reason why the Labor Party's polls are so low. They're lucky to have a 3 in front of their polling number, because the mob out there are angry. They're angry that they work hard. They're angry that their real wages have not gone up under this government. They're angry that the cost of living is going up, and they see a Labor Party who are not focused on the issues that they care about. Every day here in the Senate, we have a question time where Labor ministers thumb their noses not only at the accountability that is required of this institution but also at how Australians are doing it tough. I say to the Labor Party: call an election. Bring it on now. Please bring on an election now, and you will see how angry those Australians are. There is going to be an election in Queensland in 44 days time. My party, at a state level in Queensland, does not have a great record at winning state elections, but I will bet London to a brick that Steven Miles is not going to be the Premier after the coming election. Labor are going to get smashed, particularly in regional Queensland. We saw that on Tuesday of this week when not one Labor member went out and spoke to those farmers and other people from regional Queensland. The mob are cranky, and they're going to come after the Labor Party. Question agreed to. Middle East, Australian Defence Force: Afghanistan 72 15:33 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Shoebridge and Roberts today relating to defence exports and to defence honours. In the first answer we had from Senator Wong when we were asking questions about Australia's defence exports to and imports from Israel—simply asking for some clarification from the government about what, if anything, they've done to comply with international law—there were a number of extraordinary observations. The first related to questions we asked about the export of parts for the F-35 fighter jet, which we know is used by the Israel Defense Forces to commit atrocious war crimes in Gaza. That's really not a question open for debate. The images, the proof and the evidence are appallingly clear for everybody to see. The ICJ has said Australia should do everything it can to not in any way support the occupation of either Gaza or any of the other occupied territories. There are international obligations for us not to fuel war crimes or the crimes of genocide. I asked a very simple question: why hasn't Australia stopped exporting F-35 parts indirectly to Israel, through the United States? We know that's what they're doing, because the defence department has told us that in budget estimates. They have told us that, when they export F-35 fighter parts—and there are some 70 Australian companies that do this—they export them to a common pool in the United States, and with that export permit comes the explicit consent from Australia to then re-export them to all the partner countries in the F-35 program, and that explicitly includes Israel. So, every time Australia sends F-35 parts to a common pool in the United States, they come with Australia's explicit permission to then send them to Israel. And what did Minister Wong say about that? Not one word. Despite being asked about F-35 fighter parts, the minister chose not to respond to that. Again, we expect this sort of obfuscation and gaslighting from the Labor government when it comes to this, because it's obviously embarrassing to them when they say repeatedly that Australia has not sent any weapons or weapon parts to Israel. That's what Minister Wong says. And then, when the defence department tells us that Australia exports some 70 parts of the F-35 fighter jet to Israel via the United States, and they consciously and deliberately do that, people think the Labor government are lying—and that's because they are lying. They are absolutely lying. The fact that the minister couldn't even mention the F-35, despite being repeatedly asked about it, shows that this government knows that it's lying. It's not just that. There are companies in Australia, such as Bisalloy, which exports military grade steel to multiple Israeli weapons manufacturers. We know that Currawong Engineering received an award from the minister's own department for its export of drone parts to Israel, and it's exporting those drone parts to Israel only because it got a grant from Defence to make the drone parts in the first place. Her own department gave Currawong Engineering an award, and then she has the hide to stand up here and say, 'We don't know anything about exporting weapons or weapon parts to Israel.' Then we've got, from DroneShield, the drone gun that's been made only since April of last year in Australia—only made in Australia. That company is sharing images of that drone gun in the hands of an Israeli defence force member in Israel—also in the hands of Prime Minister Albanese. That's not awkward for the Albanese government to admit! What do they say? 'No, we've never helped the Israeli defence force.' It's just gaslighting of the worst kind. I finish on this other aspect. Another senator asked Minister Wong about the way the former Chief of Defence, General Campbell, has retained his medal for leading the Australian deployment in Afghanistan, despite the fact that we know that, during the time that he was leading the deployment in Afghanistan, he was never actually present in Afghanistan. He was doing it for another part of the Middle East, and he gave himself the DSC, gave himself a military medal for that, and then wrote the report. We now know Minister Wong said that he should keep his medal. They pretend that that's reasonable or decent. It's not. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Shoebridge, before I put the motion, can I just ask you to withdraw the word 'lying'. I'm trying to raise the standards of the chamber. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Sorry, I withdraw that. Question agreed to. BUDGET 73 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 73 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present additional information received by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee relating to estimates. The information was unavailable at the time of publishing . COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 73 Report 73 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report 8 of 2024. Additional Information 73 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into compulsory income management. DELEGATION REPORTS 74 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Malaysia 74 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Malaysia, which took place from 19 to 22 November 2023. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 74 Report 74 15:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales In relation to Human rights scrutiny report 8 of 2024, I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Deputy President, you and the chamber will recall that earlier this week, on behalf of the Greens, I moved a disallowance motion to regulations made under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 that removed the obligation on Australian Border Force personnel to take reasonable care of the safety or welfare of individuals they came into contact with in the course of Operation Sovereign Borders. You will recall the debate where, on behalf of the Greens, I made it clear that we as a political movement, having worked and continuing to work with multicultural Australia and refugee organisations, are appalled at the Labor government removing the obligation for people who intercept individuals seeking asylum to the north of this country to take reasonable care of the safety of those individuals—some of the most vulnerable people on the planet—in situations of genuine peril on the high seas. We could not believe that that was happening. The response we got from the Labor minister was derisory, as though Labor had never considered the human rights implications of removing those protections. We now have the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' report on this matter; it's just been tabled. The committee noted that disapplying certain provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 in relation to specified activities by Operation Sovereign Borders engages and may limit the rights to just and favourable conditions of work, life and security of the person. These are the concerns that the Greens raised and that were not even discussed or engaged with by Labor in their so-called defence of these appalling regulations. In the course of writing its report the human rights committee sought some justification from the Minister for Home Affairs, who had issued these regulations. To say that the response was underwhelming and nonresponsive is a generous characterisation of the minister's response to the committee. The committee speaks clearest itself: The committee notes the minister's advice that this legislative instrument is intended to ensure that personnel can combat people smuggling and irregular migration while protecting their own and others' safety in a uniquely dangerous environment. The committee considers that the continued application of the Commonwealth's overarching duty of care, and the additional legal and regulatory frameworks which apply to workplace safety, may assist with the compatibility of this measure with the rights to life and security of the person, and the right to just and favourable conditions of work. However, the committee considers that if those alternative mechanisms can continue to be applied, to ensure the safety of people engaged in or affected by boat push-backs at sea, without affecting Australia's national security, it is unclear why the particular work health and safety duties addressed by this measure therefore need to be disapplied. The committee considers that it remains unclear how disapplying specific parts of the Act is effective to achieve the stated objective of the measure, as no information was adduced to demonstrate that the disapplication of these duties to these boat interception activities has changed the behaviour of workers over 10 years, impacted the frequency of safety incidents, or otherwise influenced the overall outcomes of the activities. The committee goes on and says: … The committee considers that it is therefore unclear that this measure is rationally connected to (that is, effective to achieve) the stated objective. … The committee considers that the existence of other legal and regulatory mechanisms, and the requirement to notify Comcare of safety incidents, may serve as important safeguards that assist with the proportionality of disapplying these specific duties under the Act. However, the committee considers that it is not clear precisely what safeguard value they have in practice. … The committee therefore considers that there is a risk that this legislative instrument does not constitute a permissible limit on the rights to life, security of the person, and to just and favourable conditions of work in practice. It is, in polite committee speak, a shellacking of the government's alleged basis for these regulations. What the committee says, if you read the whole report, is that there was never a justification for these regulations and that they actually make it incredibly dangerous for people seeking asylum by impacting their right to life. A more fundamental right is hard to conceive of. It shows just how absolutely barren of value and principle the Labor Party are in the way they engaged in the debate on the disallowance of this regulation. They sought to minimise or ignore the human rights that they were trampling on when they issued this regulation. They sought to other people who were seeking asylum, and they did it for an ugly, narrow political purpose, which was evidenced by the discussion in the chamber. It was a shameful contribution from Labor. These are shameful regulations from Labor. It is to this chamber's discredit that they didn't disallow those regulations. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, the Environment and Water, Department of Veterans' Affairs 75 Consideration 75 15:47 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of documents 14 and 15 on page 7 of the Notice Paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. PETITIONS 75 PETITIONS Middle East 75 15:47 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I table a nonconforming petition that calls on the government to impose targeted sanctions on Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet in line with the government's obligations under international law. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Agency 75 Consideration 75 15:48 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the government response to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. Australian Human Rights Commission 75 15:48 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the Women in native title—Native title report 2024 on page 7 of the Notice Paper. I rise to speak on the Australian Human Rights Commission's Women in native title—Native title report 2024. 'Bullied, treacherous and littered with violence'—these are the words of Indigenous women talking about native title. 'Oppressive, ostracising, filled with fear, anxiety, paranoia, fighting, carry-on and abuse'—this is the language of Indigenous women in the latest native title report of the Human Rights Commission, talking about native title. The motion Senator Lambie, Senator Thorpe and I put to the chamber this week was simple: let's talk about native title from the perspective of the very people it is designed to provide rights and interests for. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Australian Greens, the Labor Party and some of the Independents did not vote for the motion. It's remarkable, isn't it? There's all that evidence and yet they still said no. They said not to the evidence of native title negotiations that contribute to bullying, harassment, violence and intimidation, no to the impact of the physical or economic exclusion of individuals by the prescribed bodies corporate who are the point of contact for anybody wanting to engage in developments and no to the evidence in this very report presented in this chamber. Instead, they're ignoring it or—worse—responding with an excuse of consultation fatigue and that the inquiry would use up resources. Who told them there was consultation fatigue and that it would use up so many resources? It wasn't those women and men who were walking the halls this week in this very parliament. It wasn't the overwhelming evidence in the many, many reports that tell them there are issues that need exploring—and not from the land councils' perspective. If the land councils were really interested in making a difference, improving lives and closing the gap, they would be doing much more, and so would their leadership, elected or otherwise, about people with criminal records or people that actually engage in the type of behaviour that is described in this report. These issues of youth crime and violence against women, children and the vulnerable languish when good people do nothing, when people choose to ignore in silence. What they did was listen to the voices of those who work in or represent the very organisations this report is talking about—the land councils, the NTRBs and the PBCs. They wrongly ignore the people that those organisations exist to represent. It's astounding that the Labor Party would say that Indigenous people are at risk of consultation fatigue. Well, this is what they said in that report. Page 80 talks of violence fuelled by native title representative bodies. Page 98 talks about prescribed bodies corporate enabling violence and conflict. Page 177 talks of the misuse of power by dominant men in leadership positions, some of whom are known perpetrators of violence against women and children. It's throughout the report. The women have talked courageously of being bullied when they've demanded transparency and accountability. This week the government, the Australian Greens and those Independents that voted against it ignored all of that. But the claims of the powerful land councils reverberated. They were amplified by the government's response and their remarks. Aboriginal women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised than others, six times more likely to die as a result of family violence and 30 times more likely to be hospitalised from injury. Surely, with all the discussions about respectful relationships, the public outcry about violence against women and the investment in ending family violence, they would get this? Native title is not a safe space. Why are they providing protection to those who don't provide a safe space or safe place? I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 76 COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Work and Care Select Committee 76 Government Response to Report 76 15:56 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to take note of the government's response to the Select Committee on Work and Care interim and final reports. The 2022 inquiry that I chaired on work and care made 33 recommendations aimed at revolutionising our workplace laws so Australians, and particularly women, can better balance their work and care responsibilities. At the time, Labor supported the recommendations, and now, more than 12 months on, Labor's done all too little to address the plight of working people taking care of others while they're at work in Australia. The Albanese government 'noted'—which in political speak is tantamount to rejecting—almost half the recommendations aimed at improving working conditions, the quality of jobs and gender equity in this country. In other words, they've said no to much of our evidence based recommendations. The government said no to delivering 52 weeks paid parental leave to hardworking Australian parents. That is the OECD average. Instead, families are forced to make life-altering financial sacrifices when they choose to have children in this country, and some are pushed to remain childless or to have fewer children than they would otherwise choose. The government seems to be under the illusion that parents can easily find and afford quality child care for their babies and head straight back to full-time work. The reality is that almost one in four live in childcare deserts and almost two in three parents in this country find the cost of child care a barrier to access. Yet Labor continue to kick the can down the road on fixing child care and have ignored the Greens' recommendations calling for free, universal, quality, place based childcare. In addition, in their response the government have said no to giving the millions of casual workers in Australia access to paid sick and annual leave. If the pandemic taught us anything, it should be that getting sick is not optional but spreading disease is. Casual workers are no different, and in fact they're often the least able to afford a day off when they are under the weather. How can Labor call itself a party of the workers and also consign 2.6 million workers to turning up at the office or other workplace with the flu, an infection or an injury? In their response, the government have said no to the Greens' call for a national four-day week trial. The national and global momentum for reducing working hours so that workers can put together their job and their care for others at full pay is taking off. Businesses are trialling shorter working weeks, and they've reported improved work-life balance for workers, increased productivity and retention benefits. The Albanese government won't even entertain the idea of trialling and evaluating this model of work. Just wait. The four-day workweek is inevitable. It will come and, when the Greens fight and win this for Australians—many of whom are already experiencing its benefits—Labor will be claiming it as their policy, just like they did on the right to disconnect, which we Greens worked so hard to win for Australian workers. Workers who have caring responsibilities make a great contribution to this country and to the economy by providing unpaid and paid care to children, the elderly and people with disability. We need to protect the ability of people to look after their loved ones while also holding down a paid job, not making it impossible for them to do both. Employers will always want to maximise their profits, but this cannot be done at the expense of workers' conditions, their pay and their economic security. The economy should be sustainably shaped for working people, not around the narrow economic needs of workplaces, employers and business lobby groups. The government's response to the Work and Care Select Committee report shows Australian voters that the Greens have a plan with specific recommendations that can transform our work and care regime, improving outcomes for women, for men and for children. So far, Labor has chosen not to act, and they've left too much essential work undone. There is so much more to do to make a difference for citizens. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia Select Committee 77 Government Response to Report 77 16:01 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The dental inquiry went right to the heart of the cost-of-living crisis. So many in our community are suffering or have loved ones who are suffering because of their inability to access oral health care. Dental health care in this country is not universal. You can't use your Medicare card to get access to the care that you need. Oral health care and dental health care is based on class. How much money have you in your bank account? How much debt can you take on? These are the barriers to accessing oral and dental health care. These are the barriers that sit between you and getting the health care that you need. When it comes to dental and oral health care in Australia, what matters is your bank card, not your Medicare card. This is a complete Americanisation of a part of our healthcare system, and it is leaving so many without the care that they need. Politicians in this place may well try to brush this reality away. Doing so has severe consequences: heart disease, systemic infection, chronic pain and tens of thousands of preventable emergency room admissions. We have thousands of Australians who cannot find $250 at any single moment. That is the average cost of seeing the dentist. Australians expect that health care is available for free for those who need it when they need it most. This expectation is not being met. Both major parties have overseen the Americanisation of our healthcare system and the gutting of its core value of universal access. The Australian Greens want to change that. We have a plan to make dental care free. You would be able to go to your dentist using only your Medicare card. Parents will no longer have to choose between food on the table and getting their kids to the dentist, between braces and books, or ending up in the emergency room when they could have just seen the dentist. The simple truth is: nothing changes if nothing changes. The major parties in this place do not care about getting people to see the dentist. We must show them at the ballot box that we want free and universal dental care. That means voting for the Greens to kick out the duopoly of the Liberal and Labor parties. Debate adjourned. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 77 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Australian Defence Force: Afghanistan 77 16:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Mr Marles, I table a statement concerning the closure of the Afghanistan inquiry report. 16:06 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. (Quorum formed) MOTIONS 78 MOTIONS Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 78 16:09 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) recognises that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide Final Report demonstrates that successive governments have failed to support service personnel and their families; and (b) calls on the Government to urgently publish a comprehensive timeline outlining the implementation of all recommendations of the final report, ensuring that reforms for service personnel and their families are carried out in a timely and effective manner. I don't think anyone in Australia would disagree with the first part of my motion today. Governments have been failing our veterans for decades. Not only have they failed our veterans; they have failed their families. Over the last 40 years, nearly 60 reports and 750 recommendations have been largely ignored, and Defence was still refusing to hand over documents to the royal commission whilst it was ongoing. The work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide must be a game changer. Defence and the government cannot be allowed to cherrypick the recommendations that work for them. All the recommendations need to be carefully examined and implemented as soon as possible. If Minister Keogh and Minister Marles are serious about making real change for our veterans, then they need urgently to get on with publishing a timeline for the recommendations. Here's a tip—because you could start with this tomorrow: I would start with the 18 recommendations that go straight to the conduct and operation of the military justice system, the Inspector-General of Australian Defence Force, the IGADF. Minister Marles knows all about the IGADF; he's been sitting on a report that was delivered to him six months ago—three months to write a report and six months to sit on it. The military justice system is there to make sure that veterans placed under investigation are treated fairly. In other words, it's there to make sure veterans get justice. But the military justice system has failed to deliver justice for veterans since it started over 20 years ago. Rather than delivering justice and looking after our serving men and women, the chain of command has misused and abused the legal processes to target veterans, and the IGADF signed off on those abuses, often while still reviewing cases. It was only after lawyers, often acting pro bono, managed to have the IGADF reviews reviewed that the cases were found to be an abuse of process and an attack on our veterans. Recommendation 30 from the royal commission's final report goes straight to the heart of this, naming their weaponisation of the military justice system and noting that serving personnel were incorrectly charged and that, when a defending officer made representations to get the charges dropped, they themselves were persecuted, destroying their careers. Here are just a couple of recent examples. A soldier—let's call him Tom—had completed multiple combat tours in the Middle East. Tom put in a complaint about his chain of command. An inquiry officer was appointed, but, instead of holding senior officers to account, the inquiry officer exonerated the chain of command, made adverse findings against Tom and referred his case to the IGADF for review. In other words, they referred it to their mates—because that's how it works—for a review. Would you believe—yes, sadly, I do—that the IGADF backed in the inquiry officer's findings and upheld the adverse findings against Tom? After years of fighting this, Tom retained the services of Dr Kolomeitz and went back to the IGADF and demanded an independent review of the original review. The IGADF ignored Dr Kolomeitz's repeated calls for another look at Tom's case, so Dr Kolomeitz was forced to call them out in the media to get their attention. Finally, the IGADF looked more closely at Tom's case and came back and said, 'Yes, the original findings were terribly wrong.' Tom received a pathetically small amount of money, nothing that would fix the torment and metal health impacts he has had to endure. Let me give you another example. Another multiple-tour combat veteran—let's call him Fred—left the Army, went to the Army Reserve and became a tactical police officer. Fred was subjected to an ongoing weaponised administration process by his chain of command. When Fred went to the IGADF, they did nothing, but when the chain of command found out they took more adverse actions against Fred. The adverse actions they can take include everything from a note on your personnel file to rank determination and losses in pay. Fred also went and found Dr Kolomeitz, who had each action overturned, but then—wait for it—the chain of command took away Fred's rank. It just keeps getting better! Fred only found out after looking up his personnel file on the Army's computer system. Dr Kolomeitz and Fred went back to the Army again and questioned this decision. Army was made to give him back his rank. They handed Fred his rank slide with one hand and a moment later handed him his termination of service. This is how we deal with whistleblowers in the military: we brick them, do whatever we can, give them one thing and then take the other until we've worn them down to nothing. That's what the military justice abuse system, as I like to call it, does to our military members, especially those of lower rank. Dr Kolomeitz took this up. He took it as far as the Army headquarters, but instead of looking at the chain of command—once again, never look at the chain of command, God forbid!—and their clearly inappropriate behaviour in Fred's case, they appointed an inquiry officer to look at what had happened but excluded putting the conduct of any individual in the frame. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the military justice system know all about this case and still have done nothing. Three years at a royal commission—they should have spent more time working on this case rather than trying to intimidate me at the royal commission and bringing in the heavy hitters, because that is what they are about. They are disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Dr Kolomeitz, like other lawyers out there, has dealt with soldiers who were subjected to acts of indecency. When they reported this, investigations were either not forthcoming or bungled. We're not just talking about one or two here; there are hundreds of them. Many others are aware of serving members who have committed sexual assault, including rape, who are still serving. I was aware when I went through the 33 folders of defence abuse, which were just startlingly disgraceful, and saw the names in there that I had known of those people when I was serving and before I got out. Do you know what I find more distressing than anything? It's that simply nothing came out of all of that—Dr Gary Rumble 's report or anything like that. I found out that those senior command officers never asked to see those 33 folders of defence abuse. They didn't want to see them because they didn't want to fix it, and I think that says it all. Have any of them lost pay, rank, anything else or their careers? No, absolutely not. Gary Rumble's review in 2006 had a list of recommendations that would have fixed any issues, but, like everything else, the report was ignored. Recommendation 44 was also directed at the IGADF. It suggests the military justice system should develop a workforce plan that includes a review of necessary skills, expertise and qualifications. Wow! Imagine making these decisions on veterans' lives and you don't have qualifications. What a shameful act! It absolutely blows me away. How can a professional organisation not already have a plan to make sure that people who are investigating are properly qualified? You wonder why you have problems with the military justice system and its abuse. The next recommendation, No. 45, should be at the top of Minister Marles' to-do list. It says that the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force should improve the transparency and accountability of their office—imagine that our own legal system in Defence can't be transparent and accountable; it's frightening that's where we've got to—by making clear its standard operating procedures and setting key performance indicators related to the timeliness of assessments. In other words, they need to give veterans some idea of how long a review or inquiry will take, because that will determine whether or not it will tip a veteran over the edge, and not just leave them in limbo, in some cases for months and years, on their decision-making. Again, you would think this would be an obvious thing to fix, especially for an organisation that is supposed to mete out justice. But I don't think that is the IGADF's main role. I think its main purpose is to cover up for senior command. Well, no more; this has to stop. The fact that the royal commissioners targeted 18 of their recommendations at the military justice system should be enough of a wake-up call. I'd say the military justice system is cooked. It is cooked; it is finished. It's over. On Monday, when the final report was tabled, Defence Minister Marles said: We have been working to deliver real change each and every day. He also said: We will now work through the recommendations in a timely and methodical matter. That's government spin, you veterans, for saying that they'll get around to it. Just so you know, that's the normal spin up here. That's how it works. You would think that they would have had some sort of time line. They were given an interim report. They had people sitting in during the royal commission. They would have been picking up on this. You have had to ask: what have we been paying these people for, whether they are from DVA or Defence, to sit in at every one of these public royal commission meetings, and they haven't got a timeline? I find that quite disgraceful, to be honest. It's not that difficult. You've got 122 recommendations. All that stuff came out during the royal commission. So, as much as I'd like to give you veterans some hope before the weekend, I'm just not going to do that, because I can't. It's not good enough. The government, Minister Marles and Minister Keogh, like I said, have been quite aware of this report coming. It has come to the point where, though I should not have to, I am going to put forward a motion to push them along. They should have been ready with some sort of timeline. Instead of doing that, Minister Marles released his response to the Brereton inquiry, stripping some senior command of the citations but not touching the generals. Once again, the top brass gets off the hook. If Minister Marles and Minister Keogh really meant all those nice things they said in the meeting with the veteran community on Monday, then they will get on with publishing that timeline and reassuring the veteran community that they are serious about honouring their service and caring for our veterans. I do notice, so you veterans know about the spin stuff, that the government has tried to change my motion, just so we're all very aware of that. I had called on the government to: … urgently publish a comprehensive timeline outlining the implementation of all recommendations of the final report, ensuring that reforms for service personnel and their families are carried out in a timely and effective manner. To get the government of Australia to vote for this motion, they have changed that and watered it down. This is what they put. They need these words so they look pretty. The amended motion: … calls on the Government to urgently work towards publicly releasing its response to all recommendations of the Final Report, to ensure that the recommended reforms aimed at supporting service personnel and their families can be implemented in a timely and effective manner. So I would just say to you, veterans: take a deep breath. I can assure you that, if you thought the fight was on during the royal commission, the fight begins today. The fight begins today for justice for you. And it's going to be a really rocky road. I don't think it has been helpful that with all the emotional stuff of putting that royal commission out on Monday—all that emotional stuff that they're still trying to deal with a couple of days later—you come out and the best thing you can do is say, 'Hey, we've got nine people we're going to take citations off when it comes to the alleged war crimes.' Jesus, that was a nice slap in the face! Thanks for coming! And the veterans are going: 'How come? What's happened to the generals?' There's no responsibility for them either. This is not helpful. I have to ask why you would have kept this thing for four years to look at it, and you released it. Which idiot decided to release that today? Do you know how harmful that has been today? You couldn't wait till the next sitting? Seriously, you just don't get it. This is what bothers me more than anything. You would never have pulled an act like that today. That is shameful. If I lose one veteran's life over the weekend because of this, I expect the resignation of your defence minister. What a stupid thing to do today. How hurtful! Don't worry, the generals and the top end have done you over. They've been doing you over for years. We're going to do you and throw you diggers under the bus with the alleged war crimes as well and hold none of them big boys accountable. Straight across their face—here we go! She's on—honestly! She starts Monday. It all starts Monday. You'll realise on Monday why. It's coming at you, and I'm coming at you. The gloves are off. It's going to be a fight from hell, but it is a fight I'm not moving from. I won't move today, and I won't move tomorrow. For you veterans out there, some of us in this chamber have your back. Don't you forget that. Hold tight, because we have you. 16:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales On behalf of the Greens, I join with Senator Lambie in supporting this motion. I want, at the outset, to acknowledge Senator Lambie's ongoing work and courage in this space. You heard just some of it in that contribution. This isn't a moment in time. Anyone who had been watching the work to establish the royal commission and then the work since the royal commission couldn't help but acknowledge Senator Lambie's courage and her commitment in this space, and I just want to reflect that at the commencement of my contribution. Of course, Senator Lambie is not working in a vacuum. The mums and dads, the family members, the partners and the parents have been extraordinary too. I could start a list, but I won't. You know who you are, and I'm enormously grateful to you. I don't know how they keep doing it in circumstances of personal and family loss, like they have, but on my part there's utter respect—that's what they have. I think we need to find a proper amount of time to go through the 122 recommendations and to really tease out what's required in response to the royal commission. I don't pretend the contribution I'm going to make now is in any way a complete response, or that it even pretends to be a complete response, to the royal commission, but I'll say in relation to the royal commission that the chair and the two commissioners, between them, behaved with incredible dignity and generosity. They gave Defence and the government, the ministers, incredible amounts of procedural fairness. It was procedural fairness that I don't think I could have given them, given what I'd heard from veterans and communities—given what I'd heard about the disrespect that had been shown to veterans; given what I'd heard about the brutal, dehumanising process that so many veterans had gone through, sometimes in service but then, for many of them, aggravated once they'd left service. But the chair and the two commissioners, to their eternal credit, provided that procedural fairness. They provided a platform of dignity so that their 122 recommendations are on an incredibly solid foundation. There is just one recommendation that I want to talk about in this contribution, and it's the final recommendation, recommendation 122 in the report. That's because recommendation 122 in the report reflects what the commissioners heard. They'd heard about the dozens and dozens of reports that previously had been done where nothing changed. They'd heard about the hundreds of recommendations—in fact thousands of recommendations, if you add them all up—that had been made where nothing had changed. That's because Defence is like 'the empire that strikes back'. Whenever you think you've had a win against it, the machine rolls on. The empire rolls on and just gobbles up or steamrolls its opponents. It just rolls over any dissidents like a sort of multibillion dollar monster. I can't think of a minister who has tried to stand up to it in any effective way, but if any had they would have been rolled over as well. In particular, veterans, injured veterans and people inside the service who are trying to make change just get steamrolled by the empire as it strikes back. Recommendation 122 recognises that. It says that this report and these recommendations are only as good as the political will, the power and the processes that are put in place to actually implement them this time. It is not just saying you care, not just acknowledging the veterans' pain but putting in place some kind of independent statutory body to oversee and ensure politicians are held to account, the government is held to account, this place is held to account—Senator Lambie and I and all of us are held to account—and senior leadership in Defence are held to account so that we actually implement the other 121 recommendations. What the government could do if it wanted to build a bridge with veterans would be to say today—it could have said it on Monday, when the report was released, but it could say it today or first thing next week—that the government will commit to implementing recommendation 122 in full. It will establish this independent body, with independent statutory power, to make sure this time that the report doesn't just gather dust, that the recommendations are implemented. If they committed to that early next week, that would play a big part in building a bridge to veterans so that they felt they had some comfort, felt they had some kind of assurance that this time something would change. And I'd urge them to do that. If they did that—I can't speak for Senator Lambie, but I'll say for our party—we will acknowledge and respect that from the government, because it'll show an intent to actually implement it this time. In closing, I can't help but endorse Senator Lambie's observation that in the same week that we get the veterans royal commission handed down, and veterans feel that they might be being listened to and might be being respected and may actually be at the centre of this place's considerations, the government chooses to close and shut down the Brereton response and to bring all of that back for veterans—in the very same week. Veterans feel that this is another incident where the leadership has got off scot-free, that there's zero accountability for the leadership. That's what the government's shutting down of the Brereton response says. It says that there's zero accountability for leadership; they're all just going to get off scot-free, keep their medals, keep their promotions, keep their pensions—walk free—in the same week. How did they think that was a decent response? It's so obviously wrong. So, when Senator Lambie makes her impassioned contribution at the end, from her perspective as a veteran, how could the government have not realised that that would be the response, not just from Senator Lambie but from so many veterans? It's so wrong, so disrespectful. But I say this to the government: build a bridge. Show that you actually get it this time, and you can do that by coming in on Monday morning next week and saying you'll implement recommendation 122, and that'll be the pathway to the other 121. 16:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Let's listen to words to my Senate office team today from a brave ADF veteran with a distinguished record of serving our country and now serving veterans across the country. He opens with a quote from British judge Sturgess: 'Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel.' Announcing this cart-before-the-horse decision today, just three days after the release of the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide and a day after the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—a day that forever changed the lives of these men and women—and on R U Okay Day in Australia is nothing short of cruel. Still, the motives are clear: to divert attention from the failures of Defence Force leadership and from the government and once again shift the blame onto a few men from the SASR who were in action. The timing is no coincidence. It's a calculated move to protect those at the top while scapegoating those who served on the front lines. If medals are to be revoked from those at the tactical and operational levels for their soldiers' alleged war crimes from allegations from over a decade ago, ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanders in charge at the time. Accountability should start at the top, with those who approved the missions and made the strategic decisions. Without holding senior leadership accountable, this action becomes nothing more than scapegoating those on the ground. Accountability must start at the top. Let's keep going with the ADF veteran's words: 'Accountability in the military is paramount. Yet what we have witnessed is the pre-emptive punishment of a few and a violation of due process. The chain of command ensures accountability at every level, meaning that responsibility for success and failure is shared.' Just my own comment: in business and in sport, accountability is the fundamental quality. Going back to the ADF veteran: 'Therefore, generals who commanded during these periods, these men, are set to lose their honours and awards. From the commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force, officers who for the most part did not see action but wear medals suggesting they did should face the same pre-emptive punishment. Stripping medals from senior officers reinforces command responsibility and ensures leadership is held accountable for their decisions in command. It upholds fairness and integrity, demonstrating that no-one is above accountability.' He goes on: 'Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) establishes the principle of command responsibility, holding military commanders criminally liable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or should have known, and failed to prevent or punish them. The statute places a clear duty on commanders to control their forces, and failure to do so makes them legally responsible for their subordinates' actions. In light of this, if soldiers are to be held accountable for alleged war crimes, the same standard must apply to the commanders in charge at the time—from the Commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force. Command responsibility dictates that leadership cannot be insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Yet, after 10 years, the fact remains: no-one has been convicted of war crimes. 'This tone-deaf statement and its timing send a clear message from the top of the Defence Force and government. It shows they've learned nothing from the declining recruitment and retention rates, the public's outrage over ADF's bloated staff ranks and their untouchable status, or the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide. Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.' That's the end of the quote from that distinguished ADF veteran. He still feels intense loyalty to the defence forces, despite what's happened. His finished there with: 'Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.' Why should he care—he is out? I'll tell you why he cares. It is because he cares about this country, as well as about the ADF, the veterans and those still serving. That's why this is so important. This affects culture, which is our ADF's secret weapon. It is its most powerful strategic weapon. I'm not going to talk at length about that; I've talked about it before. Think about the culture in the Defence Force now. We've learned, apparently, that the royal commission didn't expect Defence to stonewall vital information and keep it from the royal commission. Why? Surely, it's better to be open and lance the boil? No, they stonewalled. But, then again, we've now learned that three months ago a coordination officer from Defence was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding outcomes in working with the royal commission. That begs the question: in Defence's eyes, what are 'outstanding outcomes'? Here are some questions I asked in question time of Senator Wong—for whom I have a lot of regard—representing the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles. I began by saying: Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell. Then I asked her: Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell 's command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them? I didn't get a satisfactory response. Then, as a second question, I began with: Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability. The minister disagreed with me on that, to be fair. I continued with: The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined. That was the implementation oversight report. So I asked the minister: Why are Defence's most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel's advice? I didn't get a satisfactory answer. My final question began: Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be 'in action', meaning in direct contact with an enemy— Facing the enemy, being fired upon by the enemy, having actual engagement— yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action. I asked her: Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award? Why indeed! I've asked that question before in Senate estimates and got nowhere. We will continue. We see that Labor is now moving an amendment to Senator Lambie's motion. My brief reading of it is that the government is watering down Senator Lambie's fine motion, which calls on the government to 'urgently publish' a comprehensive timeline. The government now wants to water that down with an amendment that calls on the government to 'urgently work towards' this. There is no commitment. So I want to thank Senator Lambie for this motion. I want to thank her for her work and for speaking strongly for veterans and enlisted people. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge, who has left the chamber, but nonetheless I thank him for his work as well. I'll finish by saying that our most powerful strategic weapon is the Australian Defence Force culture. That includes mateship and accountability—very, very strong. I've heard about it from many sailors, airmen and soldiers. They respect it and they understand the power of it. I've heard it from officers. I've heard it from veterans. I've heard it from enlisted ranks. We've been watching it unravel for years, listening to soldiers, airmen, sailors, officers, enlisted men and women and veterans. It's unravelling, yet it's the key to our defence forces. This is a prize that must be guarded with reverence, yet at Senate estimates I'm disappointed to see that the senior brass don't seem to understand it. Implementation of the recommendations of this royal commission must be sincere, meaningful and informed to restore accountability and to restore culture in the Australian defence forces. We will be watching, as I'm sure Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and others will be. This is the house of review. As representatives of the people we serve, we will be watching and holding the government accountable. We also serve veterans and current forces because they have served us and our country with distinction. We serve all the people of Australia, and that's why we will be watching to see their implementation of this royal commission. 16:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I flag at the outset that I will be moving an amendment as circulated. I would like to acknowledge all of the speakers in the debate so far on what is a very serious topic. The rate of veteran suicide in Australia is a national tragedy, and that's why Labor supported the establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide when we were in opposition. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has confirmed some 1,677 known cases of suicide among serving and ex-serving personnel between 1997 and 2021. Now, three years and hundreds of submissions later, the final report of the royal commission has been delivered to the government and tabled in the parliament. The report is an important body of work which marks the culmination of the most significant and comprehensive inquiry conducted into suicide and suicidality in the defence and veteran communities. The report is comprehensive. It is some seven volumes long, containing more than 3,100 pages and 122 recommendations. We're already putting in the work to properly understand and consider the recommendations and the detail behind them. In August 2022, the interim report of the royal commission was delivered to government, and we took swift action on all of its recommendations. In delivering the government response to the interim report, on 26 August 2022, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs delivered an apology. Here is what he said: It is a great tragedy that the Australian Government, successive Australian Governments, have failed those who have served our nation. Governments have also failed the families of those people, families who have carried a heavy burden of their own through the pain and suffering they have experienced. …   …   … Unfortunately, in some cases, the policies, processes and cultures that have evolved in Defence and DVA over time have been counterproductive, causing distress to our Defence and Veteran communities. The Royal Commission's Interim Report is replete with examples. It is clear that things are not right. On behalf of the Australian Government, I say, sorry. The government will now consider the final report and its recommendations and respond in due course after appropriate consideration. The government received this report on Monday. The relevant ministers are working through that now so that we can respond as quickly as we can to all of these recommendations so that the entire community across Australia and, of course, serving personnel, veterans and families can have clarity around what we will be doing in response to this royal commission to improve the lives of people currently serving, as well as those that have served and their families. Thank you to everyone who helped campaign for and who contributed to the royal commission for their bravery in sharing their often harrowing stories about their own experience in service. I also thank those who have given a voice to loved ones no longer able to share their story. Over the course of this inquiry, I personally had the opportunity to meet a small number of family members of veterans who had taken their lives. I know the incredible work that they undertook to put this issue on the agenda and to campaign for better treatment of our veterans and their families. On a personal level, I thank those people as well. The government also thanks the commissioners for a thorough and compassionate inquiry. All serving and ex-serving ADF personnel and their families should know that, if they need support, they can contact Open Arms for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, on 1800011046 or, of course, they can visit the Open Arms website, www.openarms.gov.au. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Watt be agreed to. As it's after 4:30 pm, the division will be deferred to a time that is suitable for the Senate, probably on Monday. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 84 ADJOURNMENT QPNG GOLD Netball Club, Papua New Guina: Independence Day 84 16:46 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to congratulate my Wantoks at the QPNG GOLD Netball Club for the 10th anniversary of the establishment of that club. Senators here may be aware of the fact I lived and worked in Papua New Guinea between 1999 and 2001 and have a deep abiding affection for the people of Papua New Guinea and the diaspora in my home state of Queensland. So I was very happy to be able to go along to the celebration of this wonderful netball club, the QPNG GOLD Netball Club, as it celebrated its 10th anniversary. This netball club was established so that it could participate in what's referred to as the Challenge of the Nations Netball Tournament, where Pasifika countries, like Tonga, Vanuatu, Samoa and Fiji, are represented in a netball tournament over the course of two weeks. All the countries of the Pacific have teams there based on diasporas in my home state of Queensland, and it's a wonderful event, which is coming up to its 10th anniversary. I look forward to making a contribution in this place following the 10th tournament of the Challenge of the Nations Netball Tournament. I'd like to pay my deep abiding respects to the current president of the QPNG GOLD Netball Club, President Helen Edwards, all of the current and previous committee members of the club, the coaches, the volunteers and the players. I'd also like to pay my deep respect to Mr Peter Aitsi, who is the president of Transparency International PNG and was a guest speaker at the 10th anniversary function. Transparency International, as I know you're aware, Acting Deputy President O'Neill, is a very important non-government organisation which is at the forefront of fighting corruption all over the world. Peter does a wonderful job leading that organisation in Papua New Guinea and is an outstanding leader in Papua New Guinea and quite inspirational for the players who were in attendance at that function. In that regard, I should note that, as current chair of Transparency International PMG, he follows in the footsteps of a great Papua New Guinean who I knew when I was living and working in Papua New Guinea, Sir Anthony Siaguru. He was a public servant, a lawyer and the founding chair of Transparency International in Papua New Guinea and a wonderful Papua New Guinean. One of the highlights of the evening was the presentation by an emerging PNG Pepes athlete—Pepes is the name of the PNG netball team—Yves Chee. She gave a wonderful presentation. She's actually gone on to represent Papua New Guinea after joining the QPNG GOLD Netball Club and discovering and celebrating her Papua New Guinean heritage. She gave a wonderful presentation at the function. To all my Wantoks at the QPNG GOLD Netball Club: congratulations on your 10th anniversary. I look forward to seeing you in action at the Challenge of the Nations Netball Tournament. Before we have that, we have Independence Day for Papua New Guinea, which is 16 September every year, recognising the independence of PNG which came into effect in 1975. I'm sure I'll see many of my Wantoks at Bill Norris Oval in Beenleigh as we all get together to celebrate the Independence Day of PNG, a country which is close to us not just geographically but in our hearts and in our spirits. Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 84 16:50 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania If anyone thought it was an oversight in 2013 when the Gillard Labor government removed the definition of 'woman' from the Sex Discrimination Act and destroyed the rights of women to have single-sex services, spaces and sports, today showed once and for all that it was no accident. Not only did the Labor Party deliberately turn the act designed to protect women into one designed to punish women; today they teamed up with the Greens to block any possibility in this parliament of fixing the act to protect women. Mr Albanese, as the Leader of the Labor Party, and Mr Adam Bandt, as the Leader of the Australian Greens, are dictating to 13 million Australian women and girls that we are not allowed to have single-sex services or spaces. They are dictating that a woman elected to this parliament is not even allowed to introduce a bill that attempts to restore the rights that women and girls used to have under the Sex Discrimination Act. In the 2022 election campaign Anthony Albanese was asked directly what a woman is. His answer at the time was delivered promptly and correctly: 'An adult female.' When he was seeking the vote of women he unequivocally said that a woman is an adult female. But today his government, along with the Greens, blocked the introduction of a bill that attempted to confirm in law that a woman is a member of the female sex. They claimed it was dangerous for the parliament to even be able to debate a bill which would have clarified exactly the same position that the Prime Minister himself pretended to agree with two years ago. I have been trying for years to warn that the Sex Discrimination Act is broken. I warned that the sex based exemptions that were written into the act specifically to protect single-sex sports and services for women and girls were impossible to rely on because the Gillard amendments had upended the definition of 'sex' so that 'woman' can mean 'an adult male' and 'sex' is apparently based on the clothes you wear and what a state government lets you put as your preferred gender on your driver's licence. But people like the Prime Minister and smug, condescending left-wing men around this country said: 'No, ignore her. She doesn't know what she's talking about, and it's not important anyway.' Now, in the Tickle v Giggle case, we have seen a court in this country confirm that it is exactly how I said it is. We saw the Human Rights Commission and the Federal Court say that human beings can change their sex, and your sex is determined not by your biology but by the clothes you wear and how you identify. The result was that a woman has been punished and fined for operating a single-sex app for women and trying to stop a man from intruding into it. For years after the Gillard government removed the rights of Australian women and girls to single-sex sports and spaces, Labor was still pretending this wasn't the case. When I presented the Sex Discrimination and Other Legislation Amendment (Save Women's Sport) Bill 2022 to the Senate—a bill to make sure that offering single-sex female sport couldn't be found to be unlawful—the Prime Minister claimed it wasn't necessary because there was already an exemption for single-sex sport. Now we know that that exemption can't be relied upon because a biological male can be considered legally female for the purposes of the act, rendering the exemption useless. The government cannot claim they didn't know this because the Federal Court and the Human Rights Commission have told them very clearly that a biological male can be considered legally female and force his way into any space, service or sport intended for females. We learned today in this chamber, when their parties blocked any hope of fixing the act in this parliament, that Mr Albanese and Mr Bandt support and encourage every single perverse outcome for women that this enables. When a dangerous male sex offender and a child rapist identifies into a women's prison, Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt support that. When a 16-year-old girl takes to the rugby or football field and realises she will be up against adult males, Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt support that. And when a woman is punished and dragged through the courts even for telling the truth—that a man is not a woman—Anthony Albanese, our Prime Minister, and the Australian Labor Party are the reason why. Australian Labor Party: Life Membership 85 16:55 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on a matter that is close to my heart: the recognition of three remarkable individuals who have been awarded life membership in the Australian Labor Party's Tasmanian branch. They are Lyn Taylor, Betty Pilgrim and Bill Lowe. Life membership is the highest honour given to those that have shown unwavering loyalty and distinguished service to the party over many years. These are individuals whose commitment, service and dedication to the Labor cause have left a lasting impact on our party and the communities they serve. Let me begin by acknowledging Lyn Taylor. Lyn's journey within the Labor Party began in 1970 as a young, passionate nurse driven by her vision for an egalitarian society. Throughout her years of service, Lyn's advocacy on mental health reform, women's rights, Indigenous rights and anti-war efforts have been both tireless and inspiring. Moving to Tasmania in 1982, she has remained deeply engaged in the Labor movement and has made invaluable contributions to the Health & Community Services Union. Lyn's activism is rooted in a belief that 'there are no jobs on a dead planet'. Highlighting her lifelong commitment to environmental preservation and sustainable development, Lyn's story is one of an unwavering dedication to the Labor Party and its values. She has never sought recognition for herself but has worked tirelessly for the collective good. Today we pay tribute to Lyn's profound impact and the sacrifices she has made for the betterment of Tasmania and the Labor movement. Next I turn to the extraordinary service of Betty Pilgrim. Betty's journey with the Labor Party began in the 1960s in Launceston. From that time on, she has been a dedicated advocate for our core values of social justice, equality, and fairness. Whether working for Lance Barnard's office in Launceston   , serving during the historic Whitlam years in Canberra or volunteering her time and effort across various states, Betty has remained a stalwart supporter of Labor. Even after her retirement, she continued to work with devotion in both my office and Dick Adams's office. Betty is a shining example of what it means to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. Her passion, her resilience and her tireless advocacy for a better Australia have left an impactful mark on our party and its legacy. Finally, I must acknowledge Bill Lowe, a long-serving member of the Burnie branch of the ALP. Bill's four decades of service to the Labor Party have been nothing short of extraordinary. He has held almost every position within his branch, from branch secretary to campaign coordinator, and has played a crucial role in state and federal election campaigns. Beyond his political contribution, Bill's commitment extends to his involvement with the Australian Workers' Union and grassroots football in the Darwin Football Association. Bill's dual life memberships with both the ALP and the AWU are a rare and significant achievement, underscoring his deep commitment to the Labor movement and the broader Tasmanian community. Interestingly, Bill's AWU life membership was also presented by Minister Bill Shorten. The contributions of Lyn, Betty and Bill attest to the strength of our Labor Party, built on the dedication of individuals who believe in a fairer, more just society. It was my honour to host the ceremony where these incredible members, Betty and Bill, were presented with their life memberships by Minister Bill Shorten and state Labor leader Dean Winter, and where Lyn Taylor was given the opportunity to speak to her life membership. The ceremony was a wonderful occasion where the ALP came together to honour and celebrate our life members. I'd like to sincerely thank Minister Shorten for doing the honours and joining us for this important event. The ALP owes each of these life members a debt of gratitude for the years of service. Again, congratulations to Lyn, Betty and Bill. Horak, Mrs Olga, OAM 86 16:59 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Acting Deputy President Chandler, and the chamber for the fast movement of people in and out of roles so that I'm able to make this contribution this evening. On 15 August 2024, Australia lost a remarkable figure in the Jewish community with the passing of Holocaust survivor and Sydney Jewish Museum volunteer Olga Horak. Her memoir, this beautiful book, entitled Auschwitz to Australia, offers a deeply personal account of resilience and suffering. Olga's story exemplifies how a person can endure unimaginable pain while still holding on to faith in both God and humanity. Born in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, in 1926, Olga's life took a harrowing turn as Europe succumbed to the horrors of Nazism. The unimaginable became a grim reality as society turned its back on its own. At just 14, Olga was expelled from school, her family lost their livelihood and she faced public scorn due to her yellow star. It was only after Olga's sister was rounded up and sent to Auschwitz to be gassed in 1942 that the family went into hiding. After two years of persecution, precarious living conditions and the constant fear of discovery, the family was betrayed and sent on cattle trains to Auschwitz. The journey was gruelling. Denied food and water with only a single bucket to contain waste, the train journey was one of extreme deprivation. Upon arriving in Auschwitz, the sight of the infamous gates, reading 'Arbeit macht frei', was accompanied by the sick sounds of a prisoner's orchestra. 'The music belonged not to the world of the living, but of the dead,' she wrote. Olga's story reveals that beyond the physical deprivations of starvation, forced labour and squalor, humiliation was used as a deliberate means of breaking the spirit of the Jewish people. Her father was murdered upon arrival, but Olga and her mother were selected by the 'angel of death', Dr Mengele. They were stripped in front of him and deemed 'useful'. With blunts clippers, Olga had her head, armpits and pubic hair shaved, causing her to bleed and later sting as thick disinfectant was slapped on her with a mop. Olga's existence was one of routine barbarity. Roll calls occurred at 4 am after the kapo cleared the barracks. The women of the camp were served a black, watery substance that was laced with bromide to stop 'inconvenient' menstruation. Working in the bitter cold of the 1944 winter was harsh, with any sign of weakness resulting in beatings or execution by the SS. Olga's health rapidly deteriorated. She was covered in blisters, infested with lice and her gums bled from severe malnutrition. The conditions were so dire that prisoners at night were often doused in urine and faeces from those above them on the wooden bunks. In December 1944, Olga and her mother embarked on the infamous death march. Olga vividly recalls the fleeing Germans with their carts full of blankets, foodstuffs, milk and valuables. These are her words: Not one of those thousands ever attempted to throw even a scrap of bread or a potato in our direction. They saw us; they stared at us; they hated us and knew who we were—Jews. Even as their Third Reich crumbled, their hatred endured. The march, stretching over 700 kilometres to Bergen-Belsen, was harsh with long stretches of no food or water. By the time of her arrival, she was sick with typhus. Any body fat had long disappeared, causing her bones to protrude from her skin and her breasts to vanish. Her teeth were loose, her hair was patchy, weeping sores covered her body and her eyes were sunken in their sockets. Olga could barely stand upright, let alone straight. Her physical condition was a stark reminder of the brutality she had endured. On 15 April 1945, Olga and her mother were liberated by the British. At 18 years old, Olga weighed just 29 kilograms. With the war over for them, they were finally issued a displaced person's card. As her mother tried to hold the small white paper, she collapsed. Her passing marked Olga's final and most cruel punishment by the Nazis. Her mother was just 40. After the war, Olga sought a new life in British Mandate Palestine but faced repeated rejections before finding refuge in Sydney, Australia. There she married fellow survivor John and lived a long life, passing away at 98. Even in her final days, she dedicated herself to volunteering at the Sydney Jewish Museum. Throughout her life she carried the scars of her past but chose not to harbour hatred, believing that hatred is ugly and that it brought about the most terrible tragedy of the 20th century. May her memory be a blessing. Senate adjourned at 17:04