DOCUMENTS

2024-09-18 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 18 September 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) 1

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2)

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the coalition's bill to remove criminals from worksites, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2). This is a bill that we brought to the parliament in 2017, when we were in government. And guess what? Despite all of the rhetoric from Mr Albanese now and despite every answer in question time that Senator Wong gives saying, 'The Labor government is taking the strongest action ever against the CFMEU,' do you know what happened in 2017, colleagues? When we were in government, the then Labor opposition voted against this bill. Had they voted for this bill—guess what?—some seven years later we would've had the ability to take criminals off worksites. But it doesn't stop there. We were so committed as a government to cleaning up the construction industry in Australia that, despite the then Labor opposition voting against a bill, in 2017, that removed criminals from worksites in Australia, we brought it back to the parliament in 2019. And, again, what did the then opposition do? Well, it's not law today, so they could only have done one thing—that is, voted against the bill. The bill that we bring before the Senate today is a very simple one. Who in Australia does not believe that we should have the powers to remove criminals from worksites? On what basis would an opposition, the Labor opposition, and now a Labor government that claims it is taking the strongest action possible against the CFMEU—no-one believes that; we'll go through that shortly—not support a bill that again is all about removing criminals from worksites? I'd say any Australian listening in to this today would say: 'Hold on. I'm a little confused. Are you saying that criminals are allowed on worksites?' On what planet do we have a country where criminals are allowed to go on worksites? Not only can they go onto worksites; by law they are given a right-of-entry permit, which says, 'You are entitled to go onto a worksite.' Quite frankly, the Australia we live in was created by the Labor opposition who, in 2017 and again in 2019, not only didn't support this bill but pulled their second reading speeches. I tell you, Senator McKenzie and Senator Birmingham, they are fascinating to read. The justification for believing that criminals should be allowed on worksites—the protection racket for those members of the CFMEU who have been wreaking havoc on worksites for years and years—is laughable. They should be hanging their heads in shame. Let's jump forward to 2024. When the Fairfax newspapers printed what is now known to have been going on for a very long time—that there is bullying, thuggery and intimidation on Australian construction sites; that basically they've been taken over by the underworld of the CFMEU—the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Albanese, in July this year, stood up and said to the Australian people, 'I am shocked and surprised.' I have to say— Senator McKenzie 207825 Surprised that they were found out. Senator CASH I0M Yes—surprised that someone was finally printing this— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M That's exactly right. I was shocked and surprised, seriously, at Mr Albanese's reaction. Good grief! But do you know who was shocked and surprised even more? A CFMEU whistleblower named Andrew Quirk. Do you know why he was surprised and shocked at what Mr Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, said to the Australian people? Remember, Mr Albanese was asked, 'When did you first find out about the allegations of bullying, thuggery, intimidation and harassment, but, more than that, that underworld figures controlled the CFMEU and the construction industry in Australia?' Mr Quirk was quite surprised that Mr Albanese was shocked and surprised and had only found out about it recently, because Mr Quirk had met with Mr Albanese in 2014. And Mr Albanese has not denied that that meeting occurred. In fact, the CFMEU sacked Mr Quirk as a result of his going public with what was going on in the construction industry of Australia. He has now been vindicated in the courts, but it's taken years and years because he has been pursued every single step of the way by the CFMEU. Mr Quirk is on the record. He's even happy to have his name across the papers in Australia saying: 'Hold on, I met with the now Prime Minister of Australia in 2014. I told him of the bullying, thuggery, intimidation and harassment, but, more than that, that I had concerns that Mick Gatto'—Google Mick Gatto, anyone listening in on this debate— Senator Scarr 282997 He's part of the furniture. Senator CASH I0M He's part of the furniture—that's exactly right—in the CFMEU, who run the construction sites in Australia. Do you know why Andrew Quirk met with the Prime Minister, the then shadow minister for infrastructure? Because he was worried about his family, his wife and kids, and the threats that had been made to him—that is, if he dared expose what was going on in the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU and the protection racket that they were running in relation to the underworld controlling the construction industry in Australia. As yesterday's editorial in the Australian said, 'The stench of CFMEU dealings is getting stronger for the ALP.' That's the last decade. Despite what Mr Albanese says, read the comments online. It doesn't matter whether it's a News Corp or Fairfax newspaper now. Nobody believes what is coming out of the Prime Minister's mouth. I think, though, that they're going to believe Andrew Quirk before they believe the Prime Minister. There is also the undisputed fact that $6.2 million was funnelled directly, in fact openly given, by the CFMEU, the most militant union in Australia—and that's not me talking but the High Court of Australia—to the Australian Labor Party since Mr Albanese became the Labor leader. Nobody believes what Labor is a saying when they stand up in question time and in press conferences—it's now just rolling off their tongues—and give the talking points they've been provided. They think that if they keep saying Mr Albanese is taking tough action against the CFMEU—'the strongest action ever'—then someone in Australia might believe them. Well, the bad news is that people just don't. But you see, Mr Albanese has an opportunity to say, 'In 2019 and 2017 we voted against the then coalition government's attempts to pass legislation'—and I say 'attempts' because we did not have the numbers in the Australian Senate, by a long way. The Labor Party stands up and says, 'But you did nothing when you were in government.' The reason we were unable to pass legislation was that the Australian Labor Party didn't just vote against it but also railed against us across Australia every single step of the way. They say we did nothing. But as a coalition government we were so concerned with what was going on in the construction sector that in 2016 we dissolved the parliament. That is a huge call for a government to make. We dissolved parliament and went to a double dissolution election on two bills that, again, the Australian Labor Party, in opposition, opposed every step of the way. The first of these bills was to make sure there was a tough cop on the beat to hold the construction sector to account, which they opposed every step of the way, as well as to clean up registered organisations. And guess what? Despite everything the Labor Party threw at us, the Australian people backed us in. They voted, in a double dissolution election, to put us back in. I was the minister at the time, and the Labor Party made it very clear to me up-front, 'Not only are we not going to support you; we are going to work against you every single step of the way.' But the crossbench at the time—and I think we needed up to 10 crossbenchers—understood (a) that the Australian people wanted to clean up the construction industry in Australia and (b) that if the Labor Party wasn't going to assist in doing that then they would need to. So, without the need for a joint sitting, we managed to get through this Senate the restoration of the tough cop on the beat and the cleaning up of registered organisations in Australia. And the Labor Party says we did nothing! We also brought to the parliament a number of bills to keep the criminals off worksites. The Labor Party refused to support these bills. And look at everything that's currently going on within Incolink and Cbus. Another bill we brought to the parliament was a bill to protect workers entitlements—in other words, to ensure that workers' money could be used by the unions only for matters that benefited the workers. And now we're seeing with Incolink and with Cbus the exploitation of members'—workers'—money by the CFMEU. But, again, Labor couldn't have cared less. I mean, when you're receiving $6.2 million you need to protect those who are providing you with the funds! Let's have a look, though. They say we're attacking unions with this bill. Well, we're not. The last time I checked, this is a bill to ensure that criminals are not allowed on worksites, and it applies to registered organisations. I don't care whether you're an employer organisation or an employee organisation. You should not be able to be on a worksite if you have been convicted of a crime. It is as simple as that. The law, as we speak today, is deficient. It is allowing people who have been convicted of crimes to go onto worksites. That is absolutely unacceptable. What this bill will do is to clean that up. There is one official who is actually a convicted drug dealer. He was given a right-of-entry permit. On what planet does the law allow for a convicted drug dealer to be given a right-of-entry permit, which gives that official significant rights and privileges to enter a worksite and undertake certain actions? Well, it's the planet whereby Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister of Australia, refuses to change the law. This bill will give the Federal Court the power to say no. This bill will give the Fair Work Commission the power to say no. Why? Because it says that if you are convicted of a crime you do not get to enter a worksite. For those who are driving in their cars or listening at home: I would have thought you would get onto your local member of parliament, or write to Anthony Albanese or pick up the phone to his office and say: 'Mr Albanese we are sick and tired of you and the Australian Labor Party just talking. For once can you do what is in the best interests of the Australian people, the best interests of the construction industry, the best interest of the employees in the construction industry and vote for a bill which, in its simplicity, removes criminals from worksites.' 09:17 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2). It's clear from this morning's stunt and the stunt last week that those opposite have no real ideas on how to clean up the construction industry, an industry where wage theft, sham contracting and industrial manslaughter are rife. There are no ideas from the Liberal and National parties to deal with construction workers being mugged by their employers or dying or being maimed on worksites. All we have had before us from those opposite is a rehash of the discredited, disgraced Australian Building and Construction Commission and, today, a rehash of the ensuring integrity bill—a bill that was so toxic that even when those opposite were in government they failed to pass it through the Senate not once but on three separate occasions. It shows how utterly devoid of ideas those opposite are. Across the entirety of the opposition benches you can count the number of policies they've come up with on one hand: policy 1, uncosted and unmodelled nuclear power; policy 2, raiding everyone's superannuation for everything and anything— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Sheldon, I have a point of order. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 Deputy President, whilst I can understand Senator Sheldon doesn't want to talk about the CFMEU, I query the relevance of nuclear power to this debate in relation to registered organisations. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 There is a reasonable amount of latitude in second readers, and the point I think Senator Sheldon is trying to make is about this bill in a suite of policies. But I'll listen carefully, Senator Scarr. Senator SHELDON 168275 Thank you, Deputy President. Senator Scarr might learn something here, because this is about their other farcical policies. There's policy 3, the $315 billion of cuts to essential services—only they won't tell us what they're going to cut; and policy 4, their never-ending war on unions and working Australians. That, Senator Scarr, is what you're onto today and what you were doing last week. It's a farcical attempt to turn around from the policies you don't have and make sure there's a war on unions and working Australians. I've never seen an opposition that wants to be in government with more ridiculous and offensive policies than those opposite. This rehash of the ensuring integrity bill is part of that fourth policy, opposition leader Mr Dutton's never-ending war on workers. Let's take a step back and look at what Mr Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals are doing in their war on workers. First of all, they have opposed every single wage increase that this government has fought for. Under Labor the minimum wage has increased by 19 per cent across the three annual wage reviews. A 19 per cent pay increase for our lowest paid workers in three years is unprecedented. Those opposite have repeatedly opposed those increases. Yes, Senator Scarr, those people opposite me have opposed those increases. Who can forget former prime minister Morrison saying a $1 increase was reckless and dangerous for those on low pay? That's what this is about. That's what they're about. They're making sure that working people have less of a voice. Who can forget former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce saying Labor's minimum wage rises of $110 are just window dressing? Say that to those low-paid workers. What this is really about is a war on workers. We've seen the shadow Treasurer opposing our workplace reforms because he was terrified that they would 'push up wages'. That's what they're opposed to, not the rubbish we just heard in the opening speech. What they're opposed to is the opportunity for people to actually get a fair earning, as we saw earlier this year, when Senator Cash, the shadow workplace minister, had a letter leaked to the press. In that letter she described getting rid of the better-off-overall test as a good idea that aligns strongly with the coalition's approach. We know that getting rid of the better-off-overall test would mean pay cuts for millions of workers. They just can't get enough. Just this week we saw Senator Hume's train-wreck interview on Insiders, where she kept saying the quiet bit out loud. She promised the coalition would get rid of the right to disconnect to make sure that not only would people be earning less under Mr Dutton but they'd also be working longer hours for nothing. She promised the coalition would gut our changes to make casual work more secure, because the only thing the Liberals and Nationals hate as much as wage rises is job security. Lastly she promised a review of the same job, same pay. It sounds more like the targeted packages of repeals that the shadow Treasurer let slip on Insiders in February. I should commend Insiders because, every time a member of the opposition frontbench goes on there, they let slip another workplace right they plan to kill off. This gives you a flavour of Mr Dutton's war on working Australians. His plan is to have you working longer for less, and this dog's breakfast of a bill is the latest element of that war. This bill rehashes a bill that those opposite couldn't get through the Senate on three occasions when they were last in government. There was an excellent Senate inquiry into the ensuring integrity bill back in 2019, with a dissenting report that did an excellent job of highlighting what an atrocity that bill was. The bill effectively creates grounds to disqualify union officials and deregister entire unions on the basis of minor and unintentional breaches of the law and gives the types of laws Mr Dutton would introduce for our workplaces, for example— Senator Scarr 282997 Unintentional? Come on, Tony! Senator SHELDON 168275 I'd suggest that Senator Scarr listen to some more of this speech because he might learn something. If you listen, you might even do the right thing. Making it an offence to fly a Eureka flag or have a union sticker on your hat—you can see where this is going. You know where they're at. It gives Mr Dutton a blank cheque to deregister trade unions on a whim on the most ridiculous grounds. That's what they're up to. As the Centre for Future Work noted in its submission to the ensuring integrity bill: When union activities that would be considered both normal and legitimate in most countries are prohibited (including things like organising strikes, encouraging workers to join, collecting dues, protesting, opposing employer measures deemed unfair, displaying union symbols and flags, and so on), a perverse and self-fulfilling dynamic is set in motion: by defining normal union activity as criminal, unions automatically become criminal organisations, thus seemingly justifying still further intrusions, restrictions, and penalties. What they're really after is normal activities. It's not what they're trying to put up here, what they're lying about and what they're misrepresenting. They're actually about normal activities. That's the scope of what they're doing in this bill. It's plain as day what the strategy is here, isn't it? It's to make basic trade union activities illegal and make breaking those laws grounds to deregister the entire union. The breaches of the law, as the ensuring integrity inquiry heard, could be as minor as paperwork mistakes. The dissenting report reads: For example, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation … Tasmanian branch, which is a small organisation that has difficulty with the current level of regulatory burden imposed on them, is often struggling to meet reporting deadlines. The penalties for non-compliance and the threat of deregistration are far too heavy handed … The CEO, Ms Lara Giddings, told the inquiry: … We are only a very small union body—in fact, we have around 336 members of our union here in Tasmania—and we have an annual budget of around $3,300. … … … The reality is that a budget of $3,300 per annum doesn't even cover the cost of my role as executive director. We have a conjoint agreement with AMA Tasmania to provide these services … This is not uncommon. In fact, many unions rely on volunteers to help with the administration function of the union. UnionsACT secretary Alex White told the ensuring integrity inquiry back in 2019 that the ACT had 33,000 union members and 24 unions affiliated with UnionsACT. He said: … All of the unions affiliated with UnionsACT have active rank-and-file member involvement in the governance of their unions. The vast majority of these members are volunteers and receive no remuneration. So, how can you possibly make the case that a paperwork mistake by a volunteer should result in the disqualification or deregistration of the entire union? It shows the intent of those opposite is really to finish off the job they have been working on for decades and to kill trade unions altogether. So, there's the issue of ridiculous penalties for minor breaches. Then there's the issue of ridiculous penalties for justified breaches. Since before Federation, unions have been at the forefront of fighting for safer workplaces. At times, that has involved activity that would now be considered illegal. Take, for example, evidence given to the ensuring integrity inquiry by the then national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Paul Bastian. As the dissenting report says, he: … gave evidence that in the history of that union, it had been necessary to take industrial action that would now be considered unprotected, and under this bill would be grounds for deregistration of the union and disqualification of its officers, in order to secure compensation entitlements from James Hardie in instances where workers and members of the public developed debilitating and fatal disease after exposure to asbestos. Mr Bastian told the inquiry: On 21 December, after a concerted campaign, James Hardie finally reached … agreement with the ACTU, Unions New South Wales, victims groups represented by the tireless Bernie Banton and the New South Wales government. We had secured … uncapped compensation for victims of asbestos … $4.5 billion into a compensation fund that was originally only given $293 million. We achieved justice because unions and victims groups engaged in an escalating series of protests, work stoppages, work bans, boycotts, marches, investor activism and intensive political lobbying. It is beyond question that this campaign for sufferers of asbestos diseases made Australia a better, safer and more just place. Those opposite tried to introduce laws to criminalise campaigning against asbestos or campaigning against engineered stone. We saw that before. Those opposite even make the lawyer who proudly defended asbestos companies, Julie Bishop, their deputy leader. Ms Bishop was passionate about denying access to compensation to victims who were dying from asbestos exposure. She was just as passionate as Mr Dutton is now about making campaigning against issues like asbestos grounds for closing entire unions. The ensuring integrity inquiry also heard from Charles McKay from the Transport Workers Union and how he took unprotected industrial action to save the lives of transport workers. He said: In the cash-in-transit industry it's pretty obvious that we carry guns, because obviously what we carry is sought after by a lot of other people in the community. Unfortunately, we had a spate of attacks around 1994-95—and again in the early 2000s … We had a lot of concern, certainly, from the workers and, more importantly, from their families. You've got to remember that if families see somebody killed they don't want their husband to go out there the next day and be the one who is delivering money and who comes home in a bag. We had a series of meetings with the companies. Bear in mind that we were meeting with our company and that our members at Brambles were meeting with their company. We basically tried to have some meetings about safety and some of the issues surrounding the incidents. To cut a long story short, we went on an eight- or nine-day strike. … in my 25 years as a senior delegate with Armaguard we never ever took strike action for one dollar in wages; it was only over safety and security for our members … Our members were fearful of going out for their jobs. We were doing it for a safety strike. We had a situation where the main clients of both our companies were financial institutions and their only concern was that the money be delivered on the day and time that they required. They were set times and set days, so all you had to do was follow a truck out of a yard and follow him on his rounds, because the bank or financial institution had said, 'We want this at eight,' or, 'We want this at 10.' The whole thing was focusing not on safety but on getting huge amounts of money to financial institutions. … … … The eight- or nine-day strike was an unprotected action, but our members basically were scared to go out without proper safety conditions. Conditions changed after that. So we're looking at action that, under this bill, could see the entire union deregistered; that is, the integrity bill that has been put up previously by those opposite. And it wasn't even about money. It wasn't about new contracts or saving the lives of people who were literally being hunted and murdered by armed gangs. The last point I will make, about how offensive and absurd this bill is, is about the different way Mr Dutton wants to treat unions and big businesses. Unions are not the equivalent of big businesses. They are not-for-profit, they are small and they are overseen by elected officials—many of whom are volunteers. Those opposite have smacked them time and time again with restrictions and regulations far beyond the highest-paid directors of the biggest businesses in the country. Take their mate Alan Joyce—someone who oversaw the largest illegal outsourcing in Australian history. There is absolutely nothing stopping Mr Joyce becoming a CEO or director at any other large company. Take the executives of the largest companies, like BHP, CBA and Woolworths—all of whom have been caught engaging in massive wage theft cases. There is nothing stopping their highly-paid executives continuing in their jobs or getting jobs elsewhere. This bill should be, rightly, rejected a fourth time. 09:32 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland We heard from Senator Sheldon a lot about many things but nothing about the unlawful activities of the CFMEU—and that gives the game away. For 15 minutes Senator Sheldon provided us with rhetoric that didn't even mention once, didn't admit once, that our construction sites across Australia, where our schools are being built, hospitals are being built, highways are being built and new housing is being built—which we desperately need—are rife with intimidation, bullying, harassment and corruption due to the activities of the CFMEU construction division. Senator Sheldon didn't mention it once—not a single time. When this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2), was first introduced by the coalition—or reintroduced, I should say—in 2019, in my first year in this place, we heard 39,000 words from the Labor Party in opposing this legislation. The reasons for this legislation were proven to be correct by the most recent events concerning the CFMEU, which the government has had to place into administration. In 2019, when we had this debate, in approximately 39,000 words those opposite in the Labor Party could only mention the CFMEU once—and that was probably a mistake. They mentioned the CFMEU once in 39,000 words. They talk about every other union—the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union, the associated salary medical officers union in Tasmania—but not the CFMEU. Why? Because the CFMEU is the problem. The CFMEU construction division is the problem. The TWU is not the problem. The AMWU is not the problem. The associated salary medical officers union is not the problem. The problem is the construction division of the CFMEU. Senator Sheldon talks about workplace health and safety. In my home state of Queensland, the workplace health and safety inspectors had to take protected industrial action so that they didn't have to go onto CFMEU controlled worksites—employees of the government regulator, the workplace health and safety inspectors. That's how bad it is in my home state of Queensland. During the last sitting I referred to a very brave lady, Ms Tammie Palmer, whose son Ben committed suicide after coming home from a CFMEU controlled worksite. He was wearing the wrong T-shirt. This young man—a young Indigenous man, a First Nations man, who loved working in the construction industry—made the mistake of wearing the wrong T-shirt. So the CFMEU officials bullied him into a shed, where he stayed for a number of hours, and then his mental health went into a devastating decline, and he committed suicide that night. His mother has gone on the record talking about the effect of the bullying of the CFMEU. So, don't come into this place and talk as if this is all about the CFMEU raising flags and doing this and that and there's nothing to be seen here. That is totally disingenuous. There's a major problem on our construction worksites. We see the economic cost in that the cost of building anything in this country has gone up by 30 or 40 per cent, and all of us suffer, because we don't get the hospitals, the schools and the highways that the Australian population needs, all because of the activities of the CFMEU construction division. And there's the human cost in terms of people like Ben, who took his own life after a day's work on a CFMEU controlled worksite. Or, how's this? Geoffrey Watson SC, a renowned Australian expert on anticorruption—totally independent from our side of politics, and well regarded—released an interim report on allegations against the CFMEU in Victoria. Senator Sheldon didn't mention that once. We'll see if Senator Bilyk mentions the interim report by Geoffrey Watson SC in relation to allegations against the CFMEU in Victoria. Listen to this: …the Victorian branch has been caught up in a cycle of lawlessness, where violence was an accepted part of the culture, and threats of violence were a substitute for reasoned negotiations Those aren't my words. Those are the words of an independent senior counsel who's completed an interim report into the CFMEU. Senator Sheldon didn't mention it once. I'm sure Senator Bilyk's not going to mention it. I'll be impressed if she does. But I'm sure that, like everyone else in this place, she's got her driving instructions. I'll see if she does mention it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Through the chair, Senator Scarr. Senator SCARR 282997 We'll see if the Greens mention it. On 30 June 2021—listen to this— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Bilyk? Senator Bilyk HZB A point of order: I think Senator Scarr is maligning me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I'm not sure that's a point of order, but I did direct Senator Scarr to direct his comments through the chair, recognising that it is disorderly to be shouting across the chamber at each other. So, I will re-remind him of that now. Senator Scarr, please direct your comments through the chair. You have the call. Senator SCARR 282997 Yes. I'm sure Senator Bilyk can take it. But listen to this, from Geoffrey Watson SC. And it is not a politician who is saying this. It is a senior counsel who is saying this, in relation to his investigation of the CFMEU: 'On 30 June 2021 two Victorian branch organisers were bashed at a site in Hawthorn East. It was a serious attack. One of the organisers lost sight in an eye. I was told by a senior official that the Victorian branch did not engage with the police but instead went to'—guess who!—'Mr Gatto to negotiate.' We go to an underworld figure to negotiate. That's the way of the CFMEU—when one of their organisers lost sight in an eye on a construction worksite. This is what Geoffrey Watson SC says, not me: From my investigation, it appeared to me that, in this cycle of intimidation and violence, the CFMEU had lost control. … on the information available to me, I consider that the Victorian branch has been infiltrated by OMCG and by organised crime figures. You didn't hear any of that from Senator Sheldon. We'll see if we hear any of it from the Greens or anyone else on the Labor side. He said, 'infiltrated by outlaw motorcycle gangs'. When Senator Sheldon talks about flags being displayed, as if you're just attacking them because of flags, these aren't flags. They're the equivalent of the colours of an outlaw motorcycle gang. They go around with Hell's Angels on their back. That's what it's all about—bullying, intimidation, staking ground and corruption. This is what Geoffrey Watson SC says: 'In witness interviews, officials commonly referred to giving enterprise bargaining agreements to entities rather than entering into enterprise bargaining agreements with entities. In the words of one senior official, "We want to unionise the industry; that's our job." I understand that certain kinds of EBAs hold special value. One organiser told me that an Indigenous labour hire agreement was a licence to print money and a gold mine. I'm aware of EBAs entered into between the CFMEU and entities connected with underworld figure Faruk Orman. I'm also aware of evidence that EBAs could be in effect transferred through the sale of an entity, thus giving the EBA a trading value.' That's the mentality of the CFMEU. That's the mentality you're dealing with here. They have an enterprise bargaining agreement which has value. They will give it to a company or entity—it's not about the workers—which in this case was connected with an underworld figure, and then that company or the shareholders can sell to another company and crystallise the value of that EBA. That's the scam that was going on. It's absolutely outrageous. The workers are at the bottom of the heap in these practices. It's absolutely outrageous. I want to talk about some of the sections in this bill, because this bill contains a number of provisions which mean that it wouldn't be the decision of politicians to actually take away the right of someone to be an official in a union like the CFMEU. It's actually up to the court. You didn't hear back from Senator Sheldon. This is about rule of law—something the CFMEU doesn't recognise. The CFMEU doesn't recognise rule of law. The High Court said that. They're the most recidivist union in Australia's history. They don't care. It's a cost of doing business. But this bill recognises the rule of law. It is only if an official of a union has been found to have committed a particular offence or contempt of court; engaged in some other sort of criminal finding or contempt; engaged in multiple failures to prevent contraventions by an organisation; committed some other impropriety; or are not fit and proper because they've been found to have engaged in fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation or concealment of material, facts or a breach of duty that a application can be made to the court. Then the Federal Court decides what should be done. I want to read this section, because this is very important. 'Under the bill being proposed by my good friend Senator Cash, the decision as to whether someone can be an official in a union like the CFMEU after they have committed certain offences or contempt or have engaged in some other egregious behaviour is made by the court.' Isn't that the way the system is meant to work? In rule of law, the court makes the decision. In section 222 subsection (2), the Federal Court may make an order disqualifying the person from holding office in an organisation for the period the court considers appropriate. It's if the court is satisfied that the ground for disqualification set out in the application applies to the person—they have been found criminal or in contempt or have shown some other egregious behaviour—and the court does not consider it would be unjust to disqualify the person, having regard to the nature of the matters constituting the ground, the circumstances and nature of the person's involvement and any other matters the considers relevant. So the court has absolute discretion to decide whether or not someone, given their criminal record, given their past behaviour or given them being found in contempt of court, should be disqualified. Even in that situation, under the bill presented by Senator Cash and under the principles of the rule of law, the Federal Court receives an application that someone should be disqualified for a nominated period, and then the court considers all the facts. The court considers whether or not there are any other relevant circumstances. The court considers the nature of the matters which have led to the application, including, no doubt, the seriousness of the offence. The court considers the circumstances around that person's involvement in the matters: Were they a driving force? Were they simply a bystander? This is all up to the court, and the court can consider any other matters it considers relevant. It's entirely up to the judge who's sitting there considering the evidence, including the evidence from someone who's making an application that a person or a registered organisation be disqualified and the evidence from the other party who's defending that application and seeking not to be disqualified. The judge considers it. The judge makes the decision and considers the seriousness of the matters. The judge considers all the circumstances, including how intimately involved the person was in relation to the relevant activity—whether or not they were the motivating force or along for the ride. The judge considers all this. It's not politicians; it's the judge. That's what this bill provides. It provides rule of law, something which the CFMEU thumb their noses at. They don't care about rule of law; they just steamroll over the top of it. Our highest court in the land, the High Court, has called the CFMEU out in relation to this. What is objectionable with a bill that says if someone commits a criminal offence and has been found guilty or if someone has been found to have committed fraud, dishonesty or some other egregious behaviour then an appropriate person can make an application to the court that this person not hold a senior position in a union, which gives them all sorts of rights, including right of entry? That person has a right to defend themselves, either personally or through their union, and then the court decides whether or not they should be deregistered or disqualified. The court decides, and there's no limitation on the discretion of the court. The court can consider any evidence that's relevant to the matter, and then it's up to the court. How could you possibly object to that? This isn't about government making decisions that people should be disqualified or that a registered organisation should be deregistered. It's up to the court. That's the process we should have. These serious matters should be dealt with by the court. How can you seriously object to that? However, I have no doubt that those sitting on the government benches will continue to defend the indefensible, and that itself should send a message to the Australian people: when it comes to choosing between the interests of the Australian people and the CFMEU, that side, that mob, will choose the CFMEU. 09:48 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania If there's one thing I'll give the opposition credit for it's their ingenuity when it comes to naming bills. Even when they're pushing the boundaries of legislative overreach, like they are with this bill, they come up with an innocuous title like 'removing criminals from worksites', a title that expresses a sentiment that's hard to argue with but also belies the true intent of this bill. At the same time as those opposite pretend to be friends of Australian workers, they are introducing the most extreme antiworker legislation. They claim they want to clean up Australia's building and construction industry, but the reality is they are using their response to the bullying and thuggery in one industry as a Trojan horse for an ideological attack on all workers. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) is basically the fourth iteration of the coalition's ensuring integrity bill, another bill innocuously named to make it sound like they're doing workers and the union movement a favour. In the other three attempts at introducing the ensuring integrity bill, it was clear to the rest of the parliament that this was an ideologically motivated attack on workers and the trade union movement. History shows that the Liberals and Nationals have never liked the trade union movement. They've never liked workers being able to assert their rights at work or collectively organise to demand better pay and conditions. This is, after all, the coalition that engineered the 1998 waterfront dispute, conspiring with big business to sack a union workforce and replace them with industrial mercenaries. It's the coalition that introduced Work Choices. When last in government, the coalition were confronted with their poor record on wage growth, and they revealed that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic policies. They wanted to keep wages low. The coalition of Work Choices and the coalition of dogs and balaclavas on the docks is also the coalition of deliberately suppressing wage growth for Australian workers. Now in opposition they have the gall and the hypocrisy to complain about the cost of living, but at the same time they vote against every measure we put forward to get wages moving again. You cannot argue that the measures they tried to block have not been effective, as has been astutely pointed out by Australia's unions. If Mr Dutton and those opposite had had their way and wages growth had remained at the levels seen under the previous government, the average worker would be $4,700 a year worse off. As if the opposition's hypocrisy is not bad enough, they're making plans to unravel our workplace legislation, a move which will almost certainly see wage growth slow or possibly even go backwards. Ms Ley, in the other place, has said she will kill our changes, Senator Cash has said the coalition will wind back our policies and Mr Taylor has said they will take a targeted package of repeals to the next election. The opposition are already talking about ripping away the rights of casual workers and the right to disconnect. What do the opposition think returning to the record low wages growth that we saw under their government would do to the cost of living? I cannot believe the audacity of those opposite complaining that Australian households are struggling when they plan to not only ditch cost-of-living relief measures, destroy retirement savings by raiding super funds and jack up power prices by funding expensive nuclear reactors but also introduce an industrial relations policy that will reduce the wages of Australian workers. Do they really think they can get away with telling Australians they care about struggling households while putting forward a suite of policies that will actually make them thousands of dollars worse off? No matter how hard those on the other side pretend, they have never, ever been a friend of Australian households or Australian workers. When the third ensuring integrity bill was introduced in 2019, Labor wrote a dissenting report to the inquiry into the bill. Labor senators pointed out that schedule 1 of the bill impinges on the internationally recognised right of freedom of association, a concern which was shared by unions, academics, civil society groups, churches and the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was noted in Labor's report that the grounds for which an officeholder in a registered organisation could be disqualified go beyond those in corporate or banking sectors. Isn't that amazing? Schedule 2 of the bill would have allowed for the deregistration of an organisation simply for taking industrial action or for less serious contraventions of industrial law. Those provisions would seriously impinge on the ability of registered organisations to function or represent their members effectively. What we have before us now is almost a carbon copy of those two schedules of the 2019 ensuring integrity bill, with nothing to allay the widespread concerns that many stakeholders had with the previous bill. It just goes to show that, when those opposite recycle their trash, they end up producing more trash. The bill before us is nothing more than an attempt at union busting while, at the same time, doing nothing useful or substantive to address the real concerns about the construction and building industry. It's a radical, far-right attack on the rights of all workers, regardless of what industry they work in—whether they are nurses, teachers, first responders, flight attendants, retail workers, hospitality workers or even aged-care workers. Under this radical bill, a union official could be disqualified or an entire union deregistered for a minor technical breach. To give an example from the industry I previously worked in, if early childhood educators were to wear campaign badges or T-shirts supporting equal pay for educators, their union could be deregistered. If the nurses union were to hold a protest demanding that health services introduce safer nurse-to-patient ratios, they could be deregistered. A union could even be deregistered for something as trivial as being late for filing paperwork to the Fair Work Commission. Under this legislation any person with sufficient interest would have standing to bring disqualification and deregistration charges. As such, these charges would open up all registered organisations—that is, unions and employer associations—to having to defend themselves endlessly against vexatious and frivolous proceedings. Whilst I give the opposition the benefit of the doubt—which I don't, really—I would say that burying registered organisations in this red-tape nightmare is a result of poorly designed legislation. But, while those opposite have a history of gross incompetence when it comes to developing policy, I suspect that this is something more sinister. Given their record, I would say this is a deliberate design feature. They want trade unions to be tied up defending endless vexatious and frivolous claims. They want them to be diverted from their core business. They want them to be unable to function or represent their members effectively. Why impose the same destructive requirements on an employer organisation? Because they consider it to be justifiable collateral damage in their crusade against trade unions. This is the kind of extreme anti-union, antiworker legislation we've come to expect from those opposite. Let's face it: the coalition is a one-trick pony. When they were in government, they never once lifted a finger to address wage theft—not once. They did not advocate for increases to the minimum wage, not even to make the uncontroversial claim that the Albanese government made, which was that workers on minimum wage should not go backwards. They did nothing to address the underpayment and exploitation of labour hire workers or workers in the gig economy, they did nothing to address the need for equal pay in feminised industries, and they did nothing to fix the broken bargaining system and get wages moving. Whether in government or opposition, every time the coalition introduce industrial relations legislation, it is to erode the rights of workers and to erode the ability of unions to effectively represent their members. This bill is just another plank in the low-wage, anti-union, antiworker agenda that the Liberals and the Nationals have continued to pursue for decades. This bill purports to be about the CFMEU and clamping down on criminal behaviour in the building and construction industry. But, as the actions of our government have shown, we are serious about cleaning up the CFMEU. In doing so we want to ensure that the CFMEU construction division members are effectively represented in advocating and negotiating for their rights and conditions. We also recognise that, where there is corruption, the legitimate role of decent trade union members, delegates and officials is undermined by the kind of behaviour that we've seen from the CFMEU construction division. By beginning the process to place the CFMEU construction division into administration we took swift, meaningful action which ensured construction workers would continue to have strong, effective representation and safe workplaces free of corruption, criminality and violence. I'm pleased that we had the support of the opposition for that legislation. Had we gone down the path Mr Dutton suggested, of deregistering the CFMEU, the same people and problems would have been in place but without the ability to effectively regulate them. By commencing the process to place the CFMEU construction division into administration, we took the strongest action that has ever been taken against them in history. While we hear the opposition say that the issues in the building and construction industry were around for a long time and hear them ask why we didn't act sooner, it begs the question: what did they do? John Setka rose to power while those opposite were in government. They say they had the Australian Building and Construction Commission and that we should bring it back, but the ABCC was ineffective. They didn't want women's toilets on a building site! It beggars belief. Productivity in the construction sector fell when the ABCC was in place, and it has gone up since the ABCC was abolished. The uncomfortable truth for those opposite is that the ABCC was ineffective and no more represents action on these issues than throwing a damp cloth on the bench represents cleaning the kitchen. The opposition pretend that this is an instrument designed to clean up the building and construction industry and to crack down on corruption and criminality, but it is nothing of the sort. They know full well that this is a cynical ploy to use the issues in the building and construction industry to launch an ideological attack on the entire Australian union movement. They are basically seeking to deploy a sledgehammer for an operation that requires a scalpel. Those opposite can drop the pretence that this bill represents a genuine attempt to clean up corruption and criminality in the building and construction industry, because if they think Australians are being fooled by this approach then they are only fooling themselves. If the opposition are serious about forming government after the next federal election, they have an important lesson to learn: elections in Australian politics are fought in the sensible Centre. But a bill like this demonstrates that, under Mr Dutton's leadership, the coalition wish to occupy the extreme fringe of Australian politics. Far be it from me to offer the opposition free political advice, but this should be a no-brainer. When Australians are looking for cost-of-living relief, attacking their ability to earn a living is really not going to win them over. Regardless of whether Australian workers choose to join a union or not, it is undeniable that most advances in pay, in job security, in working conditions and in health and safety outcomes have been hard fought and won by Australia's trade union movement. It's clear that this bill, if passed, would hamper unions' ability to effectively do their job, so much so that the right to freedom of association would be completely undermined. That would, no doubt, wind back the clock on pay and conditions, leaving workers worse off. Let's be clear: all Australian workers would suffer as a result of this extreme bill, not just those who are union members. All Australian workers should be in no doubt that the undermining of their pay and conditions, their job security and their safety at work is not an unintended consequence of this bill; it is a design feature. Do not be fooled that this bill is aimed at the CFMEU or designed to clean up the building and construction industry. This bill has implications for workers in every industry. It is the extreme Liberal-National coalition's antiworker agenda laid bare. I call on the Senate to reject this extreme bill and consign it to the garbage heap, where it belongs. 10:01 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The title of this bill before the Senate today is the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2). It's a pretty 'does what it says' type of bill: we're going to remove criminals from worksites. Yesterday in my office I had some students from Emmanuel College on the Gold Coast: Hugo, Charlotte, Enzo, Mia, Ella, Sophie, Evie, Maya, Noah, Ethan, Lily and Harry. Those students would be able to tell everybody in this chamber what this bill actually means: removing criminals from worksites. It's a bit of a no-brainer. If it's a no-brainer to students from Emmanuel College on the Gold Coast, you would think it would be a bit of a no-brainer to the Labor Party, to the Greens and to the left-wing members of the crossbench. But, sadly, no. This very sensible bill is being opposed by the left side of politics. Now, why would the Labor Party and the Greens want to run a protection racket for criminals? Well, I can't really answer that question. I think that's a question that should be put to the Labor Party and the Greens. Why do they want to protect criminals on worksites across Australia? Well, thinking out loud, it might be to do with the $6.2 million of donations that the CFMEU have given to the Labor Party, and the other millions of dollars of donations that other unions who are under the cloud of—let's put it bluntly—criminal behaviour have given to the Labor Party and the Greens. So we've got a protection racket here, where the Left side of politics is willing to turn a blind eye to the worst type of human behaviour that takes place on workplaces across Australia. Now, I'm going to use some language here—and I won't use the full language, because it would upset the standing orders, those who are listening and those students from the Gold Coast who were in my office yesterday. This is what is happening on worksites across Australia. One CFMEU official threatened the owners of an Indigenous labour hire firm, saying, 'I'll F-ing take your soul and I'll rip your F-ing head off.' Wow. We don't hear the Labor Party coming out and condemning that, do we? We don't hear Labor cabinet ministers coming out and condemning such behaviour, do we? This type of behaviour is common on worksites across Australia where the CFMEU is present. It is a criminal organisation that has been infiltrated by bikie motorcycle gangs. You might think, 'Oh, they're not that bad, are they?' These motorcycle gangs are the worst of the worst. They trade in drugs, they trade in people, they trade in misery and now they trade in workers rights. This side of parliament believes in the right of Australians to join a union or not join a union. Indeed, in my home state of Queensland, I support competition amongst the unions, which is why I'm a strong supporter of the red unions. I'm a strong supporter of those workers who wish to set up their own industrial organisations, like the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland and the Teachers Professional Association of Queensland. I support them setting up their own unions and conducting their own workplace negotiations with their employers, rather than the current system with this corporatist approach where the Labor Party and their financial backers, the unions, run a closed shop in terms of industrial issues but also in terms of protecting each other when allegations of criminal behaviour come forward. This bill is all about ensuring that those people who engage or have engaged in criminal behaviour do not go on our worksites across Australia. Our worksites should be safe places for Australians to go and work, earn money and go home and sleep safely at night. Instead, we've got a Labor Party who endorse this culture of fear and this code of silence, where people who speak out are called dogs or rats. We have people like John Setka, who the Labor Party have only recently disowned in relation to his conduct on worksites and in workplaces across Australia, conduct that is ongoing to this day. Yet the Labor Party had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar of understanding of the culture of criminality that exists within the CFMEU. It's fascinating when you hear the left side of politics get up in this chamber and around the country and talk about fairness and equity and equality. But that never applies to the victims of union thuggery. It doesn't apply to the victims of union criminality. Why is that? I go back to 6.2 million reasons why. It's the money that this criminal organisation, the CFMEU, has given to the Labor Party, not over the last decade or the last 20 years but since Anthony Albanese has been Prime Minister. Since Anthony Albanese has been Prime Minister, the CFMEU has given $6.2 million to the Labor Party. What do they get for that? Obviously they get an obsequious prime minister, a prime minister who had a whistleblower come to his office 10 years ago and inform him of issues within the CFMEU. What did that then minister and leading member of parliament do? He duckshoved it, he hospital passed it and he passed it on to someone else, because it was not his problem. Well, Prime Minister, the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept. A decade ago, you walked past someone coming to you with serious allegations concerning criminality within the CFMEU, so for you to suddenly decide in the last month or two, in some Damascus-like eruption of innocence, that there issues within the CFMEU is quite frankly not believable. It is not believable that the Labor Party abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission—firstly, when this weak prime minister was leader; and secondly, when he was a cabinet minister. They have done it twice. In 2007, when Labor won, they abolished it with the connivance of their preference swappers, the Greens. Then, just recently after the 2022 election, they again abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They abolished the cop on the beat. Why did they do that? It's the political equivalent of brown paper bags being passed under the table—$6.2 million passed from the CFMEU to the Labor Party. One of those conditions of those donations and the support to the Labor Party from this criminal organisation was for the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. If there is anything that the National Anti-Corruption Commission should be looking into, it should be the relationship between the Labor Party and the CFMEU and the relationship between the Labor Party taking donations from a criminal organisation and then putting into practice, actually enacting, the wishes of that criminal organisation through passing a bill in this parliament to abolish the ABCC. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator McGrath. The time for the consideration of private senators' bills has expired. You will be in continuation the next time this bill is debated. DOCUMENTS 11 DOCUMENTS Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 11 Order for the Production of Documents 11 10:11 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I table documents in response to an order for production of documents 541, 550 and 568 relating to the IGADF Twenty-Year Review. MOTIONS 11 MOTIONS Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 11 10:12 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to move a motion relating to Defence accountability and the Twenty-year review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force: That: (1) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to immediately attend the Senate to explain: (i) the lack of transparency and accountability in relation to the tabling of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report; (ii) why the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report was removed as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide; (iii) who authorised the removal of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide; and (iv) who has been consulted in relation to the release of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report; and (2) any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and (3) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. Leave not granted. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to Defence accountability and the Twenty-year review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force report. Well, well, well, wasn't yesterday a farce! It was worse than a circus in here yesterday—absolutely disgraceful. Here I was, still pushing hard to get Minister Marles to release the 20-year review into the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The IGADF is the military justice system that sits within defence. Side by side, mates for mates and all that sort of stuff—they love each other. Set up 20 years ago in the wake of the bastardisation and abuse that was going on in our military, the IGADF are supposed to be there to make sure veterans get justice and are dealt with fairly and that any matters are investigated impartially. But they're not, are they? The royal commission demonstrated that. For God's sake, 18 out of the 122 recommendations of the royal commission were targeted at the military justice system. On Monday, I sent an email calling for supporters to back in my calls for the release of the report of the 20-year review into the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. I forked out for radio ads and moved motions in the Senate every chance I got. Again, I was told I couldn't have it. Julie-Ann Finney even went down to Richard Marles's electorate office, in Geelong, on Monday morning and sat outside, begging Minister Marles to release the report. Jacqui Lambie Network supporters sent almost 2½ thousand emails to Minister Marles's office, flooding his inbox, demanding the minister release the report. Then yesterday afternoon—it keeps getting better; you couldn't make this up—David Shoebridge's office, God bless them, found the report buried deep down on the royal commission's website. It wasn't listed as an exhibit, but there it was. My office called the royal commission and asked for the date that that report had gone up, and then it was gone. That's right—gone off that website in 30 minutes. Wow! We got a sniff of it, and they took it off the website—talk about transparency! But it was too late; we had already downloaded it and we'd already made copies of it. I can tell you that the only place it was going was right out there. Senator Shoebridge and I headed back down to the chamber to table the report in the Senate yesterday afternoon, and the government refused. That's right. They don't want to put veterans first. You are part of the cover-up. You don't want to fix the culture that is apparently going on in our military, even after three years of a royal commission. But apparently you're going to table it—because it's so important—maybe sometime today. But veterans and Australians can go to lambienetwork.com.au and download their very own copy right now. We've done that for you because this government is too busy covering its own backside and that of defence, even after three years of a royal commission. I would like to thank Justice Kerr for his work. He was given only three months to do that review, and that was over the Christmas period. It put him under the pump, and he was given very narrow terms of reference—because we wouldn't want to know the truth, would we? The truth's already there. Have you not been watching the royal commission? Sure you have! People from the department were there every day. I had veterans in there feeling intimidated because people from Defence thought it was a smart idea to wear their uniform with all their brass sparkling. How intimidating is that for a veteran to tell their story? This is what they were up against. I'm sick of the cover-up. You say you want to make changes, you say you want the culture to change and you say you want to reduce veteran suicide, but you are part of the problem. You are not holding them accountable. And then you go and do stuff like this. It wasn't even redacted. That report is hardly redacted, yet your minister has been telling me he's been consulting for six months. Oh, really? We'll see who he's been consulting, because there are FOIs going at him quickly today. There are FOIs coming from Rex Patrick, and I'll tell you that I want some answers today. The IGADF might be a statutory office, but it is not independent. Most veterans see the IGADF as an agency that just runs interference for defence, and that's exactly what it does. We don't see it. After the royal commission, we know they're running interference to cover their butts. Minister Marles needs to finally get off his rear end and start showing some courage. He's lost. He's finished. Marles is gone. Do you know why? Because he doesn't have the guts to stand up to the brass. He doesn't have the guts. He should never have been made minister. It's not his temperament. It's not who he is. And we will never ever get culture change. We will only get more veteran suicide, because you on this side are running a bloody racket with defence. Your minister is hopeless. Your minister is the worst I have ever seen—no courage. If you can't fix it, I'll keep coming. It will get fixed. It will get fixed before I leave this house. It will get fixed, and I will keep coming every minute I have. 10:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We had an extraordinary situation yesterday. A motion was moved for the immediate production of the report on the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. This review was commenced because the overwhelming feeling amongst serving and veteran members of the defence community is that the Inspector-General, whose job is to hear some of the most important cases involving military justice, issues of sexual assault, bullying and intimidation, as well as investigations into deaths—the overwhelming view amongst serving and veteran members of the community is that there is absolutely no independence in the office; it is just part of the chain of command. If you're a young woman trying to get some justice for a sexual assault that happened in the Defence Force, and you go to an institution that's just part of the chain of command and is effectively under the direction of the CDF, how could you possibly think you're going to get justice out of that—particularly if you're a junior member of the Defence Force—because you've seen time and time again how the leadership backs itself in. We were seeking the immediate production of this document, and the defence minister and the defence department—which, last time I checked, was a $55 billion organisation—were in here doing what they always do: refusing transparency. It is their reflex action, saying: 'No, you can't see the report. No, you can't have it. No, we won't release it to the public. No, we won't release it to the veteran community.' That's what Defence did. But, with their $55 billion organisation, they failed to check that it had already been tendered and published by the royal commission. Who runs a $55 billion organisation where, for the purpose of a Senate debate, the minister's office can't even find out whether or not the report has already been tendered and published by the royal commission? I'll tell you who does: Deputy Prime Minister Marles. He couldn't run a chook raffle. He was in here fighting to oppose the immediate release of a report that's already been published by the royal commission. In the course of that debate, we were making investigations in my office, hunting for any further information—and that's when we found the report on the royal commission website. The government resisted the immediate production of it, saying they couldn't possibly do that and that the sky would fall down if we had any kind of transparency in Defence. Some basic inquiries were made, I think by Senator Lambie's office, about when it got published, to a member of the executive—and what do you know? The report was deleted from the royal commission website, a week after it was handed down. Is this how this government is going to treat the royal commission into veterans—that, a week after the report is handed down, when people find any evidence on that website or any tendered exhibits that are embarrassing to the government they're going to edit them and delete them? Who deleted it? Was it the Deputy Prime Minister's office who called for the deletion? Was it Minister Marles who called for the deletion? Is Minister Marles aware that his government is already editing the record of the royal commission a week after the report was handed down? Is it contempt? Is the Attorney-General going to investigate whether this is contempt of the royal commission? It appears the Deputy Prime Minister, or someone in his office, or someone in Prime Minister and Cabinet, is editing and deleting the records of a royal commission a week after the report was handed down. Will the government answer any of this? Now we get this faux transparency from them. Now they say, 'Oh, here we are, tabling this document.' You're tabling the document because you've been embarrassed, because your incompetence, your malfeasance and your disrespect for the veteran community and the serving members of the ADF have been exposed for all to see. You're not tabling the document because you believe in transparency; you're tabling it because Senator Lambie and I handed copies out to the media and published it this morning in our own right. That's why you're publishing it. Embarrassing, incompetence and nastiness—that's what it is. (Time expired) 10:24 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The issue was the report. The issue is now the government's behaviour. It is the government's behaviour that we need to see fixed. What are you hiding? This is supposed to be the house of review, but we can't get documents that are affecting people's lives on a daily basis—good soldiers, good veterans. And you are hiding it. We have been chasing the helicopter investigation report now for literally years. It keeps getting put off. Now we get just the executives summary of a report, redacted. We don't get the investigation report. We don't get the correspondence and all the other documents that are part of this investigation. That's what we asked for. But you're hiding something. You're hiding many things. As a result of the cover-up at least four lives were lost in a helicopter accident. We have received minimal information. The last few days have been very weird. This is an unusual motion. But it's justified because of your behaviour, your covering up, your hiding. The government's behaviour is responsible for this motion. We've had Senator Ayres and Senator Watt do their usual when they're cornered: label people, smear people and make statements that are erroneous to deflect. It's government behaviour again. You won't be held accountable so you just smear. You blame the coalition, blame the Greens, blame One Nation and blame Senator Babet—blame, blame, blame. You're hijacking, smearing and building facades. Look at this government. The senators asked the government—the workplace relations minister—to do an investigation into the massive wage theft from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley miners. The Senate has asked the minister to do that. We've heard nothing. Miners are losing up to $41,000 per year. One claim that went to the Fair Work Ombudsman recently was for $211,000 for one miner. It is billions of dollars. The Help to Buy scheme—look at it! The Help to Buy scheme is absolutely hopeless. The Greens are opposed to it. We're opposed to it. Most of the crossbench and the coalition are opposed to it. You're digging your own grave. Start behaving responsibly. Then there was the Voice—smashed. It was put forward by the Labor Party without any basis. There was no basis, no argument—just a feeling. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the twin of the Digital ID Bill 2024, was passed in the Senate with a complete lack of debate. There were no questions. There was no debate in the committee stage of the bill. It's an absolute disgrace. It's one of the most far-reaching bills in the last few decades and it was completely squashed. There was no debate. The people of Australia couldn't have a say. Now we've got the misinformation and disinformation bill coming in to censor people. You can't even criticise or make a comment about the economy, because that's anti-government. The fundamental thing is that the defence department and Defence are completely unaccountable, running rampant, destroying people's lives, killing people, causing the deaths of people, wasting billions of dollars and leaving our security in tatters. This is not a defence department—sorry, it is a defence department! It's not defending Australia; it's defending itself. That's why it's called the defence department; it's defending itself. This government's behaviour is what's driving us to seek to have the minister come in here immediately. You are responsible for this because of your behaviour. This government is absolutely hopeless. You're falling down in every step you make. We need this motion to pass, and we in One Nation will be supporting it. 10:29 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory This government certainly does not disrespect veterans. We thank each and every one of them for giving their evidence throughout the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and thank all those involved in the royal commission. There is no defence in terms of that—Senator Roberts, in particular. There is certainly an acceptance of the importance of this. In my reference to Senator Lambie's motion, I just want to put this on the table: the government provided the 20-year review to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to form part of its consideration and final recommendations. I understand this report was provided under a notice to produce to the royal commission by the Commonwealth on a confidential basis. I further understand that the royal commission did not reject this confidentiality claim. I'm advised the document was published on the royal commission's website in error, which I believe is where Senator Shoebridge has accessed this document. In contravention of the understanding regarding confidentiality, evidence procedures and understood conventions, I'm advised the office of the royal commission removed the document from its website after becoming aware of the error. But it is now public, as I just tabled it prior to Senator Lambie getting to her feet. Question agreed to. 10:32 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That: (1) the Senate requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to immediately attend the Senate to explain: (i) the lack of transparency and accountability in relation to the tabling of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report; (ii) why the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report was removed as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide; (iii) who authorised the removal of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report as an exhibit from the website of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide; and (iv) who has been consulted in relation to the release of the Twenty-Year Review of the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Report; and (2) any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and (3) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 10:32 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move: Paragraph (1), amend "immediately" to "10 am tomorrow (Thursday, 19 September 2024)" Paragraph (3), amend "60 minutes" to "30 minutes" 10:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I want to place on record support for the motion as proposed, the motion from Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge, with that amendment in place. To provide some context, I spoke about these matters in the chamber earlier this week and, in doing so, acknowledged at the time the enduring debt of gratitude that every single Australian, especially every parliamentarian, should have to the women and men of our Defence Force and all of our veterans. I also acknowledged the relentless work of Senator Lambie in her efforts around support for veterans and accountability of government when it comes to the support for veterans. I also acknowledged, from the opposition's perspective, that we see as very important the work done by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. We understand the intense interest of the veterans community in the work of the IGADF, and we understand and have supported transparency in relation to that work. The way the government has handled this has turned into, to use the colloquial term, something of a cluster. For quite some time the government had said, 'Yes, we'll release the report but just not yet,' and that they were going through a process. As the opposition, respecting the sensitivity of these issues, we backed the release of the report and also gave the government the benefit of the doubt in relation to the need to prepare the work for release and to handle it with appropriate sensitivity regarding its content, with confidentiality matters and other matters being taken into account. After the debates in this Senate and the call made very clearly by this Senate for the government to stop faffing about and saying they'd do it some time and instead to say precisely when and how they would release it, we then discover that, within different arms of government, the report's been published and then removed from the website and it's apparently just been tabled now. We've got this on-again off-again chaos coming from the government in handling something that is sensitive, that does matter and that should have been part of a proper process from the outset. The government should've had the foresight to think about how they were going to handle this from the outset themselves, without needing to be prompted by the Senate. But, when they were prompted by Senator Lambie and the Senate, they certainly should have worked out what the process would be. Frankly, if they haven't worked out by now that Senator Lambie was going to be a bit of a terrier in coming back again and again, then they haven't been paying attention during her time in the Australian Senate and they should have realised that, actually, they'd have been much better off being clear, firm and precise about how and when it was going to be handled. They could have certainly earned the trust of the alternative government and hopefully even earned the trust of other senators, but, most importantly, they could've earned the trust of the veterans community by being more precise and thoughtful in the way they've handled it. We support this motion because the chaos, the mishandling, the on-again off-again responses from the government and the accidental publication of the report deserve to be explained. Given the amendment that Senator Shoebridge has proposed, non-government senators have agreed it would be better that the government has 24 hours to think about it, to understand what happened and to come and give a serious response to the Senate. The amendment to replace 'immediately' with '10 am tomorrow' is foreshadowing to the government: Take this matter seriously. Don't just come in here with some glib statement that seeks to brush it aside and say, 'Oh, well, we've tabled it now.' Take it seriously and understand the seriousness with which non-government senators have taken it. We are giving that time to the government rather than simply calling a minister to the table immediately so that they can come in here and detail how it is that this report was published and then removed from publication and why there has been this delay in terms of transparency and accountability, only for the minister to suddenly bring it to the Senate floor right now. This type of chaotic approach should not be how such a sensitive issue is handled, and the government should come prepared tomorrow to be very clear about what the delays were; why the accident—if it was an accident to publish—occurred; what interventions occurred to have it removed; why there is the sudden change of heart to publish it in this chamber today; and ultimately, how the government is going to take these matters forward with far greater care and sensitivity than they have shown to date. 10:40 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government supports the motion and the amendment to the motion, and we're ready to proceed with the debate on paid parental leave. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Lambie, as amended, be agreed to. Question agreed to. BILLS 16 BILLS Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 16

Help to Buy Bill 2023

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 16 10:46 The PRESIDENT 112096 We are dealing with the deferred vote from yesterday evening on the amendment moved by Senator McKim. The question is that the second reading amendment as put by Senator McKim on sheet 2904 be put.

The Senate divided. [10:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:49 The PRESIDENT 112096 The effect of that amendment is that the bill won't be read a second time. The question is that the motion for the second reading as amended be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

MOTIONS 17 MOTIONS Middle East: Casualties 17 10:54 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to move that general business notice of motion No. 621 calling for an independent investigation into the Israeli attack that killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined. Leave not granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 621. This motion is urgent because Zomi Frankcom and her family deserve justice. Zomi Frankcom was the living, breathing, smiling heart of everything World Central Kitchen did in the field. She gave joy to others. Her compassion and curiosity were infectious. She simply cannot be replaced. That was how Jose Andres, the founder of World Central Kitchen, described Zomi. She was killed along with six colleagues on 1 April by Israeli forces in what World Central Kitchen called a targeted attack. On the day, according to Jose Andres, Israeli forces targeted their aid convoy, systematically, car by car. The convoy was made up of three vehicles, all of which were marked as World Central Kitchen. Their movements were in full compliance with Israeli authorities, who were aware of their itinerary and their route. They were operating in a deconfliction zone in an area controlled by Israeli forces. But they were still attacked. The Israeli forces hit the first car. The team were able to escape and moved to the second car of the convoy. That was hit as well. The team members then moved to a third car. That was also bombed, ensuring all seven aid workers were killed. I can only imagine how terrified Zomi and her colleagues were in their final moments. Despite this very detailed account from World Central Kitchen, provided in the immediate aftermath of these killings, a report commissioned by the Australian government astonishingly claims that the attack was not deliberately directed at the World Central Kitchen aid workers. This report is nothing but whitewashing. The report makes clear that Air Chief Marshal Binskin had no investigative powers and relied on voluntary conversations. It was later revealed by ABC's 7.30 that he did not even have crucial audio evidence taken from an Israeli drone on the day of the attack. World Central Kitchen made clear that 'the IDF cannot credibly investigate its own failure in Gaza'. Of course they can't. We would never ask a murderer to investigate their own crime. Why on earth would be trust war criminals to investigate their own war crimes? It has been five long months since the killing of Zomi Frankcom, and this is all we have from Labor—hollow words of sympathy but no real accountability for the perpetrators. Let me remind you that the government has a duty to seek truth and justice for an Australian. Your job is to hold Zomi Frankcom's killers to account, not dish out pathetic reports to protect your genocidal friends in Israel. The barbaric killing machine of Israel has slaughtered nearly 300 aid workers since it began its genocide in Gaza in October, among them at least 212 UN workers. Because of the impunity gifted to Israel by countries like Australia, Israel has continued to kill aid workers, including another World Central Kitchen worker, Nadi Salout, last month. Just a few weeks ago, the World Food Programme had to pause its movement in Gaza because Israeli forces opened fire on one of its vehicles. This systematic targeting of humanitarian workers is likely to make 2024 the deadliest year for aid workers. We should all be horrified at this, yet the world is sitting on its hands. The Australian government is sitting on its hands. It is just incomprehensible to me how far Labor will go in its support for the apartheid state of Israel. Where is the limit? Clearly the slaughter of at least 40,000 Palestinians, including at least 17,000 children, doesn't bother you, nor the slaughter of hundreds of aid workers, nor the deliberate murder of Zomi Frankcom. None of that seems to bother Labor, because they will continue with their arms deals and contracts. They will not impose sanctions. They will barely utter a word to condemn Israel. Well, if you're not willing to do any of that, then at least do this: call for an independent investigation into the murder of Zomi Frankcom. If there is nothing to hide, let's openly call for an International Criminal Court investigation into the killing of aid workers. Zomi and her family deserve justice, as does every single aid worker slaughtered by Israel. For goodness sake, show an ounce of humanity, if you have any in you at all. 11:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government does not support the suspension of standing orders. There are other opportunities to advance these arguments in the Senate, including as a matter of public importance, an urgency motion in the general business debate, senators' statements and the adjournment debate. The deaths of Ms Frankcom and her colleagues were inexcusable. We condemn the Israeli strikes that caused them. It is clear that these deaths were a consequence of a failure of Israel defence force controls, errors in decision-making, misidentification, a failure to comply with senior command direction, and a violation of Israel defence force procedures and rules of engagement. This incident should not have occurred. The government appointed Air Chief Marshal Binskin as special adviser, to ensure that Israel's response is conducted in a manner consistent with these expectations and the expectations of the Australian people: to provide advice on the sufficiency and appropriateness of steps taken to hold those responsible to account and on the measures adopted to prevent such incidents happening again. Air Chief Marshal Binskin's report indicates that Israel's process is broadly in line with the approach that the Australian Defence Force would take in conducting an investigation. As his report makes clear, Israel's process for determining accountability is not over. Today's motion demonstrates that nothing is exempt from pointscoring. The Liberals have criticised us for appointing Air Chief Marshal Binskin and for seeking to assure ourselves, the Australian people and Ms Frankcom's family that the process has been rigorous. The Greens criticise us for not doing enough. Both fail to recognise the real work this government has done, and continues to do, to ensure accountability and to ensure that humanitarian workers are protected. The government will continue to press for full accountability, including any appropriate criminal charges. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, we continue to advocate to Israel on behalf of the Frankcom family. The Military Advocate General of Israel is still to decide on further action. Australia's expectation remains that there be transparency about the Military Advocate General's process and decision. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong, has raised this directly with her Israeli counterpart. Senator Wong has asked Air Chief Marshal Binskin to be available to provide additional advice to the government following the Military Advocate General's process. The government also wants to ensure the tragic deaths of Zomi Frankcom and her World Central Kitchen colleagues are not in vain and will not be repeated. Australia is working with the United Nations and the international community to press Israel to reform its coordination and deconfliction with humanitarian organisations working on the ground to protect aid workers and civilians, because this was not a one-off incident. Civilians and humanitarian workers continue to be killed, and Australia is disturbed by reports emerging that 18 people, including six United Nations relief and works agency staff, were killed in a recent Israeli air strike on an UNRWA school in Nuseirat refugee camp. The government reiterates that this cannot continue. I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the suspension be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:09]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 19 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 19

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024

Second Reading 19 11:12 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. I can't remember when I first made a speech about the need for super on paid parental leave, but it was at least a decade ago—soon after PPL began in 2011—along with so many other women and advocates who have pushed so hard for this change. The Greens welcome Labor's decision to finally get on board with the Greens' policy to pay superannuation on paid parental leave. For years we have been calling on the government to put their money where their mouth is on gender equality and to pay super on parental leave. We have even seen our own amendments to do this very thing rejected by Labor. While we are relieved the government is making this change, it is shameful it is making women wait until 2025. Paying super on paid parental leave is a simple yet very important change to make the super system more equitable, particularly for women. The evidence from community groups, academics and the work and care inquiry I chaired is so clear: super on PPL is necessary for improving gender equity in Australia. Parental leave is currently the only leave entitlement paid without superannuation. There is not a single reason justifying this double standard, and there are so many reasons supporting paying super on parental leave. It remains the only leave that is not at full wage replacement. I chaired the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care, where we heard evidence about the impacts of the superannuation gender gap. The ACTU told the committee that women, on average, retire with super balances that are 47 per cent lower than men's. Missing out on super while taking parental leave contributes very significantly to this big gap. We heard from women, carers, older people and people who live in fear of poverty in old age who are worried that their super accounts will not be sufficient to support them during retirement. A grandmother, elder carer and permanent full-time worker told us: 'As a parent, grandparent and caregiver, full-time worker and unfortunately divorced, I feel like I'm running on empty, but the bills have to be paid. I worry my super won't cover me enough in retirement, even though I pay extra into it—stressed, tiredness, never very far away.' Professor Alison Preston told the committee of the inequity perpetuated by not paying super on paid parental leave when she said: If a male has had a child, it has no bearing on their superannuation estimates. There is no difference with the superannuation of male counterparts who have never had a child. If a woman has had a child then her earnings are around 16 per cent less. Sixteen per cent! It is with a collective sigh of relief that we welcome the government's decision to finally pay super on parental leave. But even with this change to the PPL arrangements in this country, Australia remains well behind the rest of the world on paid parental leave and gender equality more broadly. During the work and care inquiry, we heard definitive evidence from stakeholders about the consequences of Australia's inadequate Paid Parental Leave scheme. Our existing scheme promotes and entrenches prevailing stereotypic gender roles: mothers as primary carers and fathers as primary earners. Women account for 88 per cent of all primary carers taking leave and men account for only 12 per cent. As a result, there is a huge gender division in the distribution of paid and unpaid work, which necessarily undermines equality between men and women. Caring patterns are established in the first year of a child's life, and they persist over that life, so the underutilisation of parental leave amongst fathers bakes in the gender division of labour in households—and in the workforce—for years to come. The skewed distribution of care work leads to reduced women's workforce participation, and time out of the workforce hinders women's career progression and contributes to the dominance of men in more senior roles and the concentration of women in low-paid, part-time and insecure work. We know inadequate paid parental leave schemes have negative impacts on gender equality, but we also know that good paid parental leave schemes deliver social and economic benefits to women, to children, to parents and to the economy more broadly. We have buckets of research—very robust research, solid longitudinal studies—that tell us about the broad range of benefits of longer periods of paid parental leave, both in Australia and around the world. There are huge benefits for babies, very significant benefits for the life chances of children and enormous benefits for mothers and fathers. It assists breastfeeding, child development, the distribution of domestic work within families, and the mental and physical health of parents. It's also very clear that the benefits are there for the labour supply and the economy. Last year, the government's own Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommended expanding PPL to 52 weeks and paying PPL at replacement wage, with employers making a contribution. This is not some random number; it is the international standard, the OECD average. Australia has also fallen behind other countries in the rate of pay, the length of leave and how leave is allocated between parents. Australia's paid parental leave rate is currently one of the lowest in the OECD, even with the recent changes to bring PPL up to 26 weeks at minimum wage. For many parents, the minimum wage is well below their normal wage. This forces difficult decisions about how long parents can afford to take leave. As many witnesses at the work and care hearings pointed out, continuing to pay parental leave at minimum wage is not an effective incentive to induce more fathers to take leave. The Greens are fighting for 52 weeks of paid parental leave at full wage replacement, including incentivising employers to top up the government's scheme. The ACTU have called for this pathway, yet the government is still ignoring the plea and the evidence. We've seen no commitment, not even to a pathway to 52 weeks of paid leave, to bring us into line with international best practice. We know this is possible, because lots of countries are already doing it and reaping the benefits—countries like Finland, Germany, Norway, Iceland and many others. They have more equitable and effective paid parental leave schemes, and we should be matching them. Norway has 49 weeks of parental leave: 15 weeks exclusively for one carer and another 15 weeks exclusively for the other, with the remaining 16 weeks to be shared. There are so many positive models out there. We heard firsthand the benefits of adequate paid parental leave during our work and care inquiry, over and over again. Suvi, for example, lives in Sweden. She has a 13-year-old daughter and was able to take a total of 16 months paid leave. Her partner is taking seven months paid leave in his own right. That's based on Sweden's parental leave policy—a great model to look at. This helps explain the much greater sharing of domestic work that we see over the life course in those countries with good, lengthy periods of parental leave—paid close to ordinary earnings—and free child care. It's an arrangement which, together with paid parental leave, gives kids and their families such a good start and is associated with a much lower gender pay gap. The experience in other countries puts beyond doubt that more equitable parental leave, coupled with free child care of high quality, improves women's workforce participation and helps shape the long-term sharing of care work, with really important positive outcomes for our kids. Where there is a more equitable take-up of parental leave, women have better paid-employment outcomes and children receive better support in the earliest stages of life. It's a win-win. This is not to mention the improved maternal health and the quality of personal relationships that exist for parents during a time when these things can be strained. Research from the Parenthood found that, if we legislated 12 months of paid parental leave at full pay and with a significant portion of it shared, this would lead to a GDP increase of $116 billion—or 2.9 per cent—by 2025, largely due to the higher rates of female participation and the productivity that would result from them spending less time out of the labour market. The Greens welcome the introduction of paying super on paid parental leave. The Greens, the community sector, academics—so many people across our community—have been calling for it ever since PPL was first introduced. But this is really the least the government could do. After decades of talk about what needs to be done, the action from this government remains insufficient. The government's main objection to giving Australian families 52 weeks of PPL is financial. 'We cannot afford it,' they say. Women and parents should not be asked to wait, when nuclear submarines and wealthy property investors are not asked to wait. The Greens will continue to call for reforms that expand support for new parents and address the gender inequity of current childcare patterns in Australia. We are fighting for paid parental leave to be expanded to 52 weeks, giving parents that full year together, between them, to nurture and provide for the needs of their kids. It's time to act. We can afford it for the sake of our kids, and we must do it for those parents, women, workplaces and the economy. It's time we moved in a more powerful and lengthy way to make that longer term difference for our families and our economy. 11:23 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. In doing so, I commend my good friend Amanda Rishworth, in the other place, and Senator Gallagher for bringing this legislation before us today, and I also acknowledge the women sitting in this chamber today who have been working on these issues, calling for this change for many, many years. Some have been doing so with a megaphone, others with very sharp elbows to their colleagues, but many women in this room have been advocating for this change and I acknowledge that and their work today. This bill invests $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay for superannuation on government paid parental leave. It delivers an additional 12 per cent of paid parental leave as a contribution directly to the superannuation funds of parents of babies born or adopted from 1 July 2025. This matches the superannuation guarantee rate on that date, and the contribution will rise alongside any future increases to the superannuation guarantee, ensuring that parents utilising paid parental leave receive their super on an equal basis to those who are working. The super will be paid at the end of each financial year and will include an additional interest component to make up for any forgone superannuation fund earnings as a result of the payment not being made more regularly. Importantly, this will be an automatic process, and the process for applying for paid parental leave will not change. We're trying to make sure here that parents don't face any barriers in claiming this entitlement. When the Gillard Labor government introduced paid parental leave, we saw a jump in the number of employers providing additional employer funded leave. It had a ricochet effect. It was a modelling effect. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 63 per cent of employers offered employer funded leave in 2023-24, up from 48 per cent 10 years earlier. Our schemes, as government schemes, have an impact on changing culture and changing workplace practices right across the employment sector. This legislation will have a similar impact, I am sure. Not only will it continue to normalise paid parental leave; it will also encourage more employers to pay superannuation on employer funded leave as a way to attract and retain staff. It is good for employers as well. Paid parental leave has been an absolute game changer for women. I have spoken in this chamber before about how I felt as a young woman in 2011 when these changes were introduced and how it opened up a completely different future in my mind to what I'd seen as possible before. It changed how I thought I could balance a career and how I could balance having children, and what it would mean for my ability to stay connected to the workplace, to have a family and to continue to work. Whilst my journey didn't quite go like that—when I was preselected my son's age was still being measured in weeks, not months, and I had my second baby in this place—it did completely change the way I saw my future, and it changed the things I thought were possible. When we expanded paid parental leave to 26 weeks, all those ideas and possibilities opened up for a new generation of women in Australia. They suddenly now see different opportunities and different potentials in how they can be the parents they want to be and be engaged in the workforce in the way they want to be. It's a reimagining of their future which is only possible through paid leave, and we know paid leave on a scale like this is only possible when governments back it in. Paid parental leave is good for mums, it's good for dads, it's good for their precious babies and it's good for our economy. There should be no remaining doubt in this chamber or anywhere in our community about that. Now it's time to make sure that when parents take this leave it will not affect their retirement income, an important investment to help close the super gap and help make decisions around balancing work and care easier for women, easier for mums and easier for dads. We know from the data that taking time out of the workforce to raise children impacts women's retirement outcomes. We know that women are retiring on average with about 25 per cent less super than men. This bill won't fix all of that, but it sure will make a difference. It will help. I couldn't be more proud of it. I couldn't be more proud of the legacy we, as Labor governments, have in bringing about superannuation and in introducing paid parental leave. The big step changes—they're not incremental changes—which have happened in this place have had a dramatic impact not only on women's workforce participation but also on what women can imagine for themselves: how they see their futures, how they see that opportunity and how they plan for those futures. Our families make that decision as well. This is good for mums, good for dads and good for babies. I couldn't be more proud of it. I commend the bill to the Senate. 11:28 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is a significant piece of legislation that brings together two great economic reforms of the Labor Party: universal superannuation and paid parental leave. This legislation before us today, like much of our legislation, is an example of what happens when you have equal representation of women and men at the decision table. That's not to say that men can't make decisions that are beneficial to women and vice versa, but having equal representation in the caucus room, the cabinet and the ministry is the best way to make decisions that will benefit all Australians. Contrast this with the opposition, who do not believe in a quota system. Instead, they stick to their old male centred view of the world, arguing that their merit based system will naturally produce the best candidates regardless of gender. Even today, women make up only 28 per cent of their party room. That's roughly one-quarter of the party room, with women almost outnumbered by three to one. I do wonder: do they believe that women are not as capable as men, or is it simply further confirmation that the Liberal Party do not value the role of women in parliament or society? The Labor Party is truly the party of the people. We are more diverse, more whole and more reflective of the society we were elected to represent. This is evident in our policies and legislation. We are the party that introduced no-fault divorce, the parenting payment, the Family Law Act, equal pay for equal work and the Sex Discrimination Act, and we created the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Labor releases an annual women's budget statement showing the impact on the budget of women, and we've done this every year since the Hawke government in the 1980s. The Coalition has not adopted the same practice, a clear signal they don't prioritise the part that budgets and policies play in advancing the cause of women's equity—or, rather, it sends a signal that the impact of our policies on women is a source of pride for Labor yet for those opposite it is a source of shame. Labor have always taken pride in our representation of women and women's interests. This legislation brings together two great Labor reforms: universal superannuation, introduced by the Keating government in 1992; and the Paid Parental Leave Act, introduced by the Gillard government in 2011. Until this bill is passed by the Senate, paid parental leave is the only remaining form of paid leave in this country that does not come with superannuation. This reform is therefore critical in closing the gap and will go a long way in ensuring that parents are not penalised in their retirement due to their decision to have children. Often referred to as the 'motherhood penalty', the increased economic insecurity due to the time out of the workforce to care for children must be dealt with. Statistics show us that women with children face an average 55 per cent drop in earnings in their first five years of parenthood. The effect of this lower income compounds over time, increasing the gap between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. In a clear example of gender inequality, women on average retire with around 25 per cent less super than men. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is therefore an important step in addressing gendered gaps in retirement savings. This bill introduces superannuation on government funded paid parental leave for children born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025, with the government set to pay an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly to their super fund. The super contribution will match the superannuation guarantee rate, as of 1 July, of the financial year the paid parental leave is taken, and will rise with any increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee. These changes are set to benefit around 180,000 families that currently access the government Paid Parental Leave scheme each year. This legislation builds on our other reforms to the Paid Parental Leave scheme since taking office in 2022, including the biggest expansion in paid parental leave since the previous Labor government created it. In our first government we delivered an expansion, from 20 weeks to 26 weeks, to paid parental leave from 2026. This means that, once the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026, and based on a superannuation guarantee rate of 12 per cent, the maximum amount a family would receive in superannuation contributions is around $3,000. We're also making the scheme more flexible so parents can share the responsibilities and the experience of those precious first months of a child's life. This is more than just great news for mothers; it's great news for dads as well. Research tells us that fathers are far more likely to use parental leave when it is well paid and flexible. As well as adding super to the government payment, this bill will also ensure the parental leave framework in the Fair Work Act complements the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Unpaid parental leave in the Fair Work Act is an entitlement that supports parents to remain connected to paid employment while they care for their child. In short, this bill, as we've heard, is good for families, good for women, good for business, good for the economy and, most importantly, good for children. It has the endorsement of businesses, unions, researchers, experts and economists, all of whom understand that the best way to increase productivity and participation in the workforce is to provide more choice, more support for families and more opportunities for women. Paid parental leave has already changed the lives of millions of Australians. These reforms strengthen the Paid Parental Leave scheme—yet another great and proud Labor legacy. I commend the bill to the Senate. 11:34 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 marks another step forward in closing the retirement gap—a 25 per cent gap—that exists between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. This bill will provide greater economic security for working women. That's because this government, more than any government before us, are putting women front and centre in everything we do. It was Julia Gillard and Jenny Macklin who, in 2011, introduced the Paid Parental Leave Scheme—a cornerstone of support for Australian families. At the time, it was rightly celebrated. Over the past 13 years, it has been Labor governments who have continually improved on this scheme, driven by the dedication of champions like Jenny Macklin, by women's organisations and by unions. Again today, with this bill, we are building on this legacy by adding superannuation to government-funded paid parental leave. From 1 July 2025, superannuation will be paid on paid parental leave for births and adoptions, and this crucial step is designed to ensure that everyone can enjoy a dignified retirement, including women, who we know disproportionately undertake caregiving roles and retire with about 25 per cent less super than men. By adding superannuation to paid parental leave, we take another step forward to closing the gender retirement savings gap and tackling the issue of gender equality more broadly. In my time as a senator, I have been one of many people on the side of the chamber who has championed women's economic security, and I am incredibly proud to be part of a government who put women front and centre and champion women's economic security. The work that women do in our society is essential, and it has been undervalued for far too long. The care that women provide at home has been undervalued for far too long, too. As a government, we value women's work. We value the caring roles that women perform in society. And we've shown that over and over again. We've shown it by supporting 15 per cent pay rises for our nation's educators and aged-care workers, and we're showing it again with this bill to make sure that women can continue to accrue their retirement savings while they're undertaking the incredibly important work of caring for young children at home. Reforms like these are only possible with Labor governments. However, the opposition are trying to stand in the way of these reforms. Their proposed amendments, which would allow individuals to choose a lump sum payment instead of paid parental leave, absolutely undermine the purpose of this bill and the integrity of our superannuation system. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that the coalition wants to take a positive change like this and use it to undermine our universal superannuation system. But, on our side of the chamber, our message is clear: superannuation is for your retirement, and you should be earning it when you take time out of the workforce to give care to young children. This bill goes beyond strengthening women's retirement security. It recognises the value of unpaid care. It ensures that those who take time off work for caregiving are not penalised in their retirement savings. Around 180,000 families a year will benefit from these changes, receiving up to $3,000 in superannuation contributions. These are tangible benefits for families across Australia. Additionally, employer-funded paid parental leave is a powerful tool for attracting and retaining staff. This bill encourages employers to align with the strengthened government scheme. The union movement, the women's movement and employers have been calling for this change for years, and this bill shows that we are listening. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, which did such powerful work, has recommended this change. Again, the Albanese Labor government is listening to and fulfilling that recommendation. To conclude, our Paid Parental Leave Scheme has been an absolute game changer for Australian families, and this bill will strengthen it even further, benefiting women, benefiting families and benefiting the economy. It ensures Australians receive the economic security that they deserve during their working lives and in retirement too. 11:39 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I know how exciting it can be to grow your family. When I first entered this chamber in July 2022, I was 35 weeks pregnant. Already a mother to then-six-year-old Jude, I knew my decision to come into this place carried a lot of weight. But I entered this place knowing that the Albanese Labor government was fighting for working mothers just like me. Historically, taking time out of the workforce to raise children could have had a negative impact on your financial future. Today, the Albanese Labor government is changing that. I am pleased to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024, a piece of legislation very important to me and many families across this country. Under paid parental leave, the government supports parents to take time off work after the birth or adoption of their child. In 2016, when I had my first son, I had the privilege of using the government's paid parental leave to stay home with my son—and if I had been able to receive superannuation on top of paid parental leave, that would have been the cherry on top too. We are putting families at the centre of our government's investments by investing $1.1 billion to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from July 2025. For babies born or adopted from 1 July next year, this bill delivers to all eligible parents an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly to their superannuation fund. This super contribution will match the superannuation guarantee rate as of 1 July in the financial year the paid parental leave is taken. It will rise with any future increases to the legislated superannuation guarantee, and the contribution will be made annually by the ATO. It will also include an additional interest component to address any forgone superannuation earnings as a result of the payments not being made regularly. What I really love about this bill is that 180,000 families will benefit from these changes, which is incredible. Once the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks in 2026, the maximum amount a family will receive in superannuation contributions will be around $3,000—or about an extra $106 a week. With women generally more likely than men to take parental leave, paying super on paid parental leave is an important step towards achieving gender equality by reducing the gender gaps in retirement savings. The Albanese Labor government is putting women in the driver's seat to determine their financial future. We are championing working parents and we're delivering cost-of-living relief for families. This bill is good for parents, good for families, good for women, good for business and good for the economy. Under Labor governments, women win and families win. 11:43 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. This legislation is great. It's part of what a Labor government does in terms of reform, but it is also very good news for families. It's great news that we're putting emphasis on superannuation, and it's even better news for the women of Australia. The Albanese Labor government is committed to Australian families and to Australia's workforce as our economy evolves. It will further demonstrate how important superannuation is. Industrial relations policy changes must take into account our changing world and demands on individuals and families. This is a landmark policy, and I'm proud to be part of a Labor government which is setting the standards for superannuation because superannuation is in our DNA. We believe in superannuation, unlike those opposite. It's wonderful to be part of a political party which is not afraid of these big reforms and implements policies which change the lives of Australians for the better—sick leave, Medicare, the PBS, superannuation, the NDIS, even the NBN, cheaper child care, paid parental leave, fee-free TAFE and now even more improvements to paid parental leave and superannuation which benefit our country and the future of our people. Paid parental leave is so important for Australian families. It's critical for women, and it's critical for our economy. The Gillard government knew this, which is why we introduced it in 2011, and the Albanese Labor government understands the importance of improving it. Since coming to office the Albanese government has not stopped thinking of ideas and better policies to make Australia a better place to live and to raise a family—a fairer place for Australian women. We believe in giving women the opportunity to return to the workforce. But we know how important superannuation is to Australian women, because the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in this country are women. Why? Because not all generations have had the opportunity of having superannuation. And having a child and being out of the workforce for some time impacts on the career pathways of Australian women. So, ensuring that superannuation is paid on that parental leave is really important. We know there are always going to be those who don't support superannuation, like the former government. We hear that from the contributions of those opposite when we're talking about housing—how they want young Australians to raid their superannuation now to help with buying a home, when we know that superannuation is there to ensure that people have a comfortable retirement. And women deserve nothing less, particularly those who are raising our children, the future of this country, than to have superannuation paid on their paid parental leave. Unions in this country have been fighting for fairness in this area for a very long time. So, it is with great pride that I say, as a member of this Labor government, that we have been delivering on that. From 1 July this year we added two more weeks of payment, expanding the scheme from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. We also gave more flexibility for both parents to access more of that paid parental leave to ensure that it works and that families have the flexibility they need in order to provide the loving care for their child and that both parents can be involved in those early formative weeks and months of a child's life. Parents will now have access to $20,000 to support them after the birth of a new baby. Through Paid Parental Leave, the government supports parents to take time off work after the birth or adoption of their child. Through this bill we are taking action to support them in their retirement. That's what it's all about. Through this bill we're investing $1.1 billion over the forward estimates to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave from 1 July. I could say so much more in relation to the importance of this piece of legislation. When you get to stand in this place and to be a member of the government, you want to be part of a government that makes Australian lives better, and there has not been a government that has done more to close the pay gap for Australian women than this government. There has not been a government that has done more in terms of fairness and access to better superannuation. I'm proud to be part of that. To some degree, this government has continued to build on what the Gillard government did, and that's because more than 50 per cent of our caucus are women, who do make a difference when developing policy. So I commend this legislation as well as the leadership of the Prime Minister in ensuring fairness and greater access to superannuation for women and helping Australians in their retirement years. 11:49 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania We're talking about providing superannuation contributions for people receiving parental leave pay. I think it's great these people who are bringing up future generations will have some extra money tucked away in their super when they retire. But one policy that really makes sense to me is paying super on carer payments. There are 2.8 million people who provide informal care across Australia. About 300,000 of these people receive carer payments. Half of them are over 55 and three-quarters of them are women. When introducing the bill we're debating here, the Treasurer said that paying super on government payments would mean a more dignified and secure retirement for Australian women. Given that so many women receiving carer payments are providing care on a full-time basis, why are we not also paying super on their carer payments? Becoming a carer happens in an instant for so many, with the need to provide full-time care overtaking any other commitment. It's not planned. If your child suddenly requires daily care, you can't work and care for them at the same time. If your partner's health deteriorates, you now manage your day-to-day care needs rather than go to work. If an elderly parent needs your support so they can stay at home for longer, you can't help them to do that every day if you're at work. People receiving carer payments mostly take time out of the workforce to provide care. Some of them won't go back to work, because their caring responsibilities overtake everything else. Others return to work, but they restart super contributions at a disadvantage, because their balance is less than it was before they left. They take a break for a year or two to care for a loved one, so there's a break in their income. It also means one or two years with no super contributions from their employer. And if, when they return to their work, they go part time, the super gap will continue to grow; it will never close. Women already retire with less super than men. We know that's not fair. These gaps in super are making it worse for carers, most of whom are women. Paying super on carer payments would be an investment in future superannuation savings, meaning less reliance on the age pension. It's basically the Australian government putting money into carers' superannuation on their behalf. What I'm suggesting is not going to send the country into a huge deficit either. While it would be nice to be able to top up super payments for all carers, I know that won't work, because about half of the people receiving carer payments have been on them for more than 10 years. Paying super for people in this situation will take the pressure off the pension, but because they've been out of the workforce for so long, it won't bring up the balance enough and they will still have to rely on the age pension in retirement. But I have what I think is a fiscally responsible alternative that will help younger carers. If we limited payments to carers under 40 and made superannuation payments for the first two years, that would cost about $60 million per year. As that $60 million grows in carers' super accounts, it will save money in the long run. These payments would not only make our budget healthier but also support carers to retire with dignity, so it provides equity. Are you thinking this sounds good but wondering where the $60 million will come from? In response, I ask: where are the billions we spend every year on super concessions coming from? This is the kind of thing you can afford to do if you are prepared to shave one-tenth of one per cent from the existing superannuation tax concessions or just one per cent of the tax deductions we give to mostly high-income earners. Consider the difference this could make to early-career carers. Instead of retiring in poverty just because a loved one develops a terminal illness and you need to take leave from work to help look after them, a carer will know they have some extra support they can draw on at the end of their career. Nobody should have to choose between dignity in retirement and the dignity of a child, a partner or a parent in the final months of their lives. This is one way we can make sure that that choice does not ever have to be made. Yes, it costs us something and, yes, I know the money must come from somewhere, but choices about superannuation are already being made every single day, and we've been making these choices for decades. The policy is something we could easily choose to accept and adopt. From where I'm sitting, the current super situation is not equitable, but this is a sustainable solution that provides for carers once they have supported their loved ones. 11:54 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Just in the last 24 hours there have been reports in the news about the decline in the number of female CEOs across this nation. In fact, 91 per cent of CEOs are still men. That's a bit of a problem. Thank goodness that isn't a problem here in this parliament, and that is why we are here debating this very important piece of legislation coming from a Labor government. Happily, because of quotas that were instituted several decades ago, we are now at a point where we're on the cusp of fifty-fifty throughout our entire organisation. That makes a difference to the kind of legislation that comes before this parliament, and it makes a difference to women. This bill implements a 2024-25 budget measure first announced in March 2024 with the launch of Australia's national strategy for gender equality, called Working for Women. It says two things about this Labor government. There are enough women here to get around the tables where decisions are being made and influence policy to catch up with what should have been in place for a very long time and has been opposed and ignored by those opposite forever. This bill is going to introduce superannuation on government-funded paid parental leave for children born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025. It will make annual government-funded superannuation contribution to the paid parental leave receipts superannuation account. This is really monumental legislation in its importance to women, certainly, but also in stitching part of a large tapestry of social progress in this country: achieving gender equality in Australia. Clearly, having a child is a massive decision. The best three decisions I made in my life are my three children. Well, their dad had something to do with it, as well! It's great to be a mother. But it's nice to be able to work and to care. This government takes every opportunity to remove those hurdles that prevent parents from spending as much time with their child during their first year as we possibly can. We ensure that the financial constraints of lower superannuation balances that this legislation addresses are going to be absolutely, properly considered. Improving paid parental leave is a critical reform. It's critical for families, women and the economy. We know that. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand it's one of the very best ways to boost productivity and participation. Let me just repeat that again. The economics of this—to boost productivity and participation for the nation—is to move more choice and more support as an opportunity for women. The Australian superannuation system is the envy of the world. I've often said in this place that, in Curran Road, Blacktown, where my parents had their first fibro house, superannuation wasn't a conversation we had. People didn't even know about it unless they had a special job. My mother used to talk in revered terms about being in the public service. Those sorts of people spoke about superannuation, not those on Curran Road, Blacktown. It wasn't anything we understood. But we understand now that it means Australians can have a dignified life well into their retirement. We know that a great superannuation system brings down barriers for everyone. But it's really important we continuously move this forward to avoid the gender inequality that has become apparent to us. We know that women often retire with about 25 per cent less in their superannuation balances than men. And we know that women are taking up more of the childcare workload in the family home, including in the first year of a child's life. We know that being without superannuation during this time is really impacting, in a compounding-interest way, what women are going to have at their point of retirement. The success of this legislation coming forward is embedded in work done by critical unions as well. I want to give praise to the SDA, a union which did a huge amount of work. Six thousand workers in the retail sector were interviewed, and a research paper about work and care was advanced. Gerard Dwyer, the National Secretary of the SDA, said of the changes that we are proposing: 'This is another sign that this government means what it says when it talks about its commitment to gender equality. It's not just a matter of words but action.' Women want to work and to care. We can do both, but we need systems in place that properly honour the commitment that we have to work and the rights we have to a dignified retirement. This piece of legislation is a change that I'm extremely pleased to bring to the chamber with my Labor colleagues. It certainly aligns with recommendation 16 of the final report of the Select Committee on Work and Care, where we took valuable evidence that confirmed once again that Australian women and their needs will always be at the heart of this very significantly female representative government. 12:00 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Before I sum up the debate, I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum related to this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I thank senators who contributed to what I think has been an important debate on this bill. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is an important step towards reducing the gender gap in retirement savings and supporting a dignified retirement for more Australians. The data is clear, and I think broadly accepted, that women retire with around 25 per cent less superannuation than men. What we're doing with this bill is a positive investment in the future of working women, who deserve to retire with the same financial security as men. For babies born or adopted from 1 July 2025, this bill delivers all eligible parents with an additional 12 per cent of their paid parental leave as a contribution directly to their superannuation fund. This start date recognises that, once this bill passes, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office need time to implement the significant and complex system changes that are required to deliver this successfully. Around 180,000 families will benefit from the changes each year. Once the scheme reaches 26 weeks, in 2026, and based upon a superannuation guarantee rate of 12 per cent, the maximum amount a family will receive in superannuation contributions will be around $3,150. This bill has been warmly welcomed by parents, employers, unions and economists. It has been praised as an important step to narrow the gender gap and boost women's financial security. I listened carefully to Senator O'Neill's contribution. She is right. I remember very well when the SDA—the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association—the Australian Services Union and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation joined together, I think under the leadership of our former colleague the late senator Linda White, to advocate for this very important set of changes. Those female-dominated unions are working with employers in their sectors to advance what is a significant reform in gender equity in superannuation terms. From day one the Albanese government has been working hard to improve paid parental leave for working families. This bill is the third significant improvement Labor has made to paid parental leave during this term. Thanks to the investment secured by this government, families are already receiving extra support at the time of a birth, with greater flexibility, a higher income test and more weeks of paid leave. Now we want to boost their retirement income as well, to ensure that they earn more and keep more of what they earn. In short, this bill is good for families, good for women, good for business and good for the Australian economy. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 27 12:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2854 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (before line 27), before the definition of base contribution, insert: additional leave election means an election made under subsection 115AB(3). (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 15), after the definition of nominal interest rate amount, insert: one-off payment election means an election made under subsection 115AB(4). (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 30), after the definition of SG charge percentage, insert: superannuation election means an election made under subsection 115AB(2). (4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (before line 1), before Chapter 3A, insert: Chapter 3AA — Paid Parental Leave additional entitlements Part 1 — Elections in relation to entitlements Division 1 — Guide to this Part A person is eligible for additional entitlements for an income year if the Secretary pays one or more PPL funding amounts or instalments for the person during the income year. A person can elect to benefit from the PPL superannuation contribution under Chapter 3A, additional parental leave pay under Part 2 of this Chapter or a one-off payment under Part 3 of this Chapter. Division 2 — Elections in relation to entitlements 115AA Persons who may make elections (1) A person may make an election under section 115AB for an income year if either or both of the following apply: (a) a PPL funding amount relating to the person is paid under section 75 in the income year by the Secretary to an employer of the person; (b) an instalment is both: (i) payable to the person under section 63; and (ii) paid under section 84 in the income year by the Secretary to the person. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), disregard any amount of a PPL funding amount that is a debt due to the Commonwealth under subsection 168(2). 115AB Elections under this section (1) A person who may make an election under this section for an income year: (a) may make an election under subsection (2), (3) or (4) for the income year; and (b) must not make more than one election under this section for the income year. (2) The person may elect for Chapter 3A (Paid Parental Leave Superannuation Contributions) to apply to the person for the income year. Such an election is a superannuation election. (3) The person may elect for Part 2 of this Chapter (additional parental leave pay) to apply to the person for the income year. Such an election is an additional leave election. (4) The person may elect for Part 3 of this Chapter (one-off payment) to apply to the person for the income year. Such an election is a one-off payment election. (5) If the person does not make an election for an income year by the time specified in the PPL rules, the person is taken to have made a superannuation election for the income year. 115AC Requirements for making elections (1) The PPL rules must prescribe requirements relating to the making of an election under section 115AB. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the PPL rules must prescribe requirements in relation to the following: (a) who the election must be given to; (b) what form the election must be made in; (c) what information must be included in, or with, the election; (d) when the election must be made by. (3) Without limiting subsection (1), the PPL rules may make provision for and in relation to any other matter relating to the making of elections under section 115AB. Part 2 — Additional parental leave pay Division 1 — Guide to this Part 115AD Guide to this Part A person who makes an additional leave election for an income year is entitled to additional parental leave pay for the income year. The PPL rules must set out the amount of the payment and other requirements relating to the payment. Division 2 — Additional parental leave pay 115AE Persons to whom this Part applies This Part applies in relation to a person for an income year if the person has made an additional leave election for the income year. 115AF Additional parental leave pay (1) The person is to be paid an amount of parental leave pay for the income year in addition to any amount of parental leave pay that is payable to the person for the income year under another provision of this Act. (2) The amount of additional parental leave pay payable to the person under subsection (1) is to be worked out in accordance with the PPL rules. (3) The PPL rules must make provision for and in relation to the following matters: (a) how the payment is to be made to the person; (b) when the payment is to be made to the person; (d) the review of a decision relating to the payment; (e) matters relating to reporting and record-keeping. (4) The PPL rules may make provision for and in relation to any other matter relating to the payment. (5) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act. Part 3 — One-off payment Division 1 — Guide to this Part 115AG Guide to this Part A person who makes a one-off payment election for an income year is entitled to be paid an amount for the income year. The PPL rules must set out the amount of the payment and other requirements relating to the payment. Division 2 — One-off payment 115AH Persons to whom this Part applies This Part applies to a person for an income year if the person has made a one-off payment election for the income year. 115AJ One-off payment (1) The person is to be paid an amount for the income year. (2) The amount payable to the person under subsection (1) is to be worked out in accordance with the PPL rules. (3) The PPL rules must make provision for and in relation to the following matters: (a) how the payment is to be made to the person; (b) when the payment is to be made to the person; (d) the review of a decision relating to the payment; (e) matters relating to reporting and record-keeping. (4) The PPL rules may make provision for and in relation to any other matter relating to the payment. (5) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act. (5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (before line 19), before section 115B, insert: 115BA Persons to whom this Chapter applies This Chapter applies to a person for an income year if the person has made a superannuation election for the income year (see section 115AB). The coalition is really pleased to be putting forward these amendments today. We hope the chamber will give consideration to supporting them, because we know that one of the most important things that we can offer Australians, no matter what policy we're talking about, is the flexibility and control to make decisions about their lives, instead of the government dictating to them in the most minute detail how they go about their lives. So the coalition's amendments provide that, if a family that is intending to take paid parental leave does not wish to take the superannuation payment in the way that has been prescribed by the government in this bill, instead they could have two additional choices in terms of how they might benefit from the legislation that is currently before us today. The first choice would be to allow them to take an extra two weeks of government funded paid parental leave, so, instead of 26 weeks, it would be 28 weeks once the scheme is at maturity. Alternatively, they could take the superannuation as a one-off lump sum payment. I think anybody who has had children will know that the birth of a child—as fantastic as that is in a family—is often a time when financial considerations are much more acute in the family. So we are putting forward an amendment to this bill to give greater choice and control back to families when they're having a child so that they can make decisions about what best suits their own financial and personal circumstances. That's because one of the things that we believe, as the coalition, is that Australians should be able to make choices about their money and shouldn't be dictated to by the government. It's about giving families greater flexibility and control because we believe families are the ones who are best equipped to make decisions about themselves and not the government. So I commend these amendments to the chamber, and I hope that those in here will see the benefit and the wisdom of allowing Australian families to have that greater flexibility. Before the amendments are voted on, I am keen to ask the minister some questions on the bill. One aspect of the greater flexibility that the coalition put in place was around making sure that parents could choose how they took their paid parental leave, meaning that it was not just the mother or one partner who was able to get access to paid parental leave but that both partners are be able to do so. Minister, what happens—and how will it be managed through the system—if both partners decide that they want to take paid parental leave? How will those payments be divided? 12:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The payments will be divided based upon the proportion of the leave that each partner takes. 12:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia When exactly will these changes come into effect, Minister? 12:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales These changes are for babies born on, or adopted from, 1 July 2025. 12:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm interested to understand the logic behind this. It's September 2024, so July 2025 is nine months away. Why is it unable to be put in place for another nine months, on 1 July 2025? 12:09 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The changes are, of course, contingent on the parliament passing the bill, and I'm advised that there is quite some work for Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office to do to implement the system changes that are required. 12:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I must say, nine months seems like a very long time for something to be put in place that is simply paying superannuation on an existing payment, and it probably reflects badly on the ATO and Services Australia if that's the advice they've had to give to you, Minister. Just to clarify: if somebody is receiving superannuation through their workplace, through their employer, are they able to concurrently receive government paid parental leave? 12:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In relation to the point you made about the ATO, we have as a government learnt from the experiences of previous governments in terms of the way payments are managed, and we are determined to do these things properly and carefully. In relation to additional payments that employers make, we encourage them to make them. 12:10 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm not sure whether that answered my question. But can you just run me through how the superannuation payments will actually be made, mechanically? How will the ATO pay them? I'm interested in this nine-months piece. What additional funding will be made available to the ATO and to Services Australia? And have additional staffing requirements been applied to this change? In your closing-statement remarks you said that 'significant and complicated' changes would be required to be made at both the ATO and Services Australia. I'm keen to understand what these significant and complicated changes are and their impact in relation to the Public Service in terms of both cost and staffing levels. 12:11 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There are I guess two sets of issues there. One is a mechanical issue, which is that the government needs to account for the three-month pre-birth claim period, which means that parents with an expected due date of birth or adoption of 1 July 2025 will be able to make the claim from late March. So, that does dig significantly into that nine-month period. And I won't repeat myself, but regarding that administrative process, this is the first time the government will be paying a superannuation equivalent payment of this kind. 12:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you. I was just wondering: was additional staffing required for either Services Australia or the ATO? 12:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm endeavouring to get an answer for you on that question, and when I can, I will—hopefully over the next few minutes. 12:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm just interested to understand why the government isn't paying superannuation through the actual period of the paid parental leave period but instead the ATO will pay the contribution at the end of the financial year. What was the rationale behind that decision? 12:13 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Perhaps I could deal with the previous question first. There's an additional $25 million, I think this says, including staff allocation for the Australian Taxation Office, over the forwards. It is judged to be more efficient to do this as one payment, although, as you'll see in the legislation, there's provision for an interest calculation to be made to ensure that it does not disadvantage recipients, even though it is more efficient for the government to do it in one payment. 12:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Minister. You made the comment that the $25 million over the forwards was the cost of implementing this, and you said it included staff, but you didn't break that down. Do we have an idea of what the FTE on that funding would be? 12:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think we'll chase that up for you, and if we can provide it we will. I expect that a large part of that will be in full-time-equivalent staff, but if there's a significant component that is in back office capability or additional systems we'll let you know. The CHAIR 287062 Before I put the question on the opposition's amendments, are there any contributions from around the chamber? Senator AYRES 16913 I might just respond as efficiently as I can. The CHAIR 287062 You have 20 seconds. Senator AYRES 16913 The government won't be supporting this amendment. It's obviously a predictable assault on the superannuation system from the opposition and undermines the impact of the proposed changes. The CHAIR 287062 I'm not going to have time to put the question and have it resolved, because we've hit the hard marker of 12.15. Progress reported. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We will now move to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 31 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association 31 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Many times during my career in public office, I've stood with working people to fight for better wages and conditions. In particular, I've always advocated for working people in the retail, fast food and warehouse sectors across our country. Working in retail isn't just a first job; it's a great way to make a living in the service of others. I therefore wish, as I normally do, to stand with these workers and pay tribute to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, better known as the SDA, because their commitment to the members that they represent is very clear for me, I think, in terms of the contributions I've made in this chamber on other occasions. The SDA is always working on a campaign or a plan to get better wages and conditions for those workers. Led by Gerard Dwyer, the national secretary, and Joel Tynan, the state secretary in my own state of Tasmania, the union has a track record of wins for working people, and I will always support them and their membership to improve our industrial relations system, including through historic changes to the definition of 'casual worker', which has been brought about by the Albanese Labor government. No longer will employees have to fight for more work. No, they will receive what is the consistent work that they have come to rely on. During the last few months, the SDA has also been negotiating MBAs for Bunnings and Kmart around the country to improve those workers' pay and conditions. The SDA has recently won better wages for Woolworths workers as fairer rostering and more paid leave. Under the new agreement, workers' wages will now increase every financial year by an amount dictated by the Fair Work Commission. The increase will come alongside a review of award wages to ensure that every worker is getting a livable wage. A further improvement for retail workers triggered by the SDA agreement allows for part-time team members to take their annual leave on days on which they often work but aren't necessarily contracted to work. This small adjustment will make a major difference for part-time workers all across the country. The SDA has also made critical improvements to personal and carer leave, and these improvements will benefit the retail workers in our communities. Under the new agreement, the amount of personal leave able to be taken without the need for evidence has been double from two to four days. This change will take stress off workers, who are likely to already be dealing with troubling circumstances, which is why they actually need the leave. Along with this change, change to how an employee is able to use their personal leave has been expanded. Workers will now be able to use their leave to manage their emotional and psychological wellbeing. As we know, mental health is extremely important and is a growing issue in our country. This change will support people in maintaining good mental health practices that will enable these workers to be more productive and to lead happier and healthier lives. In the previous sitting weeks, we've had young retail workers come to parliament for the current campaigns for greater fairness at work, which include Adult Age, Adult Wage and the anti-customer abuse campaign. The Adult Age, Adult Wage campaign is focused on improving wages for young Australians working in the service industry. The SDA wants to make sure that people who are considered adults by law at 18 and are supervising and acting in other roles—keeping in mind that you can vote and be sent to war at 18—are paid an adult wage, the same as a 21-year-old. Another focus for the SDA is to increase pay for our younger 14- to 17-year-olds. They should have their pay increased too, as they are doing the same jobs as the adults they work amongst. When young people reach the age of 18, they should get an adult wage. They shouldn't have to wait until they're 21. I think that's fair. That campaign is a very important one. I'm very proud to stand with those members and the union. Since coming to government, we've increased wages for low-income workers and people working in aged care and early childhood education. We've also brought in fee-free TAFE, cheaper medicines, urgent care clinics, cheaper child care and superannuation on paid parental leave, which I just spoke about in the chamber not long ago. What we've seen from those opposite, who are better known as the 'no-alition', particularly on all of those issues that the Liberals voted against, is something quite extraordinary. We've seen something quite extraordinary here in this place this week by those opposite and the Greens. On Monday, the Albanese government introduced a nation-building piece of legislation, with the first round of funding under the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Housing Accord programs. It's set to deliver more than 13,700 new social and affordable homes across our country. What we've seen in this place is not only do those opposite not support this legislation, but they have gotten into a cosy and lovely working arrangement with the Greens not to vote, at this stage, down that piece of legislation, but they have been voting in this chamber to stop us from having a vote on the legislation. Just so that people out there understand, you introduce legislation, and you vote and have your debate. So you either support it and vote for it or you don't support it and you vote against it. But the coalition between the Liberals, Nationals and the Greens is a vote to stop having a vote on the legislation. For the Greens who come in here regularly espousing that they're the only people who have human heart to want to do something about social and affordable housing, well, if that's true, why are you voting to stop a vote to introduce the legislation and why don't you actually introduce it and support this legislation? If this legislation is supported, Labor's Help to Buy will assist 40,000 low- and middle-income Australians access a house, have a roof over their head, and buy their own home. Let's not forget that, at the last federal election, the Greens policy—in their platform—was to have an equity share model. That's exactly what this bill is, but they choose to play politics and put their own political agenda and survival as a Greens political party ahead of providing affordable and social housing for the people who need it in this country. What has clearly been demonstrated in the Senate this week is how the Liberals, as we know, say no to everything. Mr Dutton is known as the leader of the 'no-alition' because he keeps voting 'no' on everything. We expect that from those opposite because they were in power for 10 years and did nothing about social and affordable housing. For them to vote 'no' on legislation is something we've come to expect, frankly, in this chamber; that's what they do. But the fact that the Greens have teamed up with the Liberals to stop the vote from even taking place is quite extraordinary. It just goes to show how hypocritical the Greens political party are when all they're interested in is serving their own interests. This government has put more money in and wants to assist people with their rent, and the payments would have been bigger than any other in the last 30 years. We want to help more Australians into their own home. (Time expired) Agriculture: Chemicals 32 12:25 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia You might be excused for wondering why those opposite are so obsessed with Peter Dutton. Senator O'Sullivan, I think we should keep a tally during question time on how often they mention Peter Dutton because they seem a little bit obsessed. I think they're getting a little worried. But I digress. I rise today to speak about a vital agricultural chemical particularly for broadacre farmers—that is, the quats; the paraquat and diquat group of chemicals. These are, along with glyphosate, key to the amazing productivity increases in broadacre farming over the decades. Without these chemicals, the move away from ploughing your field, from tillage, which has environmental consequences as well as significant cost implications—this has resulted in quite extraordinary productivity gains for our broadacre agricultural community. Land that previously had to be burnt and tilled can be direct-drilled so there is minimal disturbance to the soil, and then there is the use of chemicals such as glyphosate and paraquat for crops to be sewn directly into the ground, weeds to be controlled and moisture to be retained. Less fuel needs to be used, and there is less cost to the enterprise and significant improvement in productivity. When we see the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC, do what they call investigative journalism into the potential link to Parkinson's disease, we expect the ABC to handle this topic in a way that is based on the science and the evidence. This is how we expect our regulators to operate—regulators such as the APVMA, which is one of the most respected regulators in the world in terms of managing agricultural chemicals. We expect the APVMA to look at the evidence, to look at the science and to make a decision based on that science and evidence, and, quite frankly, we should have the same expectation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—a government funded media entity which should uphold the highest standards in this regard. Unfortunately, in its handling of this issue recently, the ABC has failed to meet those higher standards and, unfortunately, has caused a lot of fear and distress on the basis of a highly and unnecessarily emotional take on the use of these chemicals—to the point where the regulator, the APVMA, has had to publicly rebuke the ABC for its handling of this issue and for publishing articles about the APVMA's proposed—I note 'proposed'—regulatory decision that make false or misleading claims. For a highly respected government regulator to call out the ABC for making false and misleading claims is quite extraordinary, I think, and it deserves the attention of this chamber. As we've seen, significant industry players have also come out very strongly against the ABC's handling of this issue. Grain Producers Australia condemned: … the ABC's choices to rely on hearsay evidence to inform a campaign demonising the use of the herbicide paraquat on Australian farms. That's a quote from their media release on the issue. I think it's highly disturbing that we're going down this path of not relying on the science, not relying on the evidence, but instead relying on the activist voice on these issues, which are of great concern. Chemicals are chemicals. Everybody understands that there are risks involved in the use and handling and storage of chemicals. That is why we have regulators, like the APVMA, who look at these chemicals and decide, yes, whether they should be used or not and, once they pass that threshold, how they should be used. These chemicals do not come with a small set of instructions; they come with significant restrictions on handling, storage and, most importantly, the use within cropping systems of these chemicals. It's vital that we preserve that scientific basis for these decisions. We've seen the strength of the Australian system, a combination of both our regulators and our courts, when compared to other jurisdictions in recent years. For example, we've seen court cases in the US where, sadly, a lot of these decisions are driven by emotion in that you will have a plaintiff, who is seeking compensation because he or she has some dreadful disease, up against a large multinational company. And guess what? Everyone is sympathetic. Everyone is sympathetic in that context, and often you will get significantly large judgements in that context against the large multinational companies. But it's not based on evidence; it's based on emotion. When those same types of court cases have come up in Australia, and we had one earlier this year before a judge of the Federal Court, the evidence has shown that the link to the cancer involved could not be maintained. We must remain a system that is based on the science, that is based on the best available science. Yes, science never stands still, and we can't rely on evidence from yesterday to necessarily point to the future, but we must surely rely on the best available evidence. I will point you to a 21 September NeuroToxicology article which was a meta-analysis of paraquat and Parkinson's disease. This looked at every previous study. It assessed the quality of each study. It looked at the evidence for and against within every study. It assessed how large the studies were, how much exposure there was and the quality of the evidence provided under those studies. This meta-analysis found that there was—I will quote from this meta-analysis. It said: The available evidence does not support a causal conclusion. And that is between paraquat and Parkinson's disease. As far as I can find, that is the most up-to-date meta-analysis on the science as it stands. We need to trust our regulator. We need our regulator to go through a process that is driven by science, not by activism and not by emotion. And we need to back our farmers who do the right thing. The fact is Australia is a world leader in things like drumMUSTER, which is the collection and recycling of used chemical containers off farm. We are a world leader. I believe that program actually started in Australia. I believe it is now also in Canada. We are a world leader. Farmers don't want to use a drop, a millilitre more chemical than they have to to get the job done. That is how farmers operate. Chemicals are expensive and chemicals are dangerous. Chemicals are chemicals. Farmers understand that. Farmers treat it seriously. We've come an extraordinarily long way in the professionalism of farmers, particularly broadacre farmers, in their handling, use and storage of these kinds of chemicals. We have to look at what the alternative is. If farmers lose access to these broadacre chemicals—glyphosate and paraquat—then we are going to see significantly more tillage, which will have huge environmental downsides and huge productivity downsides. We still need to feed this planet. Housing 33 12:35 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Australians are facing the worst housing crisis in the history of our nation. This is not something that's happened overnight, yet it seems to have taken the government completely by surprise. Their hastily concocted schemes will help so few people into homeownership and have so little impact on skyrocketing rents that we will be hard-pressed to notice the difference. The Greens have put a suite of solid proposals on the table designed to alleviate pressure on both house prices and rents, providing lasting relief to the growing number of Australians struggling with the cost of living. The government has refused to even discuss our proposals. It's refused to negotiate. It's their way or the highway. As housing prices continue their upward trend, pushing homeownership out of reach for so many young people, more Australians will be renting for longer. The growing number of renters, over 5.5 million, are being faced with a rental desert, pushing rents higher and higher. Those rents are now a major driver of poverty and homelessness. Nowhere in Australia is this more obvious than in my home state of South Australia. Rents in Adelaide are now increasing faster than anywhere else in Australia, with a 60 per cent increase over the last four years. For comparison, Melbourne's rent growth was 41.6 per cent over the same period. Keeping up with steep rent growth like this eats away at households' ability to save for a deposit. Incredibly—and for the first time in history—median house prices in Adelaide have now outstripped Melbourne, rising to $791,000. But the housing market isn't just tough for renters looking to buy. Many South Australians with mortgages are now struggling to hold onto their homes. Repayments on new home loans in Adelaide are up by almost $2,000 a month since June 2022 based on the median house price. That's a lot of groceries. The reality is that most South Australians do not have an extra $2,000 lying around to help keep up with the growth in their mortgage costs. They are now having to cut back on essentials to make ends meet because their wages are not growing anywhere near as fast. According to the ABS, rents have increased at nearly double the rate of wages over the last year alone. Anglicare's housing snapshot recently found that only 15 per cent of the rentals in Adelaide were affordable for a working couple on minimum wages. If you are receiving income support, the situation is quite impossible. Not a single property in South Australia is affordable for a person on JobSeeker or youth allowance—not a single one. The housing affordability crisis is pushing those on low incomes into homelessness. This is not an acceptable outcome anywhere, but it is particularly egregious in a country where our government is spending $11 billion a year subsidising coal and gas, $368 billion to build nuclear submarines that we may never get and almost $12 billion every year in housing tax concessions that primarily benefit wealthy investors and developers. We can afford to fix this. What is the government waiting for? It's all about choice. We need to choose a comprehensive plan to build new affordable homes and to freeze and cap rents, a plan that doesn't make things worse by fuelling even greater demand. Kate, a 61-year-old South Australian woman, wrote to me recently, illustrating her rental struggles. She has been a long-term renter who's experienced some times of financial insecurity through divorce. This is unfortunately a common story for older women, who've often made financial sacrifices to provide valuable but unpaid care work throughout their lives, trusting that, in turn, they'll be supported by those who benefit from that labour. Finding yourself single, without savings or the type of stable job that provides security, at the end of your working life, is devastating. Kate tried to enter the housing market in 2017, but, even with a permanent job, she was turned down. She said, 'I just couldn't compete with folk who made higher offers on the very modest properties for which I had applied.' And now she is facing eviction. Kate told me that the effect of housing insecurity is devastating for her mental health. Her wish is 'that politicians of every stripe hear the stories of women like me'. Thank you for writing to me, Kate. You are right. This place needs to hear more stories from people like you. Successive governments in this place have ignored people like Kate. They have walked away, for decades, from public housing and turned to the private market to deliver housing. The major parties have introduced tax incentives for investors and developers which cost the public purse billions every year. Major parties have pulled funding from public housing, which saw social housing stock decline by 11 per cent between 2006 and 2020. It hasn't always been like this. Housing solutions aimed at propping up private investors have not always been the preferred housing policies of governments. The South Australian Housing Trust was arguably the most successful public housing authority in the country, not only providing affordable rental accommodation but helping to house people and get them into homeownership. The Housing Trust was established by Liberal Premier Thomas Playford after the recession of the late 1930s. It wasn't treated as a welfare housing agency; its aim was to provide decent quality homes for workers and their families. The South Australian Housing Trust became a world leader in public housing, building 122,000 high-quality, affordable homes over its 70-year life span, driven by the need to attract investment and manufacturing to the state. Those days are well and truly gone, sadly. When state governments handed the role of providing affordable housing to the private sector in the eighties, the outcome was entirely predictable. We've seen a long, slow decline in the number and quality of Housing Trust homes and the disappearance of a crucial pathway for low-paid workers to purchase their own homes. Three decades later, we have over 184,000 families on public housing waiting lists nationwide—4,000-odd in South Australia—with very little prospect of winning the public-housing lottery and nowhere else to go. When you're walking through the South Park Lands on the edge of Adelaide's city, as I do most weekends, you can't help but imagine yourself in the shoes of so many people who are sleeping out in the cold. Losing your home is a frightening prospect, but we are seeing more and more ordinary South Australians slipping through the net. We need to remember that, in South Australia, Thomas Playford did more than build thousands of affordable homes; he kept the 1945 wartime rent controls in place for many years. He controlled rents, for years. We can do this. A Liberal government did it, for years. They have done it before. And we can do it again, in this extreme crisis. The Greens have a policy for how to move forward which deals with the feeling of abandonment that so many people feel in the face of this crisis. There is hope. We can do better. We can afford it. But the truth is: we will never tackle the housing crisis until we phase out negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount—the massive tax handouts for property investors: $176 billion over the next decade. That is all wrong. The good news is that, if we wind them back, we can build houses for all. With the money saved from phasing out these big handouts, we could fully fund the Greens' plan to establish a public property developer to build over 600,000 good quality homes. When did it become radical to fight for a roof over the head of every Australian? When did Labor turn into a party protecting investors over workers and their families? And when did Labor turn into the party that let housing become an asset class rather than an essential human right? Government policy that drives up house prices is a choice, but not one the Greens would make and not one that we need to make as a community. We can make other choices. We can put a roof over everyone's head, and that should be the goal of a comprehensive housing policy in Australia. Tasmania: Education 35 12:44 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I worked for a long time in registered training organisations and I think they do great things. I believe RTOs have a place in the skills and training mix alongside TAFE, universities and short courses. We've talked here about the value of university places, how many overseas students should be allowed to study in Australia, what these would be—and the list goes on. The education sector is facing lots of issues right now, which is muddying the waters when it comes to providing best-fit education for our kids, people wanting to retain and those who just want to learn something new. The skills agreement arrangement introduced by this government as a joint program between federal and state governments is something that was welcomed in Tasmania. This arrangement allocated 3,800 fee-free TAFE places to Tasmanians for 2023. These were made up of new and existing places. TasTAFE is the largest registered training organisation in Tasmania, training more than 18,800 learners annually. This figure includes more than 8,600 apprentices, which equates to about 60 per cent of Tasmania's apprenticeship market. TasTAFE also receives around 80 per cent of the Tasmanian government's skills training budget. But the fee-free TAFE program has been undersubscribed in Tasmania. Of the 3,800 places offered, only 3,255 were taken up, leaving 545 vacant spots. States can choose which courses they want to offer under the fee-free program, but they have to be within priority sectors, like agriculture, care, construction, defence, early childhood education, hospitality and tourism, manufacturing, sovereign capability, technology, digital, and VET workforce. Is it because there isn't an appetite for the courses offered for free in Tasmania, or is it because people don't value something they are not paying for? Or should this money earmarked for vocational education be going to RTOs instead? Private RTOs like seafood and maritime training were also allocated press places under the Skills Tasmania Building a Skilled Workforce—Jobseeker Fund program. Almost a third of spots under this stream were allocated to RTOs to help jobseekers and people retraining or upskilling to extend their qualifications and skill sets. So why do we have gaps in vocational training in Tassie? We are facing a critical shortage of teachers across schools, colleges, TasTAFE and RTOs. I know this issue is not specific to Tasmania, but the state's location and population size makes it harder to recruit teachers from mainland Australia and my state is not producing enough homegrown teachers to keep up with the demand. There are also falling completion rates, which leads to questions about the number of people taking up free education options over paid spots and employers and employment agencies taking advantage of training subsidies. What I'm really saying is that there are a number of factors that could be contributing to this issue in our education sector. Does that come back down to a lack of leadership, perhaps? How can we fix this and make sure Tasmanians have access to a wide variety of education options? We need to stop demonising vocational education and elevating university education. Let's shift some of our focus to promoting TasTAFE and RTOs as a worthy alternative to university. Let 's celebrate vocational pursuits rather than pushing academics as the only option. It's not the only option, but, with the focus on pushing kids to focus on ATARs, you wouldn't know. We must build better relationships between schools and colleges, TasTAFE and RTOs so students can see clear pathways to vocational careers. Show kids there are other learning options, like school based apprenticeships or completing TAFE subjects they are actually interested in while they are in grades 11 and 12. Encourage regular mentoring sessions between TAFE and RTO teachers and students in grades 11 and 12 so they are mentored along their chosen pathway. Help students make an easier transition to vocational study. Working conditions for teachers across the sector often come up as a sticking point, but it's a major issue in the TasTAFE system. We need to make the TAFE system a place where teachers actually want to work. Inspire teachers to see where their skills fit in the sector they teach by fostering industry engagement with relevant personal development training modules so they can bridge the gaps between training and industry and inspire their students. These are tweaks that make the education sector brighter and inspire future generations. Charitable Organisations 36 12:49 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia A charity sector helping Australians through one of the most challenging economic periods in nearly a century, and a Labor government failing to support it, even actively making its job harder. An opportunity for desperately needed reform, and a Labor government that has missed its chance and wasted every opportunity, incapable of delivering on a single commitment. This is not a good story—not for Labor and not for Australians. The discussion is an urgent one because of the economic environment Australia's charities and not-for-profits sector finds itself in. Labor has fuelled tandem cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business crises. It's a brutal circle, with more Australians taking charitable support than ever before and charities fighting for their lives as their expenses soar. The latest RBA Statement on monetary policy observes that community service organisations in Australia are 'now supporting a broader range of clients, including dual-income households and those with mortgages who are often seeking support for the first time'. In May, the second interim report of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living found: As demand for charitable services increases, there is a parallel downturn in the ability of charities to meet this demand due to increased overheads for these organisations and lower levels of charitable giving. Maybe the new Philanthropy Australia CEO, Maree Sidey, put it most effectively when she said, 'The stakes have never been higher.' The charity sector has a right to ask how it found itself in this compromising situation. The answer, for the most part, is simple: Anthony Albanese 's Labor government. There have been 13 interest rate rises on its watch, each one a failed report card for Treasurer Jim Chalmers from Australia 's central bank, and Labor still cannot get sticky, homegrown inflation in check, with its economic mismanagement making things worse rather than improving them. Two and a half years ago Labor talked a very big game, pledging to shape a brighter future for charities and not-for-profits in our country. Labor called its policy 'building capacity, building community'. Labor said it would 'work to double philanthropic giving by 2030'. Labor said it would appoint expert panels to develop a charities blueprint and a sector development plan. Labor said it would harmonise fundraising laws. On every measure, Labor, in the person of the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities, Treasury and Employment, Dr Andrew Leigh, has failed, and in many cases it has failed because it has failed to act. The coalition has supported the goal of doubling philanthropic giving for a long time. Under Labor, whether it is achievable is now in doubt. The Treasurer wrote to the Productivity Commission in February 2023, instructing it to inquire and report on reaching this target. It took until May this year for the commission to hand its final report to the government, which then sat on it until July. That was 2½ years, a painfully long time during one of the most uncertain periods in the sector's history. It wasn't worth the wait. There were more than 3,000 submissions and comments and two weeks of public hearings, with 50 interest groups appearing. Despite more than 450 pages and 20 recommendations, not to mention its title, Future foundations for giving, the report features no immediate plan to increase donations and giving in our country. What was included was a drastic proposal to reshape Australia 's deductible gift recipient system, including for school building funds and religious charities. Dr Leigh has since said that school building funds will remain untouched for now, but religious charities remain firmly on the hook. When I questioned Productivity Commission officials during Senate estimates recently, they confirmed that the Productivity Commission had not even modelled the economic benefit of changing the DGR regime. It betrayed the government's real agenda: ideological attacks over meaningful, lasting, transformative reform. The concerns of the charities and not-for-profits sector are immediate. The fact that the second pillar of the Albanese government's vision to develop a charities blueprint and sector development plan is still a work in progress means it has completely missed the mark. An expert reference panel supported by a working group was appointed in October 2022 to develop the blueprint. A second panel was appointed to the development of an issues paper that would lead to the sector development plan. Two years on, we still have not seen either. This is not a criticism of the sector participants in this process but rather one of Labor's lack of urgency. Feedback received on the blueprint issues paper noted many of the questions asked of the sector had been answered more than once and subjected to rigorous analysis by government and independent agencies over the last 30 years. No matter how good it is, when or if we ever see it, the reality now is that the blueprint and the development sector plan may come too late to make any difference for Australia's charities and not-for-profit sector. The Productivity Commission report recommended that a council on financial federal relations should: continue to monitor the implementation of nationally consistent fundraising registration, reporting and conduct requirements by state and territory governments commission an independent review of the outcomes of the fundraising harmonisation process and options to maintain regulatory consistency … This was it—confirmation that the Albanese government's election commitment to harmonise state and territory fundraising laws had floundered. Consumer ministers from across Australia met in September 2022 and confirmed their support for these reforms. In February 2023, Dr Leigh, in a media release painting a positive picture of progress, announced that there would be an implementation plan by the middle of last year. There wasn't and there still isn't. At a time when Labor holds power in all but one Australian state, how can the Albanese government possibly have failed to get this election commitment across the line? As it is, barriers and compliance issues remain in place, making charitable donations far harder than they need to be, costing charities money they cannot spare. Not an election promise but an example of the Albanese government's ignorance of how the sector operates was the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act 2022. The legislation among other things blocked the use of repeated fixed-term contracts, which are widely used by Australian charities and not-for-profits because they align with the way many of them receive their funding. Labor was initially oblivious and then, once the Community Council for Australia and other peak bodies began voicing concerns, belligerent. That is why in July I lodged a motion on the coalition's behalf referring the negative impacts of this legislation to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry. It was only after this threat of parliamentary scrutiny that Minister Tony Burke conceded he must work collaboratively with the sector. That motion was deferred by me only after stakeholders received a written undertaking from him to work with them, and Labor remains on notice that the coalition will relaunch this inquiry if it fails to honour its word to the sector. The sector deserves leadership and clear priorities. What is now clear is that only the coalition can provide this. Since the election, we have worked practically and proactively with Australian charities and not-for-profits, not just in the cities but in WA's Kimberley, the Queensland Gladstone region and northern New South Wales. We've listened to their challenges and to their needs and how Labor has done nothing to address them. We'll continue to support the sector as it navigates these new workplace relations laws. Where the government has failed to keep its word, the coalition will hold it to account as we have done before. We'll protect the existing DGR status of school buildings, funds and religious charities, recognising the role they play in education and the wellbeing of so many Australians. And we'll pursue a back-to-basics economic policy, putting Australia on track to thrive, making this both an easier place to run a charity and a place where people are less likely to need one. As long as the Albanese government remains in power and the economy suffers under its mismanagement and skewed priorities, the situation will continue to deteriorate and our hardworking charities will continue to bear the brunt of it. Given the inspiring and remarkable contribution they make, the coalition believes they deserve better and they deserve better now. Royal Commission Into The Robodebt Scheme, Middle East 37 12:59 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak to the anger and frustration of the community following the recent reporting on robodebt. It is beyond the pale for proponents and architects of the scheme to wheel themselves out as victims. It is symptomatic of a broader sickness in our media and our political culture that the perpetrators of robodebt can bank on their reputation being laundered while the victims are still coming to terms with the tragedy of the scheme. Robodebt happened because of a political and media culture that punches down on income support recipients. It was a crude mechanism that thrived on criminalising people on income support. This is a culture that dehumanises people on income support on the one hand while humanising people like Kathryn Campbell on the other. We mustn't pretend that protections are in place to stop it happening again, that the dormant hate and classism that created the culture in which robodebt thrived has gone away. JobSeeker is still a poverty payment. There is still no limitation on debt recovery. And for-profit employment providers still make millions out of exploitative schemes like mutual obligations. An entire system that treats income support recipients like this must be abolished. Australia's Commonwealth Public Service would certainly have strength and integrity and accountability but that means nothing if they are still hounding income support recipients for debts. More training and more staff do not address the fundamental issue that our social security system is punitive, unfair and traps people in poverty. All the structures that enabled robodebt to happen are still in place and, until we have real leadership from parliament, from the government, from the public sector and from the media, we run the risk of history repeating. I also want to draw the government's attention once again to Israel's ongoing genocide against Palestinians. Israel's actions not only in Palestine but in Lebanon and the region more broadly are fundamentally destabilising. Today we woke to news of an indiscriminate attack widely attributed to Israel that has wounded almost 3,000 people and killed at least nine people, including children, and that is just today. Every day, Israel has murdered more and more civilians in indiscriminate attacks, yet we get a mild tut-tut from the government, with a side of more F-35 fighter jet parts to go with it. Even worse from the Liberals: this morning when Senator Paterson was asked whether it was appropriate that the attack killed a young girl, he backed in Israel and said that it is not his place to pass judgement. How far removed from basic human morality do you have to be to shrug off the murder of children? Where is the outrage? You would hope that Australia would sanction Israel's leaders and haul the ambassador over the coals, but, instead, he is free to walk around the halls of this parliament and get chummy with Labor and the LNP. It is sickening. Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians and it is killing civilians across the region. Labor, sanction Israel, stop the two-way arms trade and support the people of Palestine. First Nations Australians: Economy 38 13:03 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Australia's first peoples have been traders, innovators, entrepreneurs and knowledge holders for over 65,000 years. We have unbroken mind of invention, innovation and resilience. Our contribution to the Australian economy and local communities is significant, far-reaching beyond GDP and it is growing at pace. But as economic partners, too often our story is untold but, fortunately, that now is changing. I am proud to be chairing an inquiry into the opportunities and barriers to economic prosperity for First Nations Australians.This is exciting because First Nations businesses and communities contribute enormously to the Australian economy and to local jobs. Research from Melbourne university tells us that Aboriginal businesses generate over $16.1 billion in revenue each year. They employ more than 116,000 people, which is the equivalent of the town of Bendigo in my home state of Victoria, and they pay $4.2 billion in wages. First Nations businesses are a hundred times more likely to employ First Nations people, and, for every dollar of revenue spent, Indigenous businesses create $4.41 of economic and social value—talk about bang for buck. There are clearly huge wins for investing in First Nations organisations and businesses, but we also know that First Nations Australians have been historically excluded from the economy, and that system hasn't always delivered for them. Through the inquiry we've heard about the barriers, from a lack of access to finance and capital through to not having the intergenerational wealth of non-Indigenous Australians have to pass on to be able to grow and scale their business, as well as a lack of the corporate knowledge that comes with having people in your family and your broader community having had generations of experience in running their own businesses. The fact that First Nations businesses have contributed in the way that we are currently is absolutely a testament to the work ethic, entrepreneurial spirit and drive of First Nations people in our country. The Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has been travelling the country to understand what practical changes are needed to supercharge First Nations peoples' economic empowerment and create long-term wealth. The inquiry has received over a hundred submissions and had four public hearings, and we've got at least two more public hearings to go. Throughout this process, we've heard about the economic opportunities for First Nations communities in the Future Made in Australia, and we're designing the system to ensure that First Nations peoples are in the driver's seat in this nation's energy transformation. We've heard about emerging industries for First Nations people to benefit from their commercialisation, to grow their wealth and to connect with country. The native food and botanical industry is an excellent example of the economic opportunity for First Nations peoples' traditional knowledge. The industry is valued at $80 million and is estimated to double by 2025—and the government will likely need to modernise intellectual property laws and policies to achieve this. We've also heard that Indigenous chambers of commerce play a critical role in strengthening the financial capability and capacity of Indigenous businesses. I want to thank all the stakeholders who have contributed to this inquiry, from Aboriginal businesspeople, individuals and organisations to the broader community as well, who have an interest in seeing Aboriginal people prosper. First Nations people are savvy, commercially and community driven and incredibly aspirational. But the government can do more to unlock economic opportunities for mob into the future. I look forward to tabling the report and recommendations later this year. Let's get on with doing the work. New Caledonia 39 13:08 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today I would like to talk about the staunch, powerful Kanak peoples, who are, at this very moment, rising up against the occupation of their land by the French government and are fighting for their independence, their sovereignty and their lives up. You might not know the name 'Kanaky', but you will know 'New Caledonia', the name given to these islands by the chief coloniser of the Pacific, Captain 'Coloniser' Cook. The French claimed possession of New Caledonia in 1853, which led to the Kanak clans being displaced, persecuted, discriminated against, murdered and subjected to apartheid systems. Australia—so-called 'Australia'—is involved in this colonial project. Over 60,000 South Sea islanders including Kanak people were brought here as forced labour, known as blackbirding. Many were sent back due to the White Australia policy. In response to the resistance of the Kanak peoples in 1972, the then French prime minister Pierre Messmer said that the only long-term solution to the independence issue and to maintain control of the land was to flood the territory with white settlers. True to their intentions, France encouraged mass migration of illegal settlers from mainland France, causing extreme violence between 1984 and 1988. This was a period known as 'the Events', as the Kanak resisted the theft of their land. This resistance was smashed by the French government, whose violence included the decapitation and theft of the head of the Kanak chief Atai. The Events led to the signing of the Noumea accords, key provisions of which laid out New Caledonia's path to full sovereignty, and the United Nations passed a resolution affirming the inalienable right of the people of New Caledonia to self-determination and independence. The current conflict relates to the attempts of the French government to suppress the recognition of the Kanak indigenous rights and to bury the Noumea accord through a series of controversial referendums, including expanding voting rights to settlers with the intention to overpower the voices of the Kanak. The most recent referendum on independence versus remaining a French territory, in 2021, saw a boycott from the majority of the Kanak population who were going through a traditional period of mourning after the death of their people from COVID, which accounted for over 78 per cent of the deaths in the country. As intended, the votes of the colonial settlers wishing to retain French control of the land succeeded, and Macron claimed the referendum a victory. In response to tactics aimed at excluding Kanak from self-determining their homeland's future, Kanak leaders for independence have protested through diplomatic negotiations, engagement with the UN and street demonstrations. What sparked the uprising was the shooting death of a young Kanak boy, the incarceration of 2,000 Kanak people and the arrest of Kanak leaders who have been taken to France for trial. France has responded by deploying over 4,500 military personnel and massive amounts of weapons, including tanks. We have seen the use of discriminatory, excessive and disproportionate actions, and executions and disappearances of Kanak activists. French forces have invaded Kanaky villages, randomly arresting people and harassing, raping and bribing those desperate for food, money and health care. Kanak blockades have been torn down by the French army, while white vigilante violence and blockades have been either ignored or protected. The Kanak people, the people of West Papua and Palestine and the First Peoples of this land have all seen similar tactics used by colonial oppressors who deny our sovereignty and our rights in order to maintain the legitimacy of their illegal occupation. Economy 39 13:13 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I'd like to talk about a very serious topic, a horrible situation that I know all Australians have been thinking about. Over the break, I came across a troubling article. The headline read 'The period of abnormally high profits for Australia's largest corporations is over'. What a shock! What a loss! Commiserations! Yes, they'll still have huge profits, just not the record-breaking ones they've grown so accustomed to during this cost-of-living crisis. So it feels only right that, on behalf of all Australians, I extend my deepest sympathies to those towering corporations. But let's not dwell on the sorrow of today; instead, let us fondly remember those brighter days when profits soared, bonuses swelled and every quarter brought new records. We recognised our record-breaking Olympians. Why have we not given the same appreciation to our profit-making corporations? Their record-breaking achievements of the past should not go unrecognised. So please join me in correcting this travesty. Let's recognise these great corporations and reflect on their achievements of making big, big bucks during a cost-of-living crisis. First, Coles and Woolworths: you should be proud of your achievements. By price-gouging your fellow Australians, you've given Aussie mums and dads the unique opportunity to experience what it's like to choose between feeding their children and paying their rent. What an achievement! It was record profits for both of you last year, in the midst of people counting every cent. Bravo! Next I would like to mention our big banks. While Aussies are struggling under the weight of rising interest rates and mortgages, you've managed to rake in billions. It's truly inspiring to see you take advantage of every opportunity to squeeze your customers just a little bit more. Keep up the great work. A special mention goes out to the insurance companies. As natural disasters become more frequent and devastating, you've seized the moment to increase your premiums, leaving countless Australians without affordable coverage. That's the kind of forward-thinking business acumen that deserves recognition. And let's not forget our friends in the energy sector like Origin and AGL. Last month it was reported that you saw profit increase by 172 per cent and 189 per cent respectively. You sat back and watched your profits skyrocket in perfect harmony with the power bills of Australian families, raising prices while families huddled together in the cold, wrapped in blankets to save on heating—very cunning! Who needs warmth when you have record profits to keep you toasty? Who needs lights when your profits shine brighter than any household bulb ever could? Finally, let 's not forget Qantas. Congratulations on your record-breaking profits, achieved through creative methods like charging exorbitant fees, cutting services and offering customers experiences that range from frustrating to downright infuriating. It's no small feat to maintain such high profitability while your customers are left stranded or out of pocket. So here's to all of you, the real winners of our economy. While Australians tighten their belts, you've shown that there's always room to expand your wallets. Pensioners can't pay their energy bills? Oh, well! Young Australians skipping meals so they can pay rent? Good luck with that! Mums and dads working two jobs just to keep their heads above water? Who cares? I hope you're proud of the legacy you're leaving behind. It's not every day that you get to profit off the misery of an entire nation. Well done. I hope you're happy. Climate Change 40 13:18 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Under the Paris Agreement, Australia committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to the net zero ambition by 2050. These targets are part of Australia's nationally determined contribution, our NDC, which must be updated every five years. The next update a 2035 target, is due by the end of February 2025, only a few short months away, and this will be Australia's opportunity to set a much more ambitious target. Australia will be applauded if we truly understand the challenge ahead of us, get better solutions in place and significantly enhance our commitment for 2035. Back in 2022, when the government was legislating its 43 per cent Paris target, during that debate I stood up in this place and I said, 'I don't believe that 43 per cent is ambitious enough.' But nor could I see, on the plans before us at that time, how Australia would reach that target. The 2023 annual progress report by the Climate Change Authority, delivered to the minister last October, revealed a sobering truth: Australia is not yet on track to meet its 2030 target. I should, however, go on record to say that I do commend the government on some of its policies and initiatives that I believe will go some way to helping meet our target. Sadly, they are not enough, not fast enough, and our emissions reduction progress remains inadequate. This is particularly true with respect to our electricity grid, where Australia could potentially quite quickly cut one-third of our emissions. This is a critical wake-up call for our energy system planners and regulators, the energy industry as a whole, and all stakeholders involved in Australia's energy transition. To meet the 43 per cent target we need to decarbonise at an average rate of 17 million tonnes of carbon per annum. This is no small feat. The scale of the transformation needed is immense. It is also achievable if we focus on the real challenges ahead of us and recognise where our easiest and fastest gains can be made—that is, getting rid of our coal-fired electricity in favour of renewables, backed up by storage that smooths out the peaks and troughs when electricity is dispatched to the grid. The current belief that this timing problem—and it is a time-of-day problem—can be solved by geographic diversity of generation, connected by transmission, is neither economic nor useful, especially given that the NEM , the national electricity market, sits almost entirely in one time zone. It is time to optimise the grid to get more out of our existing distribution networks, get control of energy assets behind the meter and invest in front-of-the-meter solutions such as community batteries and EV charging. We need to get deep storage into this system, including pumped hydro—lots of it—and large batteries co-located with wind and solar farms, to balance generation with demand. Doing so will reduce curtailment, enhance energy security, bring down energy prices and help us achieve our emissions targets faster. If we do all these things, Australia will be able to proudly make a much more ambitious 2035 NDC. Australian Capital Territory: Community Sports Facilities, Australian Capital Territory: Multicultural Communities, Cybersafety 41 13:22 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory It is great to see the parliament starting to talk about the concerns that many Australians have about the huge shift from a play based to a phone based childhood for Australian children and what to do about this and how best to tackle the proven harms of social media. While setting a higher minimum age for Australian children to use social media platforms is important, this needs to be part of a much broader strategy. You can't take something away and then leave a gaping hole. If the Prime Minister wants to say—and I'll quote him here—'I want to see kids off their devices and onto the footy fields, the swimming pools and the tennis courts' then where's the investment in things like community sports, after-school programs and the arts? I hear from people constantly about how much harder it is to get access to these kinds of activities. Right here, in the nation's capital, we have a chronic lack of facilities, as well as soaring costs for young people who want to get involved. There are currently 500 kids on the waiting list for basketball because there aren't enough courts in the ACT. Scouts is becoming inaccessible because its insurance premiums have gone through the roof. Badminton, pickleball and volleyball all have to compete with each other because there aren't enough indoor courts in Canberra. Inadequate lights and maintenance prevent elite-level soccer and cricket after dark. Even basic things like a lack of change-room facilities for girls and women at Lyneham sports field and at many of our local sporting grounds is inhibiting participation. More than anything, what I hear from sports in the ACT is the need for a long-term community sports infrastructure plan that lays out how we're going to address these issues. They know it can't all be fixed at once, but they'd be happy if there were a plan and they knew when funding would come. Grassroots sports, the arts and other activities are the backbone of our communities. They bring people together, strengthen community ties and give people a sense of purpose. How can we not be valuing these things as a society? Why aren't we investing in them? If we want to get our kids off devices, we have to actually provide alternatives for them, and that is the opportunity in front of us. We're lucky in Canberra to have a rich multicultural community that holds regular cultural and religious celebrations. In the ACT, there are over 20,000 people of Indian and Chinese background. We also have big Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, Nepalese and Filipino communities. We have many new and emerging communities, too—Sudanese and Afghan communities, just to name a couple. For these communities, their cultural celebrations are so important—to gather and support each other, and to build new lives in Australia. At the last ACT election, the Labor-Greens government promised to spend $21 million on a purpose-built indoor venue to be used as a multicultural centre. When this didn't materialise, representatives of our culturally diverse communities asked me to help them stand up to the ACT government and ask: 'What's going on? You promised this. Where is it?' When I raised this with the Chief Minister, he confirmed exactly what the community was concerned about—that they were actually just planning to refurbish a pavilion at EPIC, which seats only about 1,000 people—far less than what's needed—which would not be accessible during big events like Summernats, and which would not be for the exclusive use of the multicultural community. That means it won't be a multicultural centre at all; it will just be another venue. Canberra's multicultural communities feel extremely let down. Their trust has been broken. The current venues are too small, too expensive, don't have enough seating and don't have commercial kitchens. Food is the centre of many of these events, so a commercial kitchen for self-catering is a must. I had a brilliant work experience student in my office last week who said her mum had been preparing thousands of Indian sweets in their kitchen at home for upcoming Hindu celebrations because there is no multicultural centre she can access to do this preparation. If the ACT government is going to make promises at election time, they've actually got to start keeping them. Senate 41 13:27 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What an unlooked-for opportunity, with a couple of minutes to go before we have two-minute contributions being led off, I think, by Senator Henderson. In this Senate-only week, it should be the Senate's time to shine. It should be the Senate's opportunity to show the people of Australia what a house of review can achieve in terms of improving government legislation and subjecting the work of the government and the parliament to proper critical review. But the problem is that this Senate—or a very large part of it—has stopped doing its job. Well-paid senators are bludging here and engaging in student politics—not real politics for Australian people. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 Point of order: reflecting on a senator. Given that Senator Ayres named me in his contribution and then made those most inappropriate comments, I would ask that he withdraw those comments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Henderson, I'll help you out. There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Senator AYRES 16913 I'm very happy to withdraw and to assure Senator Henderson—she may not have heard—that I was simply indicating that she will be leading the two-minute contributions that we are shortly to experience. The victims of this hyperpartisanship are not the government or the legislation; it's ordinary Australians. In terms of well-paid senators not doing their job, the victims are nurses on $90,000 a year, teachers, truck drivers and tradies. When they are trying to seek equity to purchase their own home and can't get there—because of the Australian Greens political party, the One Nation party, some members of the crossbench and the Liberal and National parties, which have thoroughly lost their way—who should they blame? They should blame Mr Dutton and Mr Littleproud, whose venal political partisanship leads them to this negative conclusion all of the time. They should blame Mr Bandt and the Greens political party, who've been led by Mr Chandler-Mather into this political cul-de-sac. It has caused immense damage to ordinary Australian families who just want to get a go on the real estate ladder. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 It being 1.30 pm, we shall now move to two-minute statements. Antisemitism 42 13:30 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to raise serious concerns that an encampment at the Australian National University has been re-established today. These encampments have fuelled so much antisemitic hate and incitement on a number of university campuses, and it is beyond belief that this has been permitted to occur again today at one of Australia's most prestigious universities. This is the same university which revoked the expulsion of a student who called for the unconditional support of Hamas. It's absolutely disgraceful. This is further evidence that a judicial inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities is critical to combating embedded systemic antisemitism on campus. These are not my words but the words of the special envoy to combat antisemitism, Ms Jillian Segal, who late yesterday gave evidence at the Senate inquiry into my private senator's bill to establish a commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities, reflecting of course the very good work of my good friend the member for Berowra, who has a private member's bill on similar terms stalling in the House of Representatives. Ms Segal has raised serious concerns that university vice-chancellors are not doing enough, and this has caused untold trauma for Jewish students and staff. That's why a judicial commission of inquiry is so important. If Senator Ayres is concerned about the Senate during its job, maybe government senators could support this very important bill. Cybersafety 42 13:32 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I rise today to speak about very important news for mums, dads and grandparents all across Australia. That is that the Albanese Labor government will be introducing a minimum age for accessing social media. There is no issue raised more with me at the school gate than this one, and usually those conversations range somewhere between apprehension about what kids are being exposed to online because they simply don't know and horror because they do know and they are horrified by the reality. It's clear that these social media platforms can expose our kids in a way that impacts their mental and physical health. The truth is that social media companies have a social responsibility to our community and a responsibility to parents and children. While Meta's announcement that it will give parents greater control over their teenagers' accounts is welcome, there have been far too many instances where these platforms have let children and families down. That is why reform is seriously important. We also have to take the time to get that reform right, to build on the work of Premier Peter Malinauskas in South Australia and the former Chief Justice of Australia the Hon. Robert French AC. We will continue the $6.5 million age-assurance trial to test different implementation processes to make sure we do this in an effective and a sustainable way, because a poorly designed, easily bypassed minimum age is not the answer. The government has committed to bringing legislation into the parliament by the end of the year. That is widely welcomed by parents in my community, who raised this issue with me more than any other. My hope is that this chamber will pass that legislation. That is what Australian parents are asking for. That is what they expect this chamber to deliver. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 43 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Our ABC has a diversity and a race problem. In June 2022 a damning internal report into workplace culture at the ABC found that First Nations employees felt undervalued, ignored and discriminated against. Justin Stevens, the director of news, apologised to staff after this. Being a public broadcaster, the ABC has a key role to play in setting standards and practices when it comes to diversity and cultural safety and protecting its staff from racism. That starts with reflecting diversity at the highest level. Yet the executive board of the ABC is embarrassingly bereft of diversity. It completely lacks the lived experience of people who are routinely discriminated against in this country: First Nations people, people of colour, disabled people and LGBTQIA+ people. This is a glaring problem and one where I have been on the case for some time. Last month I wrote to the communications minister urging the government to ensure the board is diverse. The complete absence of diversity has no doubt contributed to the poor treatment of First Nations journalists like Stan Grant and journalists of colour like Antoinette Lattouf. It also likely contributes to a failure to recognise and respond to concerns from the public and ABC staff that the ABC's coverage of the genocide in Gaza has been pro-Israel. I am pleased to report that my pushing and prodding has had some results. Tabled yesterday, the updated selection criteria for the ABC's non-executive directors add a new one, which requires 'an understanding of, or the ability to credibly represent, the communication needs of Australia's diverse society'. Of course, this is not enough. There should be an explicit requirement for the board to include members from marginalised, diverse communities, and I will keep pushing for it. New South Wales: Local Government Elections, Media 43 13:35 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Last weekend we had the local government elections across New South Wales, and in my Hunter region I had a few friends who were successful and a few friends who weren't. I had a Labor friend, Jay Suvaal, who I grew up with in Cessnock, who was unsuccessful, but I had some Labor enemies who were also unsuccessful, so it balanced out. What was interesting is the role of local media in this. There was a surprise result in the Newcastle election, where the incumbent Labor mayor was voted out, and it was on the back of some persistent questioning and some exposes in the local paper, the Newcastle Herald, about some of the processes in Newcastle council. I think that contributed to that. It made me think. I had recently been approached by, I think, Country Press Australia about the plight of regional and rural papers out there in the world struggling to get by in a media world that is also dominated by the social media we heard so much about in Senator Smith's speech. When we get down to it, when we're talking about mis- and disinformation and the bill that may come here on that, we're not looking at the other side of it, which is promoting solid, trusted information that comes from local newsrooms, from local media and from people in communities. We need to do more of that. We need not just to slap down the misinformation and disinformation because that is abject; we need to increase the sources of trusted information like the Newcastle Herald, regional papers and regional radio stations. While Meta and other big multinational companies out there in the world continue to pay little tax and walk away from undertakings they made in newsrooms to pay for news to assist these things, all things need to be on the table. There is no policy here, I'm saying from outside of politics, but this is a thought bubble. We need to start to look at turnover taxes on these companies to pay and enable local, trusted media to do their job, to enhance investigative journalism and to make our democracy better just by existing, because you can't go down every little barrel hole and take trusted information away from the people. Women: Superannuation 43 13:38 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I want to speak about women and superannuation. There's been a lot of talk about that here in the chamber, both today and yesterday, and I want to speak about it again, because it is something that is very close to my heart. Universal superannuation is a vital part of a system that's designed to give working Australians a dignified and decent retirement, which every Australian should be able to access, not just some. After working hard throughout their whole lives, having dignity, security and peace of mind when they've finished the hard work that they've done throughout their careers is something that everybody should be entitled to. Yet for many women this promise is not being fulfilled. Hopefully, today we will be one step closer to closing some of the gaps and deficiencies in the system to make it more of a reality for women. The data is clear that, when women take time out of the workforce to raise children, they're not only losing immediate wages; they are also losing important contributions to their nest egg for retirement, which results in them receiving about 25 per cent less than men when they get to retirement age. We cannot in good conscience allow women to be penalised with his financial insecurity when they retire, so it is really pleasing to see the debate in the Senate yesterday and today to put paid superannuation onto the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. This is a crucial step that will address the inequality. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is making this happen and investing in women's economic security. I also want to take a moment again to acknowledge the significant contributions of the working women from around Australia who have contributed to this reform. Their work exemplifies the power of collective action to make change happen and fight for what is right. Queensland State Election 44 13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Queensland has an opportunity for change on 26 October. Queenslanders deserve a government with long-term vision. They deserve a government that won't keep going down the path of more crime; poor health services; failing power grids; increased red, green and black tape; poor education outcomes and arrogant politicians. As national Leader of One Nation, I know that, if Queenslanders put their faith in the 93 candidates we have running in this upcoming election, there will be a long-term plan for my home state's focus on Far North Queensland, Central and western Queensland, as much as on the south-east corner. Queensland has been lacking strong, visionary leadership for many years, but I believe we have real leadership waiting in the wings come 26 October. James Ashby has worked at my side for almost 10 years. His ability to work with community and business leaders, voters and politicians across the country is admirable. James has been instrumental in One Nation delivering so much for Queensland. I have great faith in the leadership qualities of James, who is fighting to win the Queensland set of Keppel. Queensland must get rid of Labor, after many long, frustrating years of economic mismanagement, poor governance and the cost-of-living crisis. But the LNP's support for so many of Labor's policies disturbs me; it makes it unlikely we'll see anything different on the most important issues. With the One Nation team led by James Ashby at this election, Queenslanders have a genuine alternative to the major parties. With the One Nation team led by James Ashby in Queensland's parliament, the people of our great state will get the vision and leadership they deserve. Go, James! Chronic Pain 44 13:41 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Today I want to acknowledge people suffering from chronic pain. Chronic pain is extremely debilitating, and difficult to understand for people who have never experienced it. Chronic pain is common in Australia. One in five Australians aged 45 and over are living with persistent, ongoing pain. This pain can be disabling and stressful, making it hard for a person to work and do the things they enjoy. In 2018, chronic pain cost an estimated $139 billion, mostly through reduced quality of life and productivity losses. Chronic pain is pain that lasts beyond normal healing time after injury or illness—generally, three to six months. It is a common and complex condition, and the pain experienced can be anything from mild to severe. The defining characteristic of chronic pain is that it is ongoing and experienced on most days of the week. Chronic pain can result from injury; surgery; musculoskeletal conditions, such as arthritis; or from other medical conditions such as cancer; nerve damage, especially sciatic pain; endometriosis or migraines. In some cases, there may be no apparent physical causes. Chronic pain can affect the person's use of health care and their ability to work, exercise and socialise. People with chronic pain are more likely than those without chronic pain to experience mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, sleep disturbance and fatigue. Western Australia: Leederville Community Forum 44 13:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia It was great to hear directly from hardworking, straight-talking people of Western Australia at the community forum I held in Leederville on Saturday. They didn't hold back, and neither will I. They brought up some serious concerns. And guess what? They think the Albanese Labor government is still snoozing on the job. Let's start with the cost of living. We're all feeling the pinch. Grocery prices are through the roof, let alone budgeting for energy bills, rent and mortgages. While the government are still busy patting themselves on the back for their so-called relief measures, families are left wondering how they'll afford next week's grocery bill. Then there's the issue of strata fees. I've heard so many West Aussies complain about the astronomical costs. Strata fees are supposed to cover maintenance, but, when they start resembling a second mortgage, something's seriously wrong. And don't get me started on the healthcare crisis. I mean, finding a bulk-billing GP these days is like searching for a unicorn. And, if you do manage to find one, they're booked solid for weeks. Let's talk about the HECS loans. You'd think by now they'd have figured out that saddling young Australians with decades of debt is not the way to secure a strong future for our country. But, no, HECS debts continue to grow, with interest ticking away, impacting the mental health of students and graduates who are just trying to get ahead in life. Finally, there's immigration. Whether it's reuniting families and granting permanent residency or seeking skilled workers, we need urgent reforms to fix this broken system. But what do we get? More red tape, more delays and more excuses. This government is quick to talk but slow to act. And let me remind them WA is watching. We're tired of being ignored, tired of empty promises and tired of waiting. Pathways to Politics for Women 45 13:45 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to talk about the Pathways to Politics for Women program. The program was recently run in Western Australia for the first time. I had the privilege of attending their recent graduation. It is about increasing the number of women in politics by equipping women with the skills to embrace political ambition and thrive as political leaders. It involved political training, workshops, mentoring and career-long support. It is about confidence and clarity about their future that they can have the opportunity to talk about in a supportive and safe environment. As I said, it's the first year that this program's been run in Western Australia. It's the first time the program has been run nationally. But it's been running in Melbourne now for approximately nine years. There are 160 women who have completed this program this year, and there were 20 wonderful graduates in Western Australia, including six women from the regions and three First Nations women. This was a diverse cohort of women: single mums, people with disabilities and CALD women with amazing, diverse lived experience. They were women with ambitions for local, state and federal councils and governments, and across the political spectrum. They heard from former, current and budding politicians at all levels, from metro and regional areas, about 'what is your why'—why do you want to do this—how to campaign in diverse electorates, policy and also stakeholder engagement. This program is supported by Senator Payman from Western Australia, former Greens senator Rachel Siewert, Hannah Beazley, Kate Chaney and Rita Saffioti. The Western Australian panel included Liza Harvey, Mia Davies and Katrina Stratton. This is a wonderful program, and it absolutely speaks to all of the women. I look forward to them continuing their political journey and absolutely wholeheartedly love being part of this program. Political Leadership 45 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria People don't trust their government, and rightly so. Whether it's Prime Minister Albanese here in Australia or Keir Starmer in the UK or 'Cackling' Kamala in the United States, we are led by those whose promises seem to bring nothing but devastation. Our PM came to office promising that he would reduce costs, only to oversee price rises on every front. Food, health, electricity, gas, rent—it's all up. Do I need to continue? Probably not. You know what I'm talking about. But it's arguably worse in the UK. British PM Keir Starmer snuck into office pretending to be a bland, predictable leader, but he now oversees a country being torn apart by race riots. Starmer ignores the genuine concerns of Brits, dismissing the rioters as right-wing thugs. Meanwhile he kowtows to these people who do not share Western values. It's a recipe for disaster. And if you dare speak against his disastrous policies—much as happened here during the Voice referendum—you are deemed to be the problem. Kamala Harris completes this trifecta of promise-breaking politicians leading their countries to ruin. She'll tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get into office, but she'll continue to divide Americans once in office. The Western world is in desperate trouble right now because it is led by leaders with forked tongues and duplicitous agendas. We need to support straight-talking politicians who say what they mean and who mean what they say, in order to fix all of our nations before it's too late. I will continue to speak the truth, no matter how unpopular or how costly, to find our way back to being the lucky country. Welcome to Country Ceremonies 45 13:49 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia It was hardly surprising to see a welcome to country before the opening of the Brisbane-GWS AFL match last weekend, but what was surprising was the assertion that these ceremonies have been conducted for 250,000 years, BC—that's 'Before Cook'. Prior to this, we'd been told that the history of Aboriginal Australians began 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. Now, the idea that AFL fans and players are expected to listen to these ceremonies when all they actually want to do is watch the football is extraordinary, and one suspects that many viewers, who in principle wouldn't have had a problem with these practices, are getting as fed up— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Sorry, Senator Antic, just resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, you have a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 No. I just wanted to interrupt his speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Seriously—two minutes—for crying out loud. Senator Antic. Senator ANTIC 269375 Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It tells the story, does it not? But I think Australians are getting fed up with that sort of behaviour in ceremonies, just like you and I are, and we haven't arrived at this point overnight. It has come because of years of indulging them at woke community meetings, woke sports matches, woke council meetings— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Antic, resume your seat. Colleagues, we're only asking you to listen in peace and quiet for two minutes. That's all. It's not a big ask. Can we just do that? The gallery is full of people watching the behaviour here. It's quite childish. Senator Antic, you have the call. Senator ANTIC 269375 Again, I think we're making the point very clearly here. It's come because of years of indulging them at woke community meetings, woke sports matches, woke council meetings and woke weddings. Who knows where else? First it was 10,000 years, then 20,000, then 30,000, then 60,000, and now it's 250,000 years! As I've said before, I don't need to be welcomed to my own country, and nor do you. What we witnessed before the match last weekend was a product of letting this ride for too long. Have you had enough? I certainly have. Tasmania: Early Childhood Education and Care 46 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Family day care centres in Tassie are at risk of shutting down because of silly government rules. I've said this needs to be changed, and now the Productivity Commission has backed me up. The report into universal childhood education and care was released today. It has 56 recommendations on how to fix the tangled web of yarn that is our early childcare system. One of them says that the government should let two family day care services be run in a single venue in regional and remote Australia. Right now the government rules say that you can only have one family day care centre per property title. If two centres share a property, whether it's to keep their rent costs down or to be more efficient in how they provide services, they're breaking the rules, and that means shutting them down. It makes no sense. Two amazing family day care centres in Tassie have run into this problem, and if they're shut down it will have a devastating effect on almost 100 families. Labor are trying to pass the buck. They say it's just a problem with these two centres and that it's for the Tasmanian government to fix it all. It looks like the Productivity Commission disagrees. What works in cities doesn't work in regional areas. Maybe the government hasn't figured that out yet. I've lived in regional Tassie almost all my life and I can tell you that accessing essential services when you need them can be tough. Addisons and Abracadabra family day care centres in Tas are doing something a bit different that works. It works for them and it works for the families that need them. Just because it doesn't fit the government mould of how they think child care should look doesn't mean it's not right for the community. The government should be looking to these centres for answers instead of threatening to shut them down. Now that the Productivity Commission has echoed what I've been saying, maybe there will finally be some action. Balit Ngulu, Law Enforcement 46 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria People often ask me about alternatives to incarceration. Today I want to talk about one program that is successfully diverting kids from jail and getting them on a good path. Balit Ngulu is a specialised youth program within the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service that provides legal assistance and holistic support for kids in contact with the criminal legal system. 'Balit ngulu' means 'strong voice' in the Woiwurrung language. That's because the program makes sure that young people feel seen, heard and connected. It empowers children to self-determine pathways to address challenges and establish a positive future for themselves. They work with caseworkers to identify employment and education opportunities, determine referrals to support services and re-engage with families, school and community. And they have ongoing support that helps resolve underlying issues. It's not rocket science and it's not expensive. Governments waste over $1 million for every child that is locked up, and 80 per cent of children released from prison return within 12 months. There is strong evidence that children who are given the right support have far lower reoffending rates—under 10 per cent, and as low as two per cent for some models. These alternatives are far, far cheaper, but Labor isn't following the evidence. Their decision to withhold much-needed funding from the legal assistance sector will mean that programs like Balit Ngulu won't be able to reach all the kids in need. Under Labor, more kids will be locked up and more communities damaged. This Labor government must stop ignoring the evidence, start listening to communities and fund the solutions that work. Health Care 47 13:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Women 's health is an absolute focus of the coalition, whether it be helping women who live with chronic conditions like endometriosis, supporting women on their journey through menopause or helping families on their fertility journey, we understand that more work is needed to get the policy settings right. That's why it was fantastic to co-chair a women's health roundtable with the shadow minister for women, Sussan Ley, earlier this month during Women's Health Week. We were also joined by Melissa McIntosh, the member for Lindsay, and Senator Maria Kovacic. The roundtable was attended by a range of medical professionals, allied health representatives and key health peak bodies to discuss issues associated with menopause, endometriosis, fertility and IVF. It resulted in some really critical conversations that just needed to be had, conversations which clearly demonstrated how Australia needs better and more affordable access to quality women's health care. Hearing the experiences of women on the ground, who face often expensive, long and difficult battles with issues like fertility and endo, this needs to end absolutely. The coalition, if elected, has already committed $5 million towards reviewing women-specific health items on the MBS and PBS. This will ensure Australian women have affordable access to clinically effective services and treatments right across the country. This builds on our proud record of funding important women's health initiatives including our leadership on endometriosis research and support. In fact, we laid the groundwork for this government's work in this space, but we do know that more needs to be done. We want to ensure that women across Australia can access care that's not only affordable but also understands their experiences and their needs. As the opposition leader committed to in his budget in reply, we're focused on developing policy to ensure the health needs of Australian women are met by our healthcare system. Insurance Industry: Genetic Testing 47 13:57 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Today I recognise the importance of the government's announcement to ban the use of adverse genetic testing results in life insurance underwriting. The government recognises the benefits of genetic and genomic health technologies, but they're benefits that cannot be realised in terms of prevention, treatment and monitoring of inherited conditions unless people are prepared to get tested. I thank all those people behind the A-GLIMMER stakeholder report on the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium. The report, led by Monash University and funded by the Commonwealth, investigated the effectiveness of the insurance industry's partial moratorium on requiring life insurance applicants to disclose genetic test results to access policies. The report overwhelmingly showed how Australian people were affected by this requirement. Australians were concerned about getting genetic testing due to the impact on their life insurance or even their potential future life insurance. It included people not even telling their children about their own genetic risks. The requirement to disclose meant Australians with hereditary breast, ovarian or bowel cancers, endometriosis, genetic high cholesterol and mitochondrial disease—I acknowledge it's World Mitochondrial Disease Week this week. These are all diseases that have better outcomes if diagnosed early with genetic testing. That means better life expectancy, a reduction of health costs and, of course, this in turn is good for life insurance premiums too. No-one should be dissuaded from getting potentially life-saving genetic testing for fear of such discrimination. (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Public Broadcasting 47 14:00 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. The ABC has been forced to remove from its website an online news story it now admits contained doctored audio involving an Australian soldier who the ABC had claimed was firing at unarmed civilians in Afghanistan. Inclusion of the doctored audio made it appear as if Australian Defence Force personnel had fired six shots instead of just one. The former Australian special forces soldier who is at the centre of these false claims, Heston Russell, has asked to meet with the ABC chairman, Kim Williams, to discuss this matter. Does the minister believe the ABC chair should meet with Mr Russell, and will she direct him to do so? 14:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government believes that the ABC is editorially independent, and the government believes that the ABC should continue to be so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, a first supplementary? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I have called Senator Henderson. Thank you. 14:01 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Given the ABC has admitted the footage was doctored, has the minister asked the chairman of the ABC for an explanation? And I would remind Senator McAllister about section 8 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, which imposes very important obligations on the board to disseminate news and information impartially and accurately. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll just let the interjections across the chamber answer the question, will I? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! 14:01 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The minister is of course aware of the legislation which governs the ABC and all of the obligations that arise under that. I do not have the answer to the particular question you ask. I will seek advice and, if I have additional information, I can inform the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, a second supplementary? 14:02 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Will the minister condemn the ABC for this outrageous breach of journalistic ethics and its— Senator Watt 245759 What part of 'independence' don't you understand? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash and Minister Watt, order! Please continue, Senator Henderson. Senator McKenzie 207825 Stop mansplaining! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! I think we heard the first part of it, Senator Henderson. If the minister isn't clear, she'll seek clarification. Please continue. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Will the minister condemn the ABC for this outrageous breach of journalistic ethics and its false allegations against Mr Russell—as found by the Federal Court—which completely misrepresent what occurred in Afghanistan during this incident in 2012? 14:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I have already indicated, the ABC has editorial and operational independence. It is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ruston and Senator Cash! Minister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 It is for— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! Minister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 It is for the ABC to determine how the editing, which has been widely reported, occurred. I understand that a number of public comments have been made in relation to that. I will say this: this government supports the ABC and supports its editorial independence. We support the act. We support the operation of the ABC under the act. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, no; I will come to you in a moment. I have called for order a number of times. I've called out a number of senators for their very rude, disrespectful and wilful interjections. I'm asking that you listen in silence. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order on direct relevance—I asked if the minister will condemn the ABC for this outrageous breach of journalistic ethics. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Henderson. There is no point of order, and the minister is being directly relevant. Minister, please continue. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on both sides of the chamber. Minister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 As I've indicated, the minister is well aware of how the act operates. (Time expired) Help to Buy Bill 2023 49

Help to Buy Bill 2023

14:05 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. With reference to the statement by the Grattan Institute, 'The government's Help to Buy Bill would help level the playing field when it comes to accessing home ownership,' can the minister please outline the Albanese Labor government's plans to ensure all Australians can afford to buy a home of their own and not just some? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Smith. As she said in her question, we believe all Australians should be able to afford a safe and secure home, and we believe that you should be able to afford that no matter where you're from, no matter which school you went to, no matter who your parents are or what job you have. That's why we are investing more to build more homes to support renters and to help more Australians buy a home sooner. Of course, on the other side, Mr Dutton—what does he believe? He actually believes only some Australians should get to own their own home. Senator Birmingham yesterday stood up in this place, and he said that the LNP 'stand for home ownership and have it as a core value'. What he left out is that they don't mean it for every Australian. They don't mean it for every Australian. What he should have said is: 'The Dutton Liberals are for home ownership but only for some of us.' That actually is the Liberal Party position. Their core value of home ownership is actually only for some, and any attempt to expand it to more Australians is something Mr Dutton has to say no to. That's why they said no to Help to Buy. It's why they said no to 40,000 low- and middle-income Australians who want to get into the market. That really showed what Mr Dutton is about. You see, Mr Dutton and the Liberals aren't just saying no to the Albanese government; they're actually saying no to home ownership for Australians on low and middle incomes. That's the core value that the Liberal Party are defending—saying no to the dreams of young people across the country: 'No, you can't own your own home. No, we don't want to build more houses. No, we don't want social and affordable housing. No, we don't want to support Australians who need it. No, we don't want more houses and more people to own their own homes.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary? 14:07 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister further outline what the Albanese Labor government's $32 billion Homes for Australia plan will mean for Australians? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for your question. Our housing reforms will help all Australians, not just some, with historic investments in social and affordable housing to support the most vulnerable in our community. We've increased rent assistance. We're boosting housing supply to ensure there are more homes to rent and to buy and that they are more affordable for everyday Australians. What have you got against affordability? Our Help to Buy scheme would help 40,000 Australians on low and middle incomes own a home sooner. But there are those in this place hell-bent on blocking these plans for their own political gain. Mr Dutton wants fewer Australians to own a house, and the Greens political party are teaming up with Mr Dutton to ensure fewer people own a house. What I would say is that working with Peter Dutton to stop meaningful reform isn't negotiating, holding the futures of Australians to ransom with the Liberals is not negotiating and denying more houses to be built is not negotiating. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary? 14:09 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister explain why the Albanese Labor government is focused on building more homes and increasing housing supply? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston and Senator Hume, which bit of 'order' doesn't apply to you two? Minister Wong. 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We on this side know that one of the best ways we can ensure that more Australians can afford a safe home, a secure home, is to build more of them. That's why we've set the ambitious goal of ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. On the other hand, the Greens political party don't think housing supply is an issue. Their spokesperson said, 'We have enough homes for people to live in.' That is— Senator Reynolds 250216 You are felling 50,000 trees in a fire zone! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, which bit of order does not apply to you. I'm asking you to come to order and listen in respectful silence. The same goes for you Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath 217241 I was quiet then! The PRESIDENT 112096 For a moment, you were. Senator WONG 00AOU The Greens political party's policy is, 'We have enough homes for people to live in.' That's what their spokesperson has said. And he's selling a lie to renters to justify what is nothing more than an unholy alliance with Mr Dutton. But building a brand doesn't put a roof over anyone's head. Senator McKim JKM My point of order is on reflecting adversely on a member of the other place, and, in particular, using the word 'lie' in relation to a member of the other place. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I listened to the comment made by the minister. I didn't think it impugned anybody's reputation. I'm sure the minister will withdraw, if she thinks she has. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll rephrase. He's selling a fantasy to renters to justify— Senator WONG 00AOU Would you like me to withdraw? I'll withdraw. I withdraw. He's selling a fantasy to renters to justify your unholy alliance, which has been on display all week. Social Cohesion 50 14:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Minister, can you confirm that the Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Julian Hill, has invited United Muslims of Australia, a community group with ties to a sheikh who praised Hamas's attack on 7 October on Israel, to apply for a social cohesion grant from the Commonwealth government? 14:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Ruston. I am, of course, not aware of what Senator Ruston has asked about. But if I have any further information, I will provide that to the chamber. What I do know and what I think all Australians know is that the terrorist attacks that were carried out by Hamas on October 7, including the murder of young Israelis peacefully attending a music festival, were absolutely abhorrent, and our government has repeatedly and forcefully condemned them. This parliament unequivocally condemned them in a motion that we passed in October last year. The government also condemned anyone celebrating those attacks, including Mr Dadoun. I think that's how you pronounce his surname. The United Muslims of Australia has a long and successful history of helping many young Muslims in Sydney, providing a space for them to practice their faith and connect with community. The organisation is run by Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, who is the president of the Australian National Imams Council. He has worked constructively with security agencies and governments, including coalition governments, for many years, bringing Muslim Australians together in their local communities, helping build connections, and tackle division, prejudice and hate. Our government supports activities that do seek to bring young Muslim Australians together in their local communities to build connections and build social cohesion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Last week, the Daily Telegraph reported United Muslims of Australia's Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun praised the October 7 terrorist attacks against Israel at a rally organised by extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir shortly after the attacks, saying: 'It's a day of courage. It's a day of happiness. It's a day of pride. It's a day of victory.' Minister, how does giving taxpayer money to a hate preacher improve social cohesion? 14:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ruston. I understand that the questions that Senator Ruston raises relate to objections that appeared in some media outlets last week. As I've said, the United Muslims of Australia organisation is either run or led by Sheikh Shady Al-Sulieman. He is a well-respected and well-regarded Muslim leader in our community. In fact, he has worked with security agencies and governments, including coalition governments, for many years. As I said earlier, the UMA has a long and successful history of helping many young Muslims in Australia. In fact, you probably wouldn't have to look very far to find evidence of Mr Morrison, the former Liberal Prime Minister, meeting with Sheikh Shady when he was the Prime Minister and that is because Sheikh Shady is respected within the Muslim community and beyond. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a second supplementary? 14:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Will the Minister for Home Affairs intervene to ensure that no taxpayer money will go to an organisation promoting extremist antisemitic views, and will Assistant Minister Hill be counselled by his extreme lack of judgement? 14:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, the United Muslims of Australia organisation has a strong track record of helping many young Muslims in Sydney. This is a time when all governments and all political parties party should be encouraging social cohesion within our community. I understand that is a concept that is foreign to the Liberal Party. Organisations like the United Muslims of Australia regularly bring young Muslims together to build connections and to tackle division, prejudice and hate. Early Childhood Education 51 14:16 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria My question is the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister Watt. Today's long-awaited Productivity Commission report into Australia's early childhood education and care system recommended the government make child care free for low-income families. Free and universal child care is something that the Greens took to the last election and have been campaigning on for decades. Minister, when will your government act to finally make child care free? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hodgins-May. I'm always very pleased when the Greens party ask me questions about early childhood education and care because no government in Australia's history has done more to support early childhood education and care than the Albanese Labor government. We have agreed to fund a much-deserved pay rise for early education and care workers of 15 per cent, starting in December this year. I have spoken before about the support that we have provided to provide cheaper child care to Australian families and to make it more accessible whether people live in the cities or in the regions. I wasn't aware of this because I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the Greens' platform but apparently the Greens' platform at the last election talked about universal child care but, you know— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Just wait; it is going to be worth waiting for. The Greens' platform said a lot of things at the last election including support for Help to Buy. That was what the Greens' platform said. And for the last week, we've seen the Greens in cahoots with Peter Dutton and the coalition stopping Labor delivering Help to Buy even though it is in their own platform, so it would appear you don't even believe your own platform. You would much rather pair up with Peter Dutton and the coalition to stop something in your own platform than actually help Australians buy their own home, get early childhood education and care. Tell us what else is in your platform. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, on a point of order? Senator Hodgins-May 310860 President, I draw the minister 's attention to relevance. I didn't ask about housing; I asked when the Labor government will make child care free. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, please resume your seat. I will come back to you. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left and right! The senator has a right to call the point of order and I certainly need to hear that point of order. Senator Hodgins-May. Senator Hodgins-May 310860 Thanks, President. My point of order was on relevance. I was not asking about housing; I was asking about when the Labor government will commit to making child care free for all Australian families. The PRESIDENT 112096 There is no point of order. I'm going to ask the minister to continue. Senator WATT 245759 Thanks, President. I can understand why, in this of all weeks, the Greens don't want to talk about housing. I can understand that, because we can know that they are divided even in their own party room about housing and how they should handle this because we know that some of them acknowledge that we should be delivering more housing and we should be helping renters buy homes, but unfortunately the Trots in the Greens have taken over and are stopping any sensible solution on that. Labor has done more on early childhood education and care than any other government. We will continue to do so because we respect the need of Australians to have that service. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Watt. I will remind you to refer to leaders in the other house by their correct titles. Senator Hodgins-May? 14:19 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Let's try again, shall we? Minister, this year we've had two government commissioned reports on child care released, the ACCC's and now the Productivity Commission's, both of which confirmed what we already know about Australia's broken education system. Now the government is claiming you need more time to consult. Minister, surely, it's time for a little less conversation and a lot more action. Will your government commit today to fully implementing the Productivity Commission's recommendations in recognition that every kid in the country deserves access to high-quality early education and care? 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hodgins-May. Well, yes, I am aware that the government has received two reports about matters to do with early childhood education and care. That's because we commissioned them. That's because we want to do something about early childhood education and care. We're not about grandstanding; we're about actually delivering. I know, again, that's something the Greens can't quite get their heads around—this notion of delivering. It's about grandstanding. What I also know is that members of our own caucus here have done more to support early childhood education and care than any single Greens MP or senator ever will. People like Senator Bilyk, who worked in the sector for a long time, and people like Senator Grogan, Senator Walsh and many others here who have worked in the sector and supported workers won't be taking lectures from the Greens party about platforms that they don't believe in themselves and pair up with Peter Dutton to vote against. What we're going to do is deliver better early childhood education and care, as we are doing, and we're going to support the workers in that industry to get the pay rise that they absolutely deserve. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, I will remind you again to please refer to the leader in the other house by his correct title. Senator Hodgins-May? 14:21 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Minister, last month I asked you why the Labor government wasn't abolishing the child care subsidy activity test, a cruel and punitive test that unfairly punishes low-income families and keeps women out of work. You replied that you're waiting for the Productivity Commission to release its final report. Well, today this report—a report that you've had since June—confirms the need to abolish the activity test. So I ask again: will you now commit to immediately abolishing the punitive activity test? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for silence before I call the minister. Minister Watt. 14:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hodgins-May. I understand that it must be frustrating as a Greens member to only ever have the opportunity to ask about what someone could do because you can't actually do something yourself. But Labor is more focused on actually doing something in this space. That is why we have made child care cheaper for Australian families. That is why we have agreed to fund a pay rise for early childhood education and care workers, as they deserve. That is why we have made changes to support— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order, across the chamber! Senator McKenzie 207825 Maybe just start out! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, which bit of 'order' did not apply to you? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKim, equally, which piece of 'order' doesn't apply to you? I've asked for order. That is what I expect. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, seriously! Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Thanks, President. The government, of course, recognises that there's additional work to do to ensure more families in Australia can access— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I rise on a point of order, which is the shouting by Senator McKim. The Greens are very, very quick to jump if people don't comply with the standing orders. They appear to think they don't apply to them. The minister had barely got to his feet and Senator McKim started shouting again. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I'm sure you're aware I have called for respectful silence right across the chamber. I have called senators by their names, so I will continue to try and manage the Senate. I will, again, remind all senators that the term 'order' applies to everyone. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, the government recognises there is additional work to do to ensure more families in Australia can access quality early childhood education and care. I can tell you there's only one party in this chamber that will ever deliver it, and that is the Labor Party. We know what happened under the coalition. We know the Greens will never get the ability to deliver anything whatsoever other than helping Peter Dutton stop housing. You're pretty good at that! But you don't ever deliver anything on early childhood education and care. Trade with United Arab Emirates 53 14:24 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Hopefully, the Greens won't take credit for my question either! My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, my very good friend Senator Farrell. That's twice this week, actually. Late last year, as many would be aware, Australia and the United Arab Emirates announced the commencement of negotiations towards a trade and investment agreement between our two great countries that will lay the groundwork for closer economic ties. Yesterday, Minister, you announced the conclusion of the negotiations with the United Arab Emirates. Could you please inform the Senate about the key outcomes of the agreement and identify the benefits for Australia? 14:25 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for his important question and the wonderful work that he does each and every day for the great state of Victoria. Yes, I can answer that question, Senator Ciccone. Yesterday the Albanese Labor government announced the conclusion of a trade negotiation with the United Arab Emirates. It was an important day for Australia's international economic engagement. The UAE is Australia's largest trade and investment partner in the Middle East, with two-way trade worth nearly $10 billion in 2023. It's a great deal for Australian exporters. Over 99 per cent of Australian produce will now enter the UAE tariff free. Under the deal, Australian exports to the UAE are expected to be higher by $678 million on an ongoing basis. In particular, exports from Senator Ciccone's own state of Victoria will benefit significantly from the agreement. For example, Victoria's exports of agricultural products will benefit from the tariff elimination, putting hardworking Victorian farmers in pole position to compete in the UAE market and the region. Senator Watt 245759 Labor delivering for agriculture again. Senator FARRELL I0N Indeed. I couldn't have said it better, Senator Watt. The deal also unlocks new business opportunities for Australian service providers in the UAE. In addition, the UAE has some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. A trade agreement with the UAE will facilitate investment, which will help our transformation of Australia into a renewable energy superpower. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Farrell. Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 14:27 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Minister, thank you very much for your answer and for highlighting the opportunities this new agreement with the UAE presents. As the co-chair, with Senator McLachlan, of the Parliamentary Friends of the UAE, I ask: can you please elaborate on how the trade agreement with the UAE will deliver real economic benefits to our miners and farmers, as well as provide cost-of-living relief to many Australian families? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for his first supplementary question. Yes, I can. Australian exporters will benefit across the board from this comprehensive trade agreement. As mentioned, the deal will remove tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian exports to the UAE. It will deliver real benefits for Australian farmers and food producers, with estimated tariff savings of over $50 million per year. The mining industry will also benefit through tariff cuts on exports such as alumina, which is valued at more than $1 billion currently. For Australia, the agreement will see cheaper prices at the checkout, thanks to the tariff removal on UAE-made household items, including furniture and building supplies. Australia's households and businesses will save around $40 million a year. It's a great deal for the Australian economy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It is, indeed, a very great deal. Minister, thank you very much for detailing how the trade and investment agreement will bring down prices for Australian consumers. Can you also further outline how the agreement supports inclusive trade, particularly for First Nations people and many businesses? 14:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for his second supplementary question. The trade deal with the UAE includes a dedicated chapter covering trade and labour in answer to the Greens intervention. This chapter promotes compliance with international labour standards and establishes a bilateral dialogue on labour to advance labour rights. The agreement also includes a standalone chapter on gender balance and women's economic empowerment. An honourable senator: Hear, hear! Senator FARRELL I0N Yep! Importantly, the deal is Australia's first ever free trade agreement which includes a chapter on First Nations trade. This chapter provides protections for cultural and traditional knowledge and promotes exchange and cooperation activities in support of Indigenous business interests. The Albanese government is focused on advancing an inclusive approach to trade that seeks to ensure that benefits and opportunities that flow from trade flow to all Australians. Immigration 54 14:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Minister Watt. Minister, given that the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows a record-breaking 335,184 net arrivals in the first seven months of 2024, surpassing even last year's record by 15,361, how does the government justify continuing its aggressive immigration policy? Can you explain why this government remains blind to severe harm this massive immigration increase is causing the Australian people? 14:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. I think any reasonable observer would see the work that has been done by a series of Labor ministers to deal with the higher numbers of migration that Australia has seen since we emerged from COVID. We all know that immigration essentially disappeared through the COVID pandemic, and we also know there was a massive rebound in migration numbers post COVID, as we saw students return to Australia and as we saw in some cases Australians return to Australia, who had been unable to return. There were workers as well. And we made very clear some time ago that we recognised we needed to take action on our migration numbers. That's why, as I say, the Albanese government has taken action in this regard. In particular, we've taken a number of measures to reduce the number of international students coming to Australia. I'm aware that not every part of the community supports that action. In particular, some universities have got concerns, some VET colleges have got concerns and some political parties have got concerns about that. But our view was that it was necessary to reach greater balance in terms of our migration numbers, and that was one of the reasons we undertook those steps. We've also taken steps such as ending the pandemic event visa, ending unlimited work hours for international students and ending work exemptions for working holiday visa holders. These were all steps that had been taken under the former coalition government that did see a massive increase in the migration numbers that we were seeing in Australia once we emerged from the pandemic. We launched a crackdown on rorts in international education, cracking down on shonky providers and closing loopholes that were being used to bring non-genuine students into the country. Of course, we've implemented a much broader reform package to restore integrity to the system. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, come to order! Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I don't think I've got an answer to that one. The Albanese government's first federal budget in October of 2022 projected net overseas migration of 470,000 over its first two years. Instead, Australia has absorbed nearly one million migrants on your watch, doubling the government's own projections. How does the minister explain this consistent failure to adhere to their own misleading immigration targets? 14:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. As I say, we recognise that, post the pandemic, the migration number that Australia was receiving was not sustainable and needed to be dealt with. As I say, much of this was the result of policy failures under the coalition government, in particular by Mr Dutton, going back to his time as the home affairs minister. In fact, Mr Dutton, as the home affairs minister, set the all-time record for visas granted, with 9.6 million granted in 2017-18 and more than nine million for three years, running from 2016-17. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 This is on relevance to the question. It's got nothing to do with the previous government. I'm asking questions about their numbers that they brought into the country. They have increased under their watch. The PRESIDENT 112096 There was no need for the statement. You've made the point of order. The minister is being relevant to your question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, this government has taken a series of steps to ensure that our migration numbers going forward are more sustainable than they have been. I've already said we ended the pandemic event visa and we increased the temporary skilled migration income threshold. Very importantly, we restored the immigration compliance function in the Department of Home Affairs, a section that Mr Dutton, as home affairs minister, cut by nearly 50 per cent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland After 2½ years, Minister, you've increased the numbers. This year they are the highest on record. Given the failures of your government to forecast and control immigration numbers, resulting in a million net overseas migrates flooding into the country on your watch, the highest level in history, will you finally admit your reckless immigration policy is a device to cover up Australia's household recession? 14:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can only repeat the point that this government has taken a series of steps to ensure that our migration numbers are more sustainable than they were emerging from COVID. We fixed a range of policy failures that were left behind by the coalition government and by Mr Dutton, and they are having some effect. For example, government actions to date have led to substantial declines in migration levels, with student visa grants down by 33.6 per cent this year against the same period last year. That's a reduction from 428,824 student visa grants in 2022-23, the first year we were elected, to 284,859 grants in 2023-24— Senator Henderson ZN4 That's all the small universities, the regional universities. The visas for the Group of Eight have gone through the roof. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, come to order. Senator WATT 245759 I don't know why Senator Henderson is complaining about this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Senator WATT 245759 We will continue to take steps. They are having an effect, but the reality— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I have called you twice. You are being disrespectful towards me. I'm requesting that you listen in silence. You're not in a debate with me, Senator Henderson. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 We are taking steps to make our migration numbers more sustainable, and we'll keep doing so. Central Land Council 55 14:37 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Minister, are you aware that a meeting of the executive was held last night where Mr Matthew Palmer was removed as chair of the Central Land Council? Were you advised of this intended action in advance? If not, when did you become aware of this action? And I seek leave to table correspondence from Mr Palmer relating to this matter, which has been distributed in the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU No, leave is not granted, but, if I could, I will make a short statement as to why. I've just been handed this; thank you for the courtesy. There are quite a number of adverse assertions about third parties. Usually, in the course of a committee hearing, those would be considered in more details, because, obviously, tabling it gives these allegations the protection of parliamentary privilege. We will consider it more closely, but I just wanted to reflect, Senator Nampijinpa Price, that there are obviously assertions here against a number of people, and it is a big step to put it into the parliament and give it privilege. We'd like the opportunity to consider that, and we'll have a discussion with you. 14:38 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator, for the question. I was certainly aware that the Central Land Council was having a meeting, but with regard to your question about Mr Palmer, no, I'm not and wasn't aware of that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Minister, is the government satisfied that all proper processes as required under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, including the provision of interpreters and procedural fairness, have been followed in this instance and in the lead-up to it? On what grounds was this action taken? And does the government endorse the decision? 14:39 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I will refer the senator to my previous response. I was unaware of her question or her knowledge about Mr Palmer in that question, so subsequent questions in relation to it are quite difficult to answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, second supplementary? 14:39 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory No doubt very difficult. Minister, are you aware of the disagreements between the CEO of the Central Land Council and the former chair? Were these the reasons for Mr Palmer's removal? If you don't know if these were, will you seek a full briefing on the matter from the Central Land Council, and will your department launch an investigation into this matter? 14:39 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Clearly, if I was unaware that this was occurring with Mr Palmer, then that goes to the answer to your initial question. I've certainly sought a briefing in relation to all the land councils and their election processes, like what's happened with the Anindilyakwa Land Council. In terms of the Central Land Council, Northern Land Council and Tiwi Land Council, I always ask for briefings in relation to those land councils. Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 56 14:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. Over a year ago, I called for an audit of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, which would have been the first since its creation, after 20 years. The audit was blocked, but there was a review. Justice Duncan Kerr conducted the review and delivered the report to Minister Marles in March this year, and the minister has sat on it since. It is clear that Defence and the government have become obstructionist and didn't want the public and the veterans to have the report. The government continually told me the report would be released once consultations were complete. Minister, after six months, how many consultations have been completed? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Lambie for her question. She and I have had a number of discussions about this. I understand that the government provided that the 20-year review to which she refers would have the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide form part of its consideration and final recommendations. I understand that both the 20-year review of the IGADF and, obviously, the royal commission have examined the role of the IGADF and that this role was being examined by both parties. The advice to me is that the government had indicated it would release the report into the IGADF review soon after the release of the royal commission, and that is what the government has done. My recollection is that the Minister for Defence's ministerial statement in relation to the latter was last week. The advice to me is that the reason for this was to respond to both reports in a holistic way and a desire to coordinate our response about what the future of the IGADF looks like as we respond both to the review and to the royal commission's final report. Obviously, the government tabled the report, as I discussed with you earlier today. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie? Senator Lambie 250026 I just have a point of order. I simply asked how many consultations have been completed. I never actually got that. The PRESIDENT 112096 There was also a significant preamble, which the minister is entitled to address. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take advice about the consultation process in relation specifically to the IGADF, but the point I was seeking to make—and, if I was unclear, I'm sorry—was that the government's thinking was that both this review and the royal commission were going to look at the role of the IGADF and so the government sought to try to deal with both issues concurrently. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, I have been told by Minister Marles, Minister Gallagher and yourself that the government was consulting with stakeholders, but the only stakeholder I can see that seems to have been consulted is Defence's media team, because, let's be honest, it's in damage control. Could you also give me a full list of those who participated in these so-called 'consultations'—unless you know who they are off the cuff today? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said, I think these were issues considered in the context of the royal commission, but I certainly will get advice and come back to you if I can. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania After more than half an hour yesterday debating in this place why I couldn't have the IGADF report, it was found on the royal commission's website—in other words, it was publicly available. Twenty minutes later, it vanished. It turns out it was deleted. The government says that it was accidentally uploaded. I say that's rubbish and that that'll be proven. Minister, who gave the orders to remove the IGADF report from the royal commission's website yesterday? 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I say, Senator Lambie, that at the time we were debating this—I think you and I had some conversations about the matter being tabled soon—I wasn't aware, and I don't think any of us were, that the report had gone onto the commission website. I am not familiar with the sequence by which that decision occurred. I assume these were decisions that the royal commission made, but I will get further advice about how that process came about. First Nations Australians: Housing 57 14:45 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Housing is central to the government's commitment to closing the gap, particularly in remote communities. Recognising our government has been working hard to shift the dial for First Nations people and make a practical difference in their lives such as by accelerating construction of housing in remote communities, can you, Minister, outline how this and other measures by our government are supporting housing for First Nations people in the Northern Territory? 14:45 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Polley for the question, a very important one. The Albanese government is delivering safe and secure homes right across Australia, including in remote First Nations communities. When you want the work done, call the Labor Party. We're getting on with the job of building 1.2 million homes, helping people buy and making renting fairer, unlike you guys. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McCarthy, please resume your seat. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, I've called order. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 We're getting on with the job of building 1.2 million homes, helping people buy and making renting fairer, unlike this lot across the chamber. We need all options on the table, and that's what this Labor government is doing, because we know this issue is too important to wait. Too many Indigenous Australians live in overcrowded and run-down houses. Addressing overcrowding and poor housing is crucial to improving health, education, employment and justice outcomes. We're providing immediate support to the areas of greatest need, including the remote NT, where overcrowding is the highest. Earlier this year, I was with former minister Burney and Selena Uibo, an Indigenous member of the then Labor government, and also the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, and we signed a historic deal with the Northern Territory to improve housing over 10 years, worth $4 billion. This will see up to 270 homes— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 So you don't want to see houses for remote regional Australia, or you don't want to see houses full stop—not even for remote and regional Australia? What about the $4 million investment in the Northern Territory. We haven't heard a word from that side—not one word, only constant criticism, when we know we need the houses in remote and regional Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for outlining the government's commitments to improving housing for our First Nations people in the Northern Territory. Can you tell us more about the $4 billion agreement and what practical outcomes this investment is having in reducing overcrowding and improving the quality of homes in remote communities, and can you tell us more about your can-do attitude? 14:48 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Yes, the Northern Territory has the highest level of overcrowding in the country, and this is a serious matter. Better housing for Aboriginal people living in remote Northern Territory communities is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. We know that overcrowding leads to poorer outcomes in terms of health, education and safety. If we invest in better housing, we will get better outcomes across the board. We are working to halve overcrowding by building 270 houses each year or 2,700 homes over the 10-year agreement. This is on top of the 1,950 bedrooms and over 200 homes which were built under the previous National Partnership on Remote Housing. We are committed to practical actions that improve the lives of First Nations people. Building more homes in remote communities will reduce overcrowding and improve health and education outcomes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:49 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister. It's great to hear about how this investment is leading to tangible outcomes for First Nations people in remote communities. What challenges is the government working to overcome to deliver on this commitment? 14:50 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Polley. Yes, now the work does begin, and having conversations this week with the new Minister for Housing Construction, Bill Yan, was critically important for us to make sure that the $2 billion from the Commonwealth and the $2 billion from the Northern Territory actually do hit the ground in terms of remote and regional Australia. I do want to see the Northern Territory and federal governments working together to deliver on this historic agreement for the benefit of First Nations people. It's a lesson that Minister Yan's colleagues here in the federal parliament should take note of. The Liberal Party in this place seems more interested in opposing everything for the sake of opposition. Peter Dutton's Liberal Party— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 Peter Dutton MP's Liberal Party don't have a plan for the Northern Territory, and they don't have a plan for housing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McCarthy, I do remind you as well to refer to the leader in the other place by his correct title. Taxation 58 14:51 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In 2022, Pfizer derived $1.4 billion in sales in Australia and an operating profit of $90 million, a ratio of just seven per cent. This is despite Pfizer earning $100 billion in worldwide sales and an operating profit of $35 billion, a ratio of 35 per cent. Pfizer Australia's intercompany assets show a loan balance with Pfizer Ireland of over a billion dollars. Australia imposes a 10 per cent withholding tax on royalties paid to Ireland, which, added to Ireland's company tax rate of 12½ per cent, means that at a total of 22½ per cent there is a lower rate of tax on profits sent offshore than profits retained in Australia. Will the Albanese government lift withholding taxes to stop profit-shifting by foreign multinationals? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Rennick for the question. I think we've been clear about the tax arrangements that we've put in place to address multinational tax and some of the changes that this parliament has proposed. As I've said a number of times, in terms of our tax reform agenda we've dealt with the revised income tax arrangements, which gave every taxpayer in the country a tax cut and in a fairer and better way. We have also got our super tax legislation that is before this parliament that we would like for those high-balance super accounts. And we have moved some legislation—in fact, this year, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill passed the parliament, which limited interest deductions for multinationals and improved corporate disclosures on subsidiaries, delivering on key parts of the October budget's multinational tax integrity package. So that is what the government have announced; that's what we've done. We don't have plans as outlined by Senator Rennick. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The income tax act exempts foreigners from paying capital gains tax on non-real assets if they own less than 10 per cent of the company. This exempts many foreign investment funds and holders of water rights. Why does the tax act exempt foreigners from paying capital gains tax, and how is this fair to hardworking Australians who do pay capital gains tax? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much. I'll see if there's anything further I can provide to this answer, but we do have arrangements in place to tax multinational firms in this country and we are always looking at ways to ensure that they are meeting the needs of our revenue base. We are also working globally on how we address some of the challenges around multinational companies. This is an area of interest for us. We are passing and have passed legislation to protect and improve our revenue base in relation to multinational tax, making sure multinationals are paying their fair share of tax and doing what we need them to do to support the services that we provide through the revenue that we do collect, Senator Rennick. But, if there is anything further I can provide in answer to your question, I will come back to the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, second supplementary? 14:54 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The Income Tax Act exempts foreign holders of bonds purchased through a public offer from paying withholding tax on interest earned from those bonds. Why does the tax act exempt foreigners from paying tax on interest income, and how is this fair to Australians—especially retirees, who have to pay tax on their savings income? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much, Senator Rennick, and I am— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Rennick has become a lot chattier since he left the opposition benches, that's for sure. Senator Rennick, I don't have the answer to that question with me. But, in a general sense— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Wong. Order. Senator GALLAGHER ING The approach that the government takes, when we look at all of our tax base, essentially, and the different measures we have—and there are a range of different exemptions and treatments, depending, as you pointed out, on what part of that base you're from, whether you're an individual taxpayer or a business taxpayer, and some of the different exemptions that exist. We do constantly look at ways to make sure that it's fair for all and that there is a level playing field, but I will come back, Senator Rennick, if there's more I can— (Time expired) Housing 59 14:56 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the fabulous Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Master Builders Association has said: Help to Buy is a sensible policy approach that looks at lifting housing affordability … The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck! Senator STERLE e68 has said: We certainly would like to see the bill passed. Shared equity programs have been some of the most successful and most effective housing policy interventions … Noting the Albanese Labor government's Help to Buy plan would help 40,000 Australians into home ownership, what other measures is the government taking to help even more Australians into housing and homeownership? 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Sterle for the question—and, indeed, for all of us on this side, who are really focused on making sure that we are doing everything we can to build more housing in this country and to ensure that more people can become homeowners in this country. We've seen, this week, the very unholy alliance, the very uncomfortable alliance, of those opposite, on that side of the chamber, and those down that end, holding hands—hugging each other at times, really. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING We've seen it—the proverbial hug; the dirty deals— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for silence. Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING It was uncomfortable for all of us to watch, don't worry! It's a very unusual partnership— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam! Senator GALLAGHER ING that we've seen this week, and the partnership has been formed over a united view, from those at this end of the chamber, to oppose building more houses and getting more people into homeownership. That's exactly what it did. The Help to Buy scheme is about ensuring that 40,000 people who've saved and worked hard are able, with a bit of help from the government, to get into homeownership. We can think of a lot of essential workers who have raised this with us over the years, and we've sought to respond to that with a program— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green! Senator GALLAGHER ING that those over here don't want to be part of because they always object to everything that the government wants to do. And those down there pretend that they campaign in the interests of housing, and then come in here and vote against it. That's what we've seen this week. This government is doing everything we can, across this board, on supply— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes! Senator GALLAGHER ING working with states and territories, working with local government, working with private investors, working with the social and community housing sector, to make sure that we're doing everything we can, after a decade of neglect from those opposite. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! To all those senators who I've called more than once today, I would ask that you listen in respectful silence for the short time that we have left of question time. I should not have to repeatedly call your name. Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia The Albanese Labor government wants to make it easier for Australian renters to become Australian homeowners. Our comprehensive housing plan was designed to support Australians at all stages of the housing ladder. How is the government helping renters, including those who won't be able to transition to homeownership without Help to Buy? 15:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thanks very— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, can you either listen in silence, or I invite you to leave the chamber. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you very much, President, and I thank Senator Sterle for the supplementary. Senator Sterle's question is right, because he is asking: how are we helping renters and now those who we would like to transition from renting into homeownership? But those who have opposed Help to Buy are pretending that they've kicked it off for two months. They are feeling so awkward about this unholy alliance that has been formed—the antihousing alliance in this chamber—that they're pretending their vote against the bill is actually a delay. Well, they don't need to be accountable, and I think those who have opposed Help to Buy need to be accountable and upfront about how they've behaved in this chamber this week. They haven't delayed the bill; they have voted against the bill. Every single time the vote has been put, they have voted against it. They don't want to be upfront and accountable for that, so they're pretending they're delaying the bill. But that bill has been stopped by this Senate this week, and for all those who would have benefited, you need to be accountable for that— An honourable senator: Time! The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Gallagher. And I don't appreciate whoever it was that called out 'Time!' I'm managing the chamber. Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 15:01 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia The Albanese Labor government has invested in boosting housing in every budget and surplus. Why have we had to make such significant investments in housing? What roadblocks has the government faced in its efforts to get more Australians into homeownership? 15:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Sterle for that question again and for highlighting the fact that the housing shortage in this country did not happen overnight. It was created by a federal government that were so busy fighting amongst themselves over energy policy that they didn't actually even care about housing. They didn't have a housing minister. They didn't get together with housing ministers around the country— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, I'm going to ask you to listen in silence or invite you to leave the chamber, and, Senator Hume, perhaps you could join her. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING They didn't care about housing then, and then they walk in here and demand to know what's been happening. Well, we've done everything we could in the two years that we've been making decisions about housing—everything we could. Whether it's renters, or those that need social and affordable housing, or those that need homelessness services, who you also didn't care about, or whether it's about supply or the Housing Australia Future Fund, we've done it against a tide of your opposition. That's what we've seen this week, and you need to be accountable for that, for a problem that you created that you won't be part of a solution to. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Public Broadcasting 61 15:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales During question time, Senator Henderson asked whether the Minister for Communications has asked the ABC chairman for an explanation in relation to the Heston Russell matter. I've sought further advice, and, for the benefit of the chamber, the minister has, via her office, advised the ABC that she would like a briefing on the outcome of the ABC's investigations into the circumstances around the editing of the audio in the online story involving Heston Russell, when available. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Public Broadcasting 61 15:04 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice asked by Senator Henderson today relating to public broadcasting. It's very important that we have a discussion about the ABC and it's very important that we understand the failure of the minister, over three questions, to adequately respond to the questions put by Senator Henderson. Indeed, Senator McAllister's first answer went for the grand sum of 15 seconds. Latter answers went for slightly longer but contained a lot less information for answers to the questions. It is very important that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is funded by the taxpayers of Australia—it's not a private company; it's a taxpayer funded national or state broadcaster. Senator Hughes 273828 It is governed by Commonwealth legislation. Senator McGRATH 217241 Thank you, Senator Hughes. It's governed by legislation that's gone through this parliament. It is important that it upholds the standards which it requests other people to uphold. The ABC is becoming one of these organisations which operates along the mantra, 'Do as I say but not as I do.' The ABC is becoming one of these organisations who are falling into the trap of failing to uphold standards, because the standards that you walk past are the standards that you accept. It is disappointing that the many good people who do work for the ABC across Australia are being let down by the management, by the board and by those who are failing to act ethically when it comes to the treatment of our fellow Australians. If it comes to a choice between taking the words of our veterans, those men and women who have put their lives at risk to defend the freedoms that define this country, or taking the ABC at its word, every single time I will take the word of our veterans. I will take the word of those men and women who are about service, about belief in this country and about putting their lives on the line. Heston Russell—someone who did stand at the last election in Queensland against my own party, so he's not a supporter of the Liberal National Party—is one of those people who has put his life on the line. He is someone who has done things, along with many other men and women who serve this country, so people in this chamber and in that gallery can sleep safe at night. He has gone overseas. He has defended freedom. He has fought for all that is good and right. But what do we have with the ABC? We had the ABC defame him. Indeed, the ABC had to settle—actually they didn't settle. Mr Russell sued the ABC in the Federal Court for defamation and was awarded $390,000 in damages. The ABC went out of their way to defame a special forces commando, someone who has defended the freedoms that the journalists employed by the ABC ironically used to then defame him. It wasn't just a good old-fashioned defamation; it was clearly, I want to say, a conspiracy to libel and defame Mr Russell. There was a conspiracy to doctor the number of shots that could be heard in an audio recording. That is why it is so disappointing that, when questions were put to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications in this chamber, asking whether the minister will condemn the actions of the ABC, the minister failed to do so. We have a Labor Party in power who are running a protection racket for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We have a Labor Party in power who are refusing to condemn the actions of the ABC in relation to the doctoring of an audio recording. We have a minister and a Labor Party who are more than happy to allow the ABC to have a leave pass to continue with their actions. The ABC is funded by the taxpayers of this country. It is funded to the tune of $1.1 billion. We deserve better from the ABC, but we also deserve a lot better from the ministers in their answers in this chamber. 15:09 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I also seek to take note of those answers from the minister. The answers from the minister were very clear. In relation to the ABC, the ABC is independent, and that is really important. It is really important that the ABC has independence. It's enshrined in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, and it's an important safeguard that ensures that the ABC's decisions are free from political interference. I read the ABC from time to time. I don't always agree with its reporting of our government or the decisions that we make, but the ABC is independent and able to make those independent decisions. They are also not above scrutiny. They absolutely should be scrutinised and they are. From time to time, quite often, for hours on end, they are scrutinised by this parliament about their editorial decisions and the actions that they take. As was referred to today, an investigation will take place into the program that was referred to in question time. But the reason that those opposite ask these questions about the ABC and infer that somehow the ABC should not be independent or should not be funded is because they have a deep-seated hatred for the idea that we should have a funded free broadcaster in this country. They want to sell, privatise and cut the ABC and, every time they get into government, they have a really good go at it. They cut the ABC and they try to sell it. This is something they are really up front about. They put motions through their conferences, probably sponsored by Senator McGrath or others, from time to time because they want to sell the ABC. It's not about what's good for Australians; it's about what's good for the pre-selectors of the Liberal-National Party. It's about appealing to their base and trying to stake out a culture war about what the future of the ABC looks like. But what they don't include in those debates when they propose selling off the ABC is how important ABC is, particularly to regional communities, like the one that I live in, and the important role the ABC place The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes, on a point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 My point of order is on relevance. The motion to take note was about the question asked of the minister regarding to the Heston Russell matter. No-one asked a question about selling the ABC. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes, it is not a debate. Senator Hughes 273828 We have to talk about the issue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, the member is relevant because in take note we are discussing the efficacy of the ABC. Senator Green. Senator GREEN 259819 Thanks, Deputy President. I was talking about the plans from the Liberal-National Party to sell off the ABC, because we understand the context of the questions they ask. Anyone can see through the context of the questions that they ask. But what they don't talk about is the very important role the ABC plays in regional communities like the one that I live in, and I wish that they would talk about it more. Because, particularly during summer when it comes to cyclones, floods or bushfires, the ABC plays an incredibly important role. Everyone in our regional community relies on and turns to the ABC when there is an emergency. We rely on the ABC to give us the most up-to-date information, particularly in those emergencies. Often, in a regional community like the one I live in and the ones that I represent, the ABC can be the only form of news, of scrutiny of politicians. The ABC comes to the press conferences that I hold in regional Queensland and they ask me questions as well. It's an important role that they play, particularly in our regions, but those opposite don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about and make the case for reducing the ABC's independence, for reducing the funds for the ABC and for ultimately selling off the ABC. It has always been their plan, and that's why they ask questions like this. It is really important that we uphold the independence of the ABC. We are not always going to agree with what they print, we are not always going to agree with what they say, but it is very important that they are independent. If those opposite have a different policy position that they are going to put forward at the next election to change the ABC Act to make it less independent, to cut the ABC, to sell it off, then say that, be up front with the Australian people. When it comes to the cuts you are planning at the next election, the $315 billion of cuts you are planning, be up front. When it comes to the IR changes you are planning and selling off the ABC, be up front with the Australian people about what you are planning to do. 15:14 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I almost feel sorry for those who have to come in here and respond to take note motions on behalf of their ministers because that answer given by Minister McAllister didn't even last to the end of question time before she had to come in and clarify it. I've got to ask the question: what kind of lack of moral compass is held by those opposite? It is clear that an Australian veteran has been defamed—already proven, with a nice big settlement from the ABC on the Australian taxpayers' dime—because they showed falsified vision and soundtracks. And it was not only once—they didn't only do it in Mark Willacy's report. It has been demonstrated today that 7.30 weren't happy with taking it from one gunshot to six gunshots. Oh no, that wasn't enough for them; that wasn't enough of a lie for them to tell. They had to make it 12 gunshots. So the question asked today was not about the independence of the ABC, it was not about the funding of the ABC and it was not about any of the other straws that Senator Green was clutching at. When she talked about regional reporting, I can say, as an old Moree girl—somewhere we used to get quite adverse weather—we did have the ABC. What I can tell you is that I wanted that reporting to be factual. I didn't want them to say, 'Oh, there's going to be a hailstorm this afternoon,' when there was going to be a light sprinkle. We needed factual reporting, but now the ABC is not held to those standards by those opposite. Truth in journalism is a concept they don't understand, with the great irony that they're now trying to put up a bill around mis- and disinformation, and somehow the minister will be responsible for determining that. We now see a government that is clearly bereft of a moral compass that thinks that blatantly lying about an Australian veteran is acceptable and should be defended in this chamber, rather than condemned. We know that it's pathetic because clearly Minister Rowland has been on the phone, saying: 'Oh no! Quick, get in there. I did actually ask for a briefing because this is unacceptable.' Well done to Michelle Rowland! At least, I hope, she has some understanding of that compass. Even Maurice Newman, the former Chair of the ABC, has called them 'a self-serving collective' and 'the shameless megaphone of the Left'. That's why those opposite will never dare utter a word against their friends at the ABC because it is their taxpayer funded cheer squad. And, let me tell you that, as we enter an election season, they need all their buddies at the ABC to be on board. I do want to mention that Heston Russell is a very dear friend of mine. In fact I spoke to him the other night to see how he was going. There will be lots who will tell you that they're good friends of his, but I was the only politician who provided him with an affidavit in regard to his defamation suit. I did that because, talking to Heston, seeing him and hosting him at my house, I saw the damage that was being done to an Australian war hero by this vindictive campaign being led by the ABC—a campaign that those opposite have now dismissed as something more than a threat to the independence of the ABC. If the ABC can't govern itself to tell the truth, I'm starting to think that, somehow or other, they might have given up the right to some of that independence. They have no capability to tell the truth. They have no capability to abide by their own charter. They have no respect for the taxpayers—every single one of you here today—who fund not only all the management, the producers and the journalists but also the editors. And we know they'll be throwing one of them under a bus pretty soon because it won't be any of the senior journos or producers. This is the opportunity for the new chair, Mr Williams, to come in and say, 'Enough is enough!' Stop wasting taxpayer dollars on Louise Milligan specials, on 7.30 reports, on every other Four Corners story that gets them through the courts. We know how much money they've cost. Heston Russell's case so far is at around $3½ million and now, with these latest two revelations of duplicity, it might just cost all of us—you, me and everyone else—a whole heap more. Those opposite need to hold journalism at the ABC to account and stop using independence as a smokescreen. 15:19 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I wanted to take note of the question from Senator Ruston and then the answer by Minister Watt. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, the practice— Senator Hughes 273828 I'm sorry; you have to respond. That's the way take note works. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Just leave it to the Deputy President. The current motion before the chamber is to take note of the answer by Senator McAllister to Senator Henderson, and so you're required to speak to that motion. Senator DARMANIN 301128 It's my second time, so I'm— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, it's okay. Senator Hughes 273828 Normally we take note of all answers— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, the Senate is a constant learning experience for us all. Senator Darmanin, you have the call. Senator DARMANIN 301128 I can speak to this matter as well. I think in her supplementary answer Minister McAllister did directly go to some of the question that was asked by Senator Henderson. As Minister McAllister stated, the ABC has operational and editorial independence, which is extremely important. As has previously been mentioned, that independence is enshrined in the act, and it is an extremely important safeguard to ensure that the ABC's decisions are free from political interference. The ABC is an important public institution. It provides free access for all Australians to independent news, and it's particularly important for regional communities—and Senator Green did touch on this—in times of emergency. We rely on the ABC, particularly people in the regions, for access to accurate, up-to-date information and to ensure they are safe in periods of emergency or natural disaster. So we should continue to have confidence in the reporting by the ABC, but, as with any media organisation, the ABC doesn't always get it right. But the ABC is committed to continuous improvement, including through its complaint-handling process, and it does remain accountable to the parliament for its use of taxpayer funds through a range of accountability mechanisms, including annual reports, corporate plans, financial and performance audits and appearances before parliamentary committees, including Senate estimates, where the matter at hand, what Senator Ruston asked Minister McAllister about, has been canvassed. It does not mean that the ABC is above scrutiny. In fact, the legislation sets out that it is not above scrutiny. The ABC is accountable. In terms of the specific matter of the defamation case that questions have been asked about today, the ABC's defence in the Russell defamation proceedings is a matter of public record, and I note that quite a bit of media reporting about it has emerged today. The ABC has previously answered questions on this matter at a Senate estimates committee, and I refer members to those proceedings. In October 2023, the Federal Court handed down its decision in the defamation proceedings between Mr Heston Russell and the ABC and awarded damages and payment of legal costs to Mr Russell. It is important to note that the ABC, as an independent institution, is responsible for managing its own legal matters, including defamation claims and litigation. In relation to the program in question today, the ABC has removed the video and is further investigating the circumstances around how that audio occurred. It's vitally important that we continue to support the ABC, support the ABC's independence, and understand that the ABC are investigating the circumstances of this matter and others and that they do remain accountable and subject to scrutiny where there are questions about their reporting. But also it is important to do this in a manner which is responsible and for those of us in this chamber to ask questions in a way that does not undermine the confidence of the public in our independent institution the ABC, to ensure that all Australians continue to have confidence in the reporting that's provided—that it is free, fair, unbiased and independent, because, as I said earlier, Australians rely on the ABC very much every day and they should continue to have confidence in its reporting. 15:25 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I should say, the senator made a very good recovery. I've done exactly the same thing. We've all been there; don't worry. I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but it was a very good recovery! The issue I have with the minister's response is that the minister referred to editorial independence. This is not a question of editorial independence; this was a situation where the audio in relation to a key piece of footage was altered. It was doctored so that it appeared through the audio that six shots had been fired in the relevant scenario, instead of one. That's what happened. It's hard to classify that as a mistake, and it's certainly, in my view, not something which could be classified as falling within the purview of editorial independence. Editorial independence, from my perspective, is that the government cannot dictate to the ABC what stories it should run, what the content of those stories should be or what the editorial opinion should be in relation to those stories, and that commercial entities can't dictate to the ABC or challenge its independence in that way, nor can non-government organisations or anyone else. That's what independence means. But this is an issue of the audio being doctored in a particular case. I also say that this is in the context of the relevant individual, Mr Heston Russell, having been successful in his defamation claim and receiving a payout in October 2023 of $390,000. This was also a nine-day trial. I can tell you that, in a nine-day defamation trial with silks, the legal fees would have been north of $1 million—and that's taxpayers' money. Then we hear from the news editor yesterday that the news budget for the ABC is $311 million, and all this money has been spent on this defamation case, which they lost, in a situation where the judge said this: There may be several reasons why this dispute resulted in expensive and protracted litigation, but one of them was the existence of a defensive mindset inhibiting a proper remedial response to criticism. That's what the judge said. So the ABC has questions to answer. It's not a question of editorial independence; it's a question of standards, which we expect our national public broadcaster to uphold. Question agreed to. Immigration 65 15:28 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to immigration. Australians know that high immigration figures are actually crippling them: a lack of housing, rental accommodation, infrastructure, roads and water—you name it, everything is impacted by it. The minister just read out a script. He didn't listen to my question; he wasn't interested. Do you know why? It was because he couldn't answer it. As I said in question time, when the government came to office in May 2022, their projected figures were for 470,000 migrants over the first two years. Instead, Australia has absorbed nearly one million migrants under this Labor Party. According to Senator Watt, who answered the question, post COVID—that was 2022—the immigration number was unsustainable, but they're doing something about it. Well, let me tell the public that the numbers are basically up around the same. Australia's population grew by 655,800 in the 2023-24 financial year. This was up from 647,900 in the March quarter and the second highest annual result in history, behind 676,100 recorded in the year to September 2023, again under Labor. Labor have no intentions of addressing this. Why? Because the country is in a hell of a mess, economically, and they bring in high immigration to prop up the GDP. That's why, and that's why we have an issue here in Australia with household recession. The government don't know how to deal with the economy. They have brought in high immigration numbers. They're lying to the Australian people saying they are addressing this when they are not. It's too late. The damage has been done to this country. Unless we rein in immigration, people are going to find themselves homeless more so and not be able to buy their own homes in this nation. Question agreed to. Early Childhood Education 65 15:30 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education (Minister Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to early childhood education. The Productivity Commission report released today paints a picture of a broken system where educators are leaving the industry in droves due to poor working conditions and inadequate wages, a system where families are being left behind due to a lack of access and rising fees amid a cost-of-living crisis. The report builds on years of work by academics, advocates and educators that shows a clear pathway to a universal childhood education system in Australia, work that has largely been ignored by successive governments. The Greens took free universal child care to the last election and campaigned on it for decades before then. We believe that early education is a fundamental right, just like primary and secondary college. We welcome the commission's road map towards a universal system, including free child care for low-income families. Our question for the government now, which I asked repeatedly in question time today but failed to receive a response on, is: when will the government finally act to make child care free? The reality is that, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, every day that the Labor government delays implementing these critical reforms is a day that kids will miss out on early education and their parents will miss out on critical paid work. Minister Watt's deflection speaks volumes about this government's disregard for families doing it tough across the country. Time and time again this government has given excuses for its inaction on delivering universal early-years learning. This year, we've had two government commissioned reports on child care released—the ACCC and the Productivity Commission—both of which confirmed what we already know about our broken childcare system in this country. Now, the government is claiming that it needs more time to consult. Minister, I said it in question time and I'll say it again, we must move beyond conversation to action, concrete action, to make child care genuinely universal and free. And then there's the activity test. Back in August I asked Minister Watt why the Labor government wasn't abolishing the punitive childcare activity test. This is a test that links children's access to subsidised early childhood education and care to their parents' participation in labour market activities. This is a test that keeps around 40,000 parents out of paid work and about 160,000 children locked out of an early childhood education. This is a test that prevents the most disadvantaged kids from an early education. The Greens have long campaigned for the cruel and unfair subsidy activity test to be abolished. We recognise that a genuinely universal and high-quality early education system doesn't discriminate based on a person's income. When I asked Minister Watt back in August if the government would abolish this test, he said that it was waiting for the Productivity Commission to release its final report, the same report that it has had in its hands since June. Well, the Productivity Commission reported back today publicly that we should abolish the activity test. So I asked Minister Watt if now, finally, the government would commit to abolishing it, but he would not answer the question. Our childcare system in this country is broken and in need of urgent reform. Families know it. The sector knows it. Educators know it. The Greens know it and so does the Productivity Commission. Now it's time for the government to stop kicking the can down the road and to get on with the job that it has been tasked to do. It's time for Labor to step up and make child care in this country genuinely free, high quality and universally accessible. It's time for Labor to act. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 66 MOTIONS Central Land Council 66 15:35 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I seek leave to move a motion as circulated relating to the removal of the chair of the Central Land Council. Leave is not granted. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the removal of the chair of the Central Land Council to be moved and determined immediately. I'm utterly gobsmacked that the Minister for Indigenous Australians had no idea that the chairperson of the Central Land Council was removed from his position last night under very concerning circumstances. I find it utterly ridiculous in fact that the minister had no knowledge of this occurring, especially by 2 pm the day after, right before question time, when I sought answers from the minister. This is the correspondence I received from the chairperson. It says: 'Dear Senator Nampijinpa Price, I write to inform you of the outcome of the Central Land Council meeting held yesterday in Tennant Creek, where my position as chairperson was terminated effectively immediately. I'm an Arrernte elder who accepted this position with a view that I would be able to make a difference in the lives of our Indigenous mob'— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, you've moved a suspension motion, so you really do need to be addressing your remarks to why there should be a suspension. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 And I'm absolutely getting there, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 With respect, Senator, you need to start there, not get there. Minister Gallagher? Senator Gallagher ING On a point of order seeking clarification. It seems that Senator Nampijinpa Price is going to read out a statement that we earlier denied leave for, and we denied leave on the grounds that it named a number of individuals who have not been afforded any ability to respond to some of the allegations that I saw in that. Our concern is about using parliamentary privilege to name those individuals, but it looks like Senator Nampijinpa Price is going on to do that. I seek your guidance of whether there is a response to that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. I am advised by the clerk to caution Senator Nampijinpa Price about how she uses privilege, and to bear in mind the comments the government made earlier. It's entirely up to you, Senator Nampijinpa Price, but I do remind you that you need to be relevant to why we need to suspend business. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Thank you very much, President. During question time the minister could not confirm whether she knew about what occurred at the Central Land Council, and that she had sought a briefing but could not confirm whether an investigation would be conducted. I would like to continue, therefore, my remarks with regard to how the chairperson of the Central Land Council was removed. They said, 'So the meeting was delayed as, of course, the deputy chair had arrived late on 17 September.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, I am going to remind you again: you've moved a suspension, so what you need to be informing the Senate about is why that suspension is so urgent that it needs to interrupt the business of the afternoon. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Thank you, President, and, again, this is an urgent matter because the conduct of the Central Land Council toward the chair of the Central Land Council appears to be corrupt and needs an investigation. Again, the chair was asked to leave the room on three separate occasions. Further, his legal team was shown little courtesy when his barrister was closed out mid-sentence during a delivery to the land council's meeting. A Central Land Council delegate for region 1 had threatened the delegates, should they not cast a vote, they would lose their position within the Central Land Council as delegates. She also went on to say, 'So you mob need to place your vote or you will lose your position on the Central Land Council.' This sounds like corruption to me. The chair was subject to seriously unfair treatment and was given limited opportunity to give his case beyond a few very leading questions. The meeting was called in Tennant Creek, away from the chair's supporter base but where those who were attempting to remove him had a huge supporter base. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, you have again gone into a statement about the land council. You've moved a suspension, so I do need to hear you make reference as to why a suspension is urgent and necessary at this point. Senator Duniam 263418 Point of order—the content of Senator Nampijinpa Price's demonstration of why this is urgent I think does require a lot of context. There are a lot of senators in this chamber that don't understand the issues, and I think on that basis it is important that we have this. We have had suspensions on far broader issues in the past, and, while you've cautioned Senator Nampijinpa Price, I think it is important that we do have these details so we can make an informed decision on this question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, I do appreciate your point that we've had broad discussions. If you note my record, I have always brought senators back to the suspension. We can't get into the habit of using a suspension to make a point that you wanted to make when you sought the leave. When you use a suspension, I expect all senators to explain to the chamber why a suspension of business for the rest of the afternoon, an hour or whatever it might be is necessary. I appreciate this may be a broad-ranging debate, but I have cautioned Senator Nampijinpa Price a number of times. I am yet to hear why we need to suspend the business of the Senate to deal with this matter, so that is what I am asking the senator to address. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Once again, this is an urgent matter because these issues lead to violence in remote Indigenous communities, which this chamber should be absolutely concerned with and which the Minister for Indigenous Australians should absolutely be concerned with. Individuals being treated the way that the chair was treated this chamber should be absolutely concerned with. That is why we need to be suspending these motions. That is why we need to be ensuring that this motion is passed in this Senate. With all the talk about care for Indigenous Australians from this chamber—from the government across here—they're doing everything they can to shut this voice down, and certainly the voice of the now former chair of the Central Land Council. The minister should have well known what had occurred last night at their meeting or after their meeting either last night, like I was informed, or this morning. If not, then that's a dereliction of duty, as far as I'm concerned, on behalf of the Central Land Council to ensure that the minister is fully informed of what occurred. I believe the treatment of the chairman of the Central Land Council—having been terminated effective immediately and taken outside and had his car emptied in front of other delegates—to be a matter that is urgent to this chamber. This chamber needs to take this matter very seriously, as we have called over and again for inquiries into land councils, which the Greens and this government continue to deny for people who are the most marginalised people in this country. I'm sorry, but building homes for these people is not good enough. Getting to the bottom of why there is corruption is what we need to do, which is our responsibility—the government's responsibility—and this responsibility is not being taken up. So this is why I believe this motion needs to be passed and why I believe an investigation needs to be conducted into the Central Land Council and other land councils. 15:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders, and I don't believe that Senator Nampijinpa Price seeks that either. She seeks a different outcome, which is to read out what she was denied in question time today. We raised our concerns about this. Senator Nampijinpa Price in question time today raised a question to the minister about something that occurred yesterday. It is fair and reasonable for the minister to be afforded time to understand the issues that Senator Nampijinpa Price seeks to prosecute. This motion seeks not only to avoid the concerns or the denial of tabling a document in question time—to get around that—but then requires the minister to come up tomorrow to provide an explanation on something that happened last night. It's abusing the forms and processes of this chamber. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING It absolutely is. Had you seen this? Had you seen the statement that was sought to be tabled? It absolutely is. In question time you raised an issue. The minister would be taking advice on this. Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 No, the Central Land Council abused their processes—the blood is on your hands! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, why are you on your feet? Senator Hanson-Young I0U Because of the accusation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, you need to be standing on a point of order. If you have an issue you wish to raise then seek the call to do it, but, right now, if you're standing, it's on a point of order. Senator Hanson-Young I0U There are accusations being thrown across the chamber that should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT 112096 That is not a point of order. Senator Hanson-Young I0U 'Blood on hands'— The PRESIDENT 112096 That is not a point of order. I will ask Senator Nampijinpa price, if she made comments in relation to senators within the chamber, if she would withdraw those comments. Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 When we fail to do anything to combat— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, please resume your seat. I remind senators— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, order. I remind senators: when I ask you to withdraw your comments, I want you to stand and simply withdraw without making any further reference. Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 If it assists the chamber, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher, that the question be put, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. 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. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:54 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to suspend, as moved by Senator Nampijinpa Price, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. 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. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

NOTICES 69 NOTICES Presentation 69 Withdrawal 72 15:56 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senator Shoebridge, withdraw general business notice of motion No. 628 for today. Postponement 72 15:56 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection this business is postponed. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 72 BUSINESS 72 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 72 15:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bragg for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 72 Reference 72 15:57 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 3 standing in my name, by changing the reporting date. Leave granted. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 September 2025: The formation of a national volunteer incentive scheme (Climate Army) to respond to the immediate aftermath of natural disasters in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) establishing targeted initiatives to encourage young people to participate in the national volunteer incentive scheme (Climate Army); (b) exploring strategies to enhance volunteer engagement, including systems to recognise and compensate volunteers to promote satisfaction and positive culture; (c) integrating volunteer opportunities within educational institutions to increase student participation in volunteer organisations; (d) creating a nationally recognised qualification scheme that provides tangible benefits to volunteers and formally acknowledges their skills and contributions across sectors; (e) investigating whether there are appropriate laws and safeguards to protect the health and safety of volunteers; (f) the structure and governance of the national volunteer incentive scheme (Climate Army); (g) comparison of relevant overseas models and best practices; and (h) any other related matters. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS International Students 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 15:58 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Henderson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than midday on 19 September 2024, a copy of the letter or letters sent to each public university by the Minister for Education regarding the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 and Ministerial Direction 107 on 16 September 2024 or any other applicable date. Question agreed to. Civil Aviation Safety Authority 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 15:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, by no later than midday on 19 September 2024, all permits with conditions issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in respect of helicopter flights, relating to the aviation safety considerations for the drop or release of any substance or object from a helicopter in flight and training for such an operation, for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 July 2024. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 73 Reference 73 15:59 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, relating to a proposed committee reference. Leave granted. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024: The implementation by the Australian Taxation Office of the requirement that certain non-charitable not-for-profit entities that self-assess as income tax exempt must lodge an annual not-for-profit self-review return to confirm their eligibility to self-assess as income tax exempt from 1 July 2023, with particular reference to: (a) the implications of this requirement for Australia's not-for-profit community and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission; and (b) any other related matter. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS Timor-Leste: Correspondence 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 16:00 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 19 September 2024: (a) the letter from the Minister for Resources (Ms MMH King) to the Minister for Petroleum and Mineral Resources of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, His Excellency Francisco da Costa Monteiro, reference number MS23-001626, dated 2 November 2023; (b) the reply to that letter from Minister Monteiro; and (c) the brief prepared for the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women, former Senator Payne, titled 'Twenty together—Partnership, peace, progress, 28-31 August 2019'. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 625, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Health Care: Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 626 relating to an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. Senator RUSTON 243273 I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 11 am on Thursday, 19 September 2024, the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check. 16:04 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 opposes this motion for the simple reason that the minister has not been provided with the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check, so there is no document to provide. Private hospitals are an important part of the Australian health system and an important partner for public health providers. We are working closely with the sector on the financial health check, and the minister and his department have appreciated their close cooperation in that work. The minister has said publicly that this has included the sector providing highly sensitive commercial-in-confidence information. As such the government is unlikely to be in a position to release the full report once it's provided. However, the minister has indicated he is hoping to publicly release a form of the report which will not breach the faith of the companies who provided that commercial-in-confidence information. If Senator Ruston wishes to request a briefing on the matter she is interested in, I'm sure the minister would look to assist. 16:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM The Greens will not be supporting Senator Ruston's motion at this time. But I want to place on the record that we will reconsider this position if the government has not provided the report to the public by the next Senate sitting week. We understand that the Department of Health and Aged Care is preparing this report for public release and intends to publish it in the near future, and we urge Minister Butler to ensure that the department releases the report as a matter of priority. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 626, standing in the name of Senator Ruston, as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:10]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Van, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, 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. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Renewable Energy 75 Order for the Production of Documents 75 16:12 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minster for the Environment and Water, by no later than 2 pm on Tuesday, 8 October 2024: (a) any document that indicates the amount of native vegetation that has been cleared, and/or is still designated to be cleared, at each of the sites that will respectively be occupied by the 60 renewable energy projects to which the Minister for the Environment and Water referred to in her question time answer in the House of Representatives on 11 September 2024; and (b) any document that indicates the amount of native animal habitat that has been cleared, and/or is still designated to be cleared, at each of the sites that will respectively be occupied by these 60 renewable energy projects. Question agreed to. NOTICES 76 NOTICES Presentation 76 16:13 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for five sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export – Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2024 made under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 76 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 76 16:14 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x A letter has been received from Senator Dean Smith: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The latest figures released by the Reserve Bank of Australia confirm that Australians across the nation are struggling through the Albanese Government's cost of living crisis, and that a bad situation is getting even worse on Labor's watch with many thousands of homeowners now unable to keep up with higher mortgage repayments on top of other cost of living expenses. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:14 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Just in case you were curious, the honeymoon for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Dr Jim Chalmers and all the Labor senators in this Senate is over. The honeymoon is over. In terms of the Prime Minister's approval rating—a direct result of how Australians are judging his performance when it comes to managing the economy—his satisfaction rate is now down from plus 40 to minus10. Australians are waiting for the election because they want to cast their vote. They want to make a statement. They want to decide. They want their fellow Australians to know whether they're going to mark up the government for its economic management or whether they're going to mark down the government for its economic management. Let me tell you: my gamble is that many, many, many Australians are going to mark the government down. Just this week, the Reserve Bank of Australia released the most alarming figures in regard to the proportion of mortgageholders in this country who are now in 90-day arrears. RBA data released this week makes it very, very clear that the number of Australian households that are now 90 days in arrears of their mortgage repayments has grown in every state in this country. In New South Wales last year, the percentage of households in 90-day arrears on their mortgages was just 0.31 per cent, and this year it is 0.57 per cent. In Victoria, last year the percentage was 0.37 per cent, and this year it is 0.67 per cent. In Queensland last year, it was 0.29 per cent, and this year it is 0.47 per cent. In my home state of Western Australia, it was 0.43 per cent last year, and now it is 0.62 per cent. In South Australia, it was 0.33 per cent last year, and now it is 0.54 per cent. In Tasmania it was 0.09 per cent, and now it is 0.5 per cent. In some states they have had an 80 per cent plus increase in the number of households now facing 90-day arrears. Just think about this: when the Reserve Bank governor, as she will next Tuesday, stands before the cameras and gives the country the verdict on whether rates are going up or going down, she is marking the government. If interest rates hold or they go up, the Reserve Bank governor will be saying to Australian households that the government has failed in its task of managing the economy. Once upon a time in this country people had high levels of job security. They saw interest rates increasing, and they thought to themselves, 'We'll be able to manage this because we can see that our job prospects are strong. We can see that we have job security, and that we'll be able to adjust our family budgets to 13 interest rate increases. We'll be able to manage because we can see that we have job security.' Guess what else has changed in this country? The number of Australians now worried about their jobs is increasing. Think about that for a moment. They are having to contend with the cumulative impact of 13 interest rate rises under Labor, and now they're worried about their job security. Australian families are panicking. Their disappointment in the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and the Treasurer, Dr Jim Chalmers, is turning to red-hot anger. I dare the government to wait until February next year for a general election. I dare the government to wait until May next year for a general election, because Australian families will be red hot with anger. Two and a half years ago, they trusted this government to manage the economy and, in just 2½ years, it is in tatters. Australians are waiting for the opportunity to cast their vote, because they want to mark the government down. Their financial security is in tatters, their job security is now not what it was before, and they're ready to vote the government out. (Time expired) 16:20 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania What an extraordinary contribution was delivered from a senator on that side of the chamber who yet again wants to rewrite history! I will say this about the next election: the Australian population will vote, and they don't get it wrong, just as they didn't 2½ years ago. Let's put the real truth on the table here: there isn't anyone in this chamber except those on that side who prays every night for an interest rate rise. Why do they do that? It's because they are only interested in politics. If they were really worried about the Australian community, the cost of living, housing and those issues, they've had ample opportunity in the last 2½ years to vote for legislation that has in fact brought relief on the cost of living for Australian families. If they were really worried, they would not be playing politics with the Housing Australia Future Fund, and they would vote for the Help to Buy Scheme legislation or have the courage to vote against it. Let us not forget that those opposite were in office for almost nine years. What did they leave us? Nothing but mess after mess. We had huge debt. In almost nine years, not one surplus was delivered. They threatened time and time again but delivered not one surplus in almost nine years. We have already delivered two surpluses. We have with us in the chamber at the moment our fantastic Minister for Finance. Only today in question time, she again spoke in this chamber about what we've achieved. Those opposite want to rewrite history. The reality is that they talk the big talk about the economy and their ability to manage it, but the Australian people at the last election gave them an F for failure. That's what they did. I'm confident that, when people go to the ballot box next time, next year, they will vote according to how they have been supported by this government, including on bringing inflation down. We inherited an inflation figure that started with a 6. When I went to school, which I admit was a long time ago, I learned that the figure 3, which is what the inflation figure currently starts with, is less than the figure 6. So we have been doing our job in 2½ years, and that's what the Australian people will make their judgement on. I'm happy to live by whatever judgement they make, because I know that as a Labor government we brought in bigger tax cuts and we've actually given cost-of-living relief with our energy rebate of $300 to every household in the country. We have also invested in Medicare and put cheaper medicine out there for the Australian community. We've introduced 60-day prescriptions. Senator Duniam, you would recall all the lobbying done when you were in government by those people who were against it, and your government folded. We took a decision that would produce savings for Australians and mean that they would not have to go to the pharmacy as often and not have to see a GP, which means there are more opportunities for other people to have access to GPs. This government has invested in four urgent care clinics just in Tasmania, which Senator Duniam, Senator Urquhart and I represent. I can tell you the urgent care clinic in Launceston has enabled so many more people to go and see a GP and not have to go to accident and emergency to get some urgent assistance. We have also invested more in rental assistance than those opposite. We know that Mr Dutton is voting, and directing his party to vote, against any of these measures except for the tax cuts. Our tax cut actually went to people on low incomes, unlike what was proposed by Mr Morrison when he was Prime Minister and held five other ministries at the same time without telling people. There's a stark contrast between what the Liberals say and what we committed to at the last election and have delivered. And let's not forget Australian pensioners this week will get— (Time expired) 16:25 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Millions of Australians—mortgage holders, renters, young people and families—across the country are struggling to make ends meet at the moment. Since Labor came into power, rents in Australia has gone up by 31 per cent. The average mortgage repayment has increased by a staggering $1,600 a month. The RBA is refusing to cut rates despite the economy being on its knee—we're in a per capita recession—and despite the governor of the RBA admitting that people are facing the brutal reality of having to default and sell their home. Monetary policy is punishing those people who are least responsible for inflation. Young people are doing everything asked of them. They've cut their discretionary spending. Those with savings have increased their spending. While millions of Australians are struggling and being smashed by high interest rates, those with paid-off houses and massive savings accounts, who are usually older, wealthier Australians, see their wealth boosted. What the Greens want is for Labor to come to the table and actually sit down and negotiate with us about taking meaningful steps towards solving the housing crisis in this country. Since Labor came to power in 2022, rents have gone up by 31 per cent, and the average mortgage repayment has gone up by $1,600—in fact, more than that. So here's a question for Prime Minister Albanese and Labor: why is Mr Albanese so happy to negotiate with Mr Dutton on things like weakening environment protections and on things like cutting the NDIS, which went through this parliament only weeks ago with support from the Labor and Liberal parties, but why is he refusing to negotiate with the Greens to solve the housing crisis in Australia? That's the question that Labor has to answer. In the middle of a social calamity, where rents and mortgages are going through the roof, where so many Australians are being made homeless through no fault of their own— (Time expired) 16:28 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I'm going to start on the issue of the cost of living with energy. Energy really is the most important discussion to have when talking about the cost of living for Australian households because energy is needed for everything. Energy is needed to make almost any product. Energy is needed to transport those products to the shops, and, of course, often, when you buy products, you need energy to keep them cool and store them before you use them. So energy is vitally important to keep the cost of living down for Australians. When the Australian people elected the Labor government two and a bit years ago now, almost 2½ years ago, they expected their energy bills to fall. The Prime Minister promised almost 100 times on the election trail in the months ahead of the election that he would, in fact, cut people's power bills by, in his words, $275 a year. He hasn't repeated that figure since the election, but that was the promise he made to the Australian people a few years ago. They put their faith and trust in him. He was elected. We lost government. And what has happened since? As I said, the Prime Minister hasn't repeated that number. You'd think, if he'd achieved that goal, he'd be crowing about it from the rooftops to all and sundry. But, no, he doesn't talk about it now because the Labor Party is embarrassed about what it's done to our once beautiful energy system in this country. We had some of the cheapest power prices in the world with all of these natural resources we're blessed with. Unlike other nations, we don't have to import most of our energy needs; we've got them all here. But the Labor Party has pursued an obsessive, ideological, radical approach to just installing one type of energy—renewables energy; everyone hears about it all the time. It's dependent on the weather. It doesn't turn up all the time. It has broken our electricity system. The end result, when you look at the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics report that this motion refers to—the latest consumer price index—is that electricity prices have gone up 20 per cent since this government was elected. They haven't come down; they've gone up. That 20 per cent means, for most average households, around $500 a year on their power bills. That's a lot. That's a big impact for people. But, as I said earlier, this is not just about the power bills. That's what you pay just for the electricity delivered to your household. The factories that are making your food are paying for electricity as well, and, when their electricity bills go up, they've got to pass that on to everybody at the check-out. One of the greatest shocks of inflation, I think, for most Australians now is when they go to the supermarket. It's just unbelievable how much things cost. I've seen situations where pensioners have had to put things back because they get to the check-out and realise they can't actually afford what they've put in their trolley. They don't have enough. It's a shocking feeling for our nation's pensioners to have to go through. When you look at what has gone up in your local supermarket, the items that have gone up the most are the ones that use the most energy to make. The process to make them uses a lot of energy. They're things like milk. It's very energy intensive. There's refrigeration, of course, and processing. It's gone up 19 per cent, pretty much on a par with electricity. Milk's gone up 19 per cent while this government has been in power. Cheese has gone up 22 per cent—another dairy product that is made like that. Bread, another processed product, has gone up 23 per cent. Some of the fresh food items, fruit and vegetables, have actually gone down or up. They're not as dependent on the electricity system and are much more responsive to weather and climatic conditions in different growing areas of the country. But these processed goods that require electricity have all gone up. The shame that this government has presided over in destroying our once world-beating electricity system doesn't just arrive in your mailbox every quarter. Every time you go to the shops, you're paying the price for the Prime Minister lying to—sorry, misleading—the Australian people and telling them that he would reduce their power bills, when he has done the exact opposite. We need a government in this country that's going to prioritise people's cost of living, not climate targets. The Prime Minister set a cost-of-living target. He set an electricity target of $275. He never talks about it anymore. The only target he likes to talk about now are these climate carbon targets that we agreed to, apparently, overseas that nobody else follows. We need to get rid of those and just focus on a cost-of-living target for the Australian people. Bring down the cost of energy. Install nuclear, coal or gas—whatever it takes—to bring down people's cost of living. 16:33 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia This matter of public importance is one more indication that there is something rotten at the heart of the coalition's economic thinking. That thinking ignores the overall downward trajectory of inflation in this country and claims to care about cost-of-living pressures while shaping up to cut relief to households around the country. In the RBA's monetary policy decision statement in August, there was an acknowledgement that there is significant uncertainty in the overseas outlook and Australia's own economic outlook. In August, Dr Hunter from the RBA told the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living that there was unevenness in sectors of the Australian economy—that some sectors were seeing growth in jobs and output, and some sectors were lagging. An analysis of a diverse and complex economy like Australia's requires nuanced consideration of where we have been, where we are and where we are going. When you look at some of the figures the RBA has released and you consider the government's cost-of-living measures and the opposition's own statements that they intend to cut those cost-of-living measures, the superficial and cynical nature of this MPI emerges vividly. I speak first of inflation. Headline inflation when the Albanese government took office was 6.1 per cent, and it then peaked at 7.8 per cent in December 2022. It is now 3.8 per cent. It is trending downwards. Overall, as Dr Hunter, the assistant governor of the RBA, told the Senate select committee in August: … Inflation has obviously moderated quite significantly over the last almost two years—a year and a half or so … There was a slight uptick in inflation between March and June, from 3.6 to 3.8 per cent, but the overall trend during the time of this government, from its peak in December 2022, has been down. The enthusiasm with which the merchants of gloom on the opposition benches jumped on that slight uptick in inflation, ignoring the broader trends, to talk the Australian economy down reflects their cynicism and reflects that they put their own political fortunes above the future of the Australian economy and the Australian people. That uptick in inflation may have suited the coalition's political purposes, but the overall trend doesn't suit their narrative. The Statement on monetary policy released by the Reserve Bank in August forecast that underlying inflation will return to target fractionally later, in the midpoint in 2026, rather than in late 2025. The Albanese government's economic plan is focused on fighting inflation and bringing inflation back to band, without crunching the economy—that is, responsibly reducing inflation while also easing cost-of-living pressures. The second topic I'll speak on is wages growth. From the latest figures in the RBA's key economic indicators, wages growth was 4.1 per cent to June 2024, and wages have grown by four per cent in the previous four quarters. My colleague Senator Smith from across the aisle said that Australians are worried about job security. While the labour market is tight and may, or is projected to, begin easing, it's a little bit hard to take seriously those opposite on questions of job security when, as recently as Sunday, Senator Hume from the Liberal Party indicated that the coalition's priority in IR is flexibility—and flexibility in this context is code for less security in jobs. Increasing wages is one way that household costs can be met in this country. We know that cost-of-living pressures are most acute for those who are on the downside of advantage or are lower paid workers. From 1 July this year, with the support of the government's submission, there was a 3.75 per cent increase in the national minimum wage and the minimum award wage. Some 2.6 million low-paid workers got their third consecutive pay rise, backed by the submissions of this government. Since Labor came to government the minimum wage in this country has increased by $110 per week. That relieves financial pressures of people at the lowest end. The third topic I'll talk about is cost-of-living measures. From 1 July 2024 every Australian got a tax cut. That's 13.6 million Australians. They received a tax cut of around $1,800. In Western Australia the average tax cut was closer to $2,000. That's real cost-of-living relief, as is energy bill relief—$300 for every Australian household, and $325 to more than one million small businesses around the country. The Liberal and National parties have recently indicated that they're not committed to those cost-of-living measures and will consider cutting some $315 billion worth of programs that the government has implemented. 16:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland If you think you're going backwards, you are, and faster than you think. Last Monday, we had an inquiry, as a result of a motion of mine, to understand the CPI figure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That's what we wanted to find out: what the Australian Bureau of Statistics does. My inquiry revealed that, as everyone knows, the CPI is 3.8 per cent, but selected living-cost indices that the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces and publishes show that most employees—80 per cent of Australians—face a cost-of-living increase in their spending of 6.2 per cent. I've got no criticism of the ABS. They do what they're told. Chart 1 in their submission shows that in 2022, soon after the coalition left, the CPI was eight per cent, and food and beverages went up by nine per cent. That's the legacy that the coalition left. The CPI price change for dairy and related products over the last four years has been 27 per cent; food products, 23 per cent; bread and cereal products, 23 per cent. This is the reality: both the Labor Party and the Liberal-Nationals are contributing to inflation. The prices of groceries, insurance, housing, rents and energy are all artificial and only One Nation has the policies to be able to solve them because we don't do what the uniparty does. 16:40 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I would like to thank my friend Senator Dean Smith for bringing this matter of public importance before the Senate. At the core of this motion is what we have seen in the latest figures released by the RBA, which show just how much Australian families are struggling through this cost-of-living crisis. They are really struggling at the moment and they have been for quite some time. We have been talking about it on the side of the chamber for months and months. As we all know, gas is up 33 per cent; electricity is up 14 per cent. These aren't just numbers; this is the real impact to Australian families. The gas bill is up 33 per cent, the electricity bill is up 14 per cent, and that's after the taxpayer funded rebates have been added. Rents are up 16 per cent, health care is up 11 per cent, food is up 12 per cent and finance and insurance are up 17 per cent. This is the reality of life under Labor for so many Australian families. Everything is up, absolutely everything, and it is crushing the hopes and aspirations of Australians. The impact all of this is having on disposable income is extraordinary. Since Labor have come into office, real disposable income per capita is down 8.7 per cent. If you had any doubt as to what that statistic actually means for everyday Australians, household savings are also down just over 10 percentage points. The reality is that these statistics confirm that Australians are struggling to keep their heads above water. I hear it time and time again throughout New South Wales, but particularly in Western Sydney, where I spend a lot of my time. Everyday Australians just can't keep up. They can't keep up with skyrocketing prices, they can't keep up with their mortgage repayments, they can't keep up with their rent and they can't keep up with the extraordinary blowout in their insurance prices. People are struggling financially and are juggling from week to week to try and make ends meet. There can be no confusion or obfuscation as to our position globally. Compared to other economies, we are well and truly at the back of the pack. Our core inflation is higher than comparable countries including the US, the UK, Canada, Japan, the eurozone, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand. This is not a problem that the world is at a loss on how to fix. Other countries had the same problems as we did but they have fixed them. Meanwhile, under this government Australians continue to pay more and to keep less of what they earn. This government inherited an economy that had low unemployment, strong economic growth and recovering government finances. They have completely and utterly wasted that. We have now had six consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth per capita. Productivity is down 6.3 per cent under this government. But the question has to be: Why? Why are prices so high? Why is inflation so high? Why are interest rates so high? Why are savings being diminished? Why is disposable income so low? And why is productivity so low? Well, there is a simple answer to that—because of the policies and actions this government. This government has spent over $300 billion more than was previously budgeted. They have flooded the economy with this money, this inflationary spending. So much for the promised $275 reduction in power bills that we heard so much about from this government before the election. It feels like ancient history but is probably more like a very poor and sad fiction. The reality is that this government is all talk about the economy, with broad statements, platitudes, and one summertime manifesto from the Treasurer, and nothing about what matters to Australians, nothing about what makes a difference to them. If they really cared about the impacts, they wouldn't continue to pursue this inflationary budget. This government's decisions are making life harder for all Australians. It is because of this government that interest rates in this country remain high; it is because of this government—and I repeat—that interest rates in this country remain high and Australians continue to struggle. That is why the cost-of-living crisis continues to remain a matter of public importance. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 80 16:45 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 A letter has been received from Senator Van: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "Australia's renewable energy capacity is being severely underutilised, with wind and solar is currently being curtailed on average 16% per day. That is a huge amount of clean, renewable energy not being delivered to consumers and industrial users. This wasted green energy is not going into the grid, being stored or fuelling industry and not helping us meet our emissions targets. Australia should focus on optimising the existing transmission and distribution networks to empower clean energy use near the point of generation." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements by the whips. 16:45 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Australia needs to transition our coal energy production to clean, green, firmed alternatives. I believe this can happen sooner than scheduled, or, at least, it could if managed properly. Unfortunately, our current approach to and energy planning is driving the transition at a painfully slow pace and with only limited decarbonisation gains. This is time we don't have. That's why this week in the Senate I initiated a select inquiry into energy planning and regulation in Australia in order to bring some transparency and accountability to energy planners, operators and regulators. We are making progress, with renewable energy increasingly making up more and more of our electricity supply. South Australia, for example, is meeting 70 per cent of its electricity needs and occasionally, for a brief time, meets 100 per cent via renewables. But therein lies the difficulty the transition faces—time. Emissions from electricity generation make up nearly one-third of Australia's overall emissions. So, you see, replacing coal-fired electricity would make a massive reduction in our carbon emissions. And as the South Australian example shows, it is possible to move to 100 per cent renewable generation, but only for a short period of time. That is the problem that we need to solve: time. Time is probably one of the most important aspects for the transition. Getting more and more renewables into the system alone will not solve our time problem. We see this almost every day, especially on sunny days like today, when more supply than demand causes negative electricity prices in the National Electricity Market, causing economic curtailment—that is, clean energy not going into the grid. There are two key contributors to this, coal and household solar: rooftop solar because the system doesn't currently control behind-the-meter generation, and coal because it can't be turned off and on for short periods of time. Again, time is working against us. The result is that existing large-scale solar is curtailed because it's uneconomic to sell, and this curtailment will only increase as we build more wind and solar, particularly in areas where weak system strength leads to further network curtailment. One potential solution is to remove coal. This would resolve the emissions issue but leave us with insufficient energy supply during times of peak demand later in the day. The key solution to the problem is to shift electricity across time, from peak generation times to peak demand times. This is usually only a matter of a few hours. The technologies we have to 'time travel' our energy mix exist now, with two key solutions being batteries and pumped hydro. Just imagine if our energy system planners had had the foresight to insist that, before large solar farms were permitted to connect to the grid in distant areas with poor system strength, they had to provide sufficient co-located storage so that they could change the time they exported the electricity to the grid. Not only would this make more business sense for the generators; we would be able to retire coal sooner. It is only when we get a handle on this time problem that we may see jurisdictions going from getting 100 per cent of the electricity from renewables some of the time to getting that from renewables all of the time. 16:50 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I should begin by thanking Senator Van for raising this matter of public importance and for his constructive engagement on matters of energy policy. I think about time all the time, Senator Van, when it comes to our energy policies and renewable energy. I think about the time that we lost after 10 years of a government incapable of landing an energy policy, because of internal division. I think about the time that we have in front of us and how quickly we need to make sure that we are transitioning our energy market so we don't miss out on the opportunities of renewable energy and becoming a renewable energy superpower but also so that we are in a position to reduce emissions and protect things like the Great Barrier Reef, which we know is constantly deteriorating after many years of the previous government ignoring its plight. There is obviously work to do when it comes to making sure that we have the cheapest form of energy and the most reliable form of energy, but we know renewables is the pathway for that, and that's why our government is committed to it. We are also always looking at ways to improve efficiency of the network, and addressing curtailment of renewable energy is one of the most important things that we can do. We know there are other things that we are looking at in terms of network constraints. One of the ways that we are dealing with that is making sure that there are really good indications to investors about where they should be putting new energy projects, and the creation of formal renewable energy zones aims to provide these types of locations. Our government is committed to making sure that we reach those renewable energy targets, and making sure that they can connect to the grid is part of that. It's one of the things that we have talked about a lot in North Queensland and in Townsville. This does give me an opportunity to talk about some of the good work that is happening between the state government, the federal government and businesses to really make North Queensland a renewable or green energy superhub. We've announced projects—for example, the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen announced the Townsville Region Hydrogen Hub, a $70 million investment which will create regional jobs in Queensland but also make sure that investment is attracted from around the world. We've already seen the German government invest in this project; that's how attractive it is. We've had other groundbreaking projects tapping into that energy potential. We are looking at retrofitting batteries—that was one of the things that we had a look at—onto electric freight trains to create the market for this type of energy. A bit further down the road, in Gladstone, we've seen a significant project take shape that will deliver Australia's first high-purity alumina-processing facility in Queensland, all powered by renewable energy, ensuring that we can meet our net zero target. These investments are supported by local businesses. I give a shout-out to the state government, which has invested in CopperString, which is all about connecting those renewable energy zones. We know that these are creating good, local, secure jobs in regional Queensland. That's why I think it is so crazy that we've had from the Opposition, who were unable to land an energy policy for 10 years and wasted all that time, a policy now that is anti renewable but pro nuclear, that will take longer to reach net zero, that won't meet the targets that we are seeking to achieve and that will shut down the jobs that have been created. When those opposite talk about switching to a plan of introducing nuclear power plants and shutting down the renewable energy industry, they're talking about taking jobs away from North Queenslanders and investment that is going into North Queensland. They would rather turn away these jobs and these big investments—things like copper string, pumped hydro, our hydrogen projects, renewable energy and the Solar Sunshot program, which is actually creating manufacturing of solar projects in Cairns right now. They want to shut down all of those jobs, and I think it is really important that we are clear that there is only one pathway to cheap reliable energy, and that is renewable energy. Nuclear is the most costly and slowest form of energy, and that is why we are (Time expired) 16:55 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales As I rise, I just want to correct Senator Green on her false claim that the Liberals and Nationals are antirenewable. We are far from antirenewable. We are absolutely aware that renewables need to be part of the mix. We're also aware that there are renewable projects that are so far down the track that it would be remiss not to complete them. But we do propose bringing nuclear into the mix, because nuclear will deliver and will counter exactly some of the concerns that Senator Van has raised—that is, it will put the source of power close to the use of power. Our proposal to put nuclear energy plants by existing transmission lines, replacing and transitioning coal-fired power plants, is not only a smart use of the infrastructure that exists; it's also a smart use of the workforce that exists. So I, too, would like to thank Senator Van for raising this very prudent issue. Let's look at time. The government—I was going to call them the opposition; I certainly hope they are so after the next election—claim that they will get to an 80-plus per cent renewable target by 2030, that it's cheap and that it has no negative impacts. I would say that that is a lie in itself. All renewable energy zone projects are currently running behind time. If you look at just the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone in New South Wales as an example, the costs have skyrocketed. Under the former New South Wales government, the estimate was that it was going to cost $650 million for that zone to add three gigawatts of power to the energy market. When you actually add in the cost of the transmission lines that are required to connect that zone to where the power is going to be used, the cost is now $3.2 billion to connect 4.5 gigawatts into the system. Why are there cost blowouts there? It is because the Labor government has not been honest with the people about the cost of transmission lines and about the time it takes to get the development applications, easements and routes negotiated for transmission lines. They're also not honest about the number of trees that need to get bulldozed, the environmental degradation of building those transmission lines and the fact that they are riding roughshod over traditional owners, farmers, fishers and regional communities to try and put these massive transmission lines right across regional Australia. If that's the cost blowout we're seeing in just one renewable energy zone, then imagine the others. In New South Wales alone, we've also got New England, Illawarra, Hunter and the South-West. If they're all going to go up by around 300 per cent, what is the true cost to the Australian people of this 'all eggs in one basket' renewable energy intermittent power supply unicorn that the Labor government is chasing? Labor wants us to be all renewables, which is an expensive ambition. They keep talking about the time it will take to build nuclear. Well, let us get on with it. We'll show you that we can have nuclear built in a reasonable amount of time, have it built to budget and have it be part of an honest energy mix that will provide secure baseload power, which is what our industries need. It's fair enough for Australians to put solar on their rooftops and have a household battery. But when we are talking about keeping our aluminium smelters and our large industries going, they need secure baseload power. They cannot rely on intermittent power. Senator Van was absolutely right when he mentioned South Australia and the fact that, while they claim to be 100 per cent renewable, their battery only lasts about half an hour. I thank Senator Van for raising this very important topic. 17:00 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I begin by making the observation that Boyne Smelters, located in Gladstone, is going 100 per cent renewable—so you can make aluminium on renewable energy. We know that the climate crisis that is affecting every single Australian is caused by mining and burning coal, oil and gas. This has been well known for decades, yet Labor and the coalition continue to turn a blind eye in favour of significant political donations from billionaires who are reaping the profits of the damage they are causing to our environment. We consistently see the devastating impacts and damage from the increasing floods, bushfires, cyclones and storms nationwide. Scientists say global heating now makes a sea level rise from the melting of the Greenland ice cap inevitable, even if fossil fuel burning was to end immediately. With continued carbon emissions and the melting of other ice caps, a multimetre sea level rise now appears likely. This would mean islands in the Torres Strait and many of our neighbours in the South Pacific would simply cease to exist. Yet this government continue to approve and subsidise new coal and gas projects; they're completely addicted to it. You can hardly blink without this government approving another coalmine, handing out a subsidy to a gas company or accepting a donation from Woodside or Santos. It's reflective of their approach to the environment too. Instead of working with the Greens to create a strong environmental protection authority and establish a climate trigger, the Labor Party turns around and offers Mr Dutton a veto on its environment policy. Why do you bother getting elected to government if you're going to check in with the Liberals before you do anything? Again, Labor is failing to address the root cause of the climate crisis. Coal and gas are fuelling the climate breakdown, and Australia and the world cannot afford to open any more coal or gas mines. To continue to open up new coal and gas mines flies in the face of all scientific and environmental reason and will keep us on the path towards a planet that is no longer capable of supporting human life. Not only can we not open up new coal and gas mines; we must also phase out existing coal and gas extraction and energy production, and rapidly transition to a net zero emissions economy. With planning, compassion and foresight, we can tackle the greatest threat humanity has ever faced while embracing new energy opportunities, looking after workers and breathing new life into regional Australia without coal and gas. 17:03 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise in support of this matter of public importance and thank Senator Van for highlighting the need for greater investment in energy storage capacity. Rooftop solar is the success story of our energy transition. Australia is a world leader, and now one in three households are benefiting from cheaper electricity because of the panels on their roofs. On current projections, rooftop solar will soon become the largest source of electricity generation in the country. This demonstrates Australians are early and enthusiastic adopters of renewable energy technologies if government can get those settings right. In 2024 we have an opportunity to make home batteries the next rooftop solar revolution. The most effective way to do this is by including home batteries in the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme; in fact, the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, has a private member's bill in the House that will do just that. The opportunity here is huge. While 30 per cent of Australian households have solar panels, only 1.4 per cent have home batteries to store the energy captured from their roofs. As noted in Senator Van's motion, without batteries much of the power generated during day is wasted or sold back to the grid at a fraction of its value. Extending the SRES to include home batteries will help drive down costs, making it easier for Australians to store the renewable energy they generate. Inclusion in the scheme would mean a $14,500 home battery could be reduced by as much as $3,000—immediate and substantial financial relief for households looking to invest in their energy future. More than that, it would lock in thousands of dollars in energy bill savings for 10 to 15 years. In addition to cheaper bills, more batteries mean reduced emissions. The installation of 500,000 home batteries across Australia would be the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road every single year. Extending the SRES to include home batteries is a no-brainer. The government should pick up Dr Haines's Cheaper Home Batteries Bill, pass it into legislation and unlock savings for Australians. Here is an Independent who has brought a good idea to the parliament, and I would urge the government to actually take it seriously. She's a good-faith actor in this space, and this bill would make a meaningful difference. It makes sense, it's backed by people in the energy sector and by experts in this space, and I'd urge the government to engage with her and pass it through the lower house. 17:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I thank Senator Van for this matter of public importance. Without criticising the science, cost and impracticability of net zero, which I did last night and will do again tomorrow, it's certainly possible to talk about wasted capacity in the electricity sector. The ad hoc stance towards solar power in Australia has meant that a lot of people have fitted solar panels without battery storage. This is a distortion in the market as a result of government interference—subsidising solar panels early on while only subsidising wall batteries much later. In fact, the distortion in the energy market as a result of government interference is exactly why energy prices in Australia are out of control. In the most energy rich country in the world we should have the cheapest retail electricity in the world; it should not be amongst the dearest. Remember, though, that One Nation is the party of free enterprise. If an Australian homeowner, body corporate or business wants to spend their own money to install solar power, connect it to a battery and then use that investment to start trading in electricity, all power to you. In fact, homeowners organising themselves to direct the output of their solar panels into community batteries is a way of getting into the energy business. The government promised community batteries, and I know it has so far funded 370. Only one of the 370 grants went to a community organisation. The other 369 were to either government departments or energy companies. Why are we giving grants to energy companies to build big batteries when the proceeds of those big batteries will be sold back to the grid? Can't they finance themselves? The Albanese government are handing out taxpayers' money to their big business mates at a time that everyday Australians need the money for themselves. Electric vehicles are another area where energy trading could be an option. Modern EVs use a battery which can hold 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. If charged from the owner's own solar panels during the day, selling that electricity into the grid during peak hour will help stave off blackouts. Instead, all of these measures fracture energy generation and make the task of maintaining the reliability of the grid harder and more expensive. There is a better solution. Modern clean-coal technology allows for the retrofitting of a device which captures all of the gas coming out of a coal fired plant and converts the gas into useful products like fertiliser, AdBlue and ethanol. In the language of the woke, that means zero emissions. This process costs less than $100 million per power station and works best using sea water. Instead of spending more than $1 trillion and up to $2 trillion to simply replace our electricity generation and convert to electrification, clean coal will achieve the same objective for a few hundred million dollars. Clean coal is the real wasted resource in the Australian energy market. Clean coal will reduce the cost of living under Labor. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The time for the discussion has expired. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 84 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 3 of 2024-25 84 17:09 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria In respect of audit report No. 3 2024-25, Performance audit—Australian government commitment to the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop East project: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This report that was released by the ANAO today was completed at the request of the Liberal and National parties. We asked the ANAO to examine the veracity of the $2.2 billion of Commonwealth taxpayer money—that includes taxpayers from Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania—heading to Jacinta Allan for Daniel Andrews's pet project, the Suburban Rail Loop, a project that has no cost-benefit analysis, that Victoria's own Auditor-General has serious concerns about and on which Infrastructure Australia has been asking the Victorian government for a business case for over 18 months. Did this stop Catherine King requesting $2.2 billion from the government's ERC—a lazy $2.2 billion to slap down to her political mates down in Victoria for a project that has so many question marks about it? Everyone in parliament, particularly parties of government, understands that, as you head into the election, there are commitments you make to communities, to states and to different groups in order to get their support. That is what a democracy is all about. But you'd think, given that the Labor Party made such a song and dance about how you should make those commitments and who should be able to receive taxpayer funds from the Commonwealth, they would have put a bit more rigour around it. They didn't. When this issue was raised time and time again by the Victorian opposition in the Victorian parliament and by us here and in estimates, what did Minister King do? She ran out and announced a merit review. She was going to run this project through a merit review. Everyone, including all the teals, gave a big sigh of relief: 'Thank goodness Catherine King has some integrity. She's going to put this $2.2 billion that looks like it's going to a dodgy project, because it is, and looks like it's being done for political reasons—to give the state Labor Party some Commonwealth government support to win an election in November 2022—through a merit review.' Well, guess what the ANAO report finds? Those who are listening in at home can look on their computers. Pages 22 and 23 show that the minister announced the merit review but didn't complete the merit review. She asked her department to stand down from the merit review once it became clear the project has no merit. Why is the state Labor government in Victoria pursuing this project, which is being blown out and blown out, which has a dodgy assessment by Victoria's own Auditor-General and which failed to put forward a business case to the government 's own Infrastructure Australia, which Anthony Albanese was spruiking at last night's BCA dinner? Well, mate, don't promise $2.2 billion of Commonwealth taxpayer money on a project that refuses to submit its paperwork. I used to be a teacher. If kids didn't put their homework in, it was because they hadn't done it. They knew they weren't going to pass. Here we are. I'll just quote from this. The ANAO is absolutely scathing about the response from the minister: … the minister stated in a media interview that the department would conduct a 'merit review' on all election commitments over $5 million— including the $2.2 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop. But: There is no evidence of the approach the department planned to undertake for the merit review … So this was a bit like what this Prime Minister's fond of doing: coming up with a press release to calm down a political firestorm in the media, only for you to find, when you lift the curtain on his promise, that there are no details. There was no merit review. It was done to quiet the horses. It's actually the Daniel Andrews tactic in politics: you make a statement based on your assumption that, in two months time, the voter will have forgotten what you said. This government is doing exactly the same thing. This is an absolute basket case of a process, and Minister King needs to do something about it. 17:14 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I too rise to take note of the ANAO's audit of the Australian government's commitment to the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop East project. There is a sickness in the Victorian Labor Party and a sickness at the federal Labor Party level too. It's a sickness that seems to affect all Labor governments, because all Labor governments right around the country believe that taxpayer money is not your money, not money that you earned and not money that you struggled for; it's their money to do with whatever they choose, no matter how irresponsible that commitment may be. This sickness is particularly acute when it comes to infrastructure. There is no better example of this than the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop, the subject of the Auditor-General's report that's been tabled in this chamber today. This report, combined with the report that was previously released by the Victorian Auditor-General, shows irrefutably and so clearly that Labor doesn't understand productivity and doesn't understand using a business case to analyse investment or it doesn't care that it doesn't use those foundational tools of making good decisions that have a fiduciary duty to those whose taxpayer dollars they are spending. It shows that Minister King is just as derelict in her duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely as her Victorian counterparts, and that is quite a standard, indeed. Let me go to a couple of the key points that are contained within the report. In August 2022, the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office released a cost estimate that indicated that the cost to build the Suburban Rail Loop East would be $36.5 billion and the cost to build and operate SRL East and North over 50 years is going to be—wait for it—an eye-watering $200 billion. You'd hope that a government that was willing to commit $200 billion to a project had done a thorough cost-benefit analysis, but in September 2022 the Victorian Auditor-General released an audit report on major transport infrastructure project business cases that considered four Victorian government transport infrastructure business cases, including the Suburban Rail Loop. What did it find? That report stated—and it's quoted in the Commonwealth Auditor-General report—that: The business case DoT and SRLA— Department of Transport and Suburban Rail Loop Authority— provided to the government for the SRL program— wait for it— did not support informed investment decisions. That is an extraordinary revelation. It went on to say: The business case only analysed part of the program and did not fully meet DTF's— the Department of Treasury and Finance— guidance requirements. DTF has provided substantial advice to the government on the SRL program since 2019. However, it is yet to complete the assessment of the business case required under its HVHR— high-value high-risk— project assurance framework to give the government confidence in its deliverability. Confidence in its deliverability? We have committed $2.2 billion to this. It also stated that the department 'did not demonstrate the economic rationale for the entire project'. So there's no economic rationale for a $2.2 billion spend and commitment that Anthony Albanese made to his mate Dan Andrews. That's unbelievable. Furthermore, the department's confirmed that there was no plan to conduct a business case. When questioned, the Victorian auditor was told they had no plans to do so. Even more damning, the Victorian report found that the benefit-cost ratio of the Suburban Rail Loop was 0.51 when calculated in line with the Department of Treasury and Finance's guidelines, but the Victorian government claimed it was one to 1.7. So they have been entirely dishonest. This is a project that the federal government and Catherine King decided to commit $2.2 billion to in the 2022-23 October budget. The Commonwealth Auditor-General's report states: 'The minister stated in a media interview that the department would conduct a merit review on all election commitments over $5 million and that the projects that don't stack up would not proceed.' There is no evidence of the approach the department planned to undertake for the merit review process across election commitments. Minister King has failed in her duty here, and the auditor's report could not be clearer. The decision must be made to cancel this project. Cancel this project today. (Time expired) 17:20 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I also rise to take note of the Australian government commitment to the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop east project report handed down by the Auditor-General. I firstly want to say to the members for Corio, Corangamite, Bendigo and Ballarat—those regional Labor MPs who have sat on their hands and done nothing while $2.2 billion was funnelled into this completely inadequate project in the heart of Melbourne, deserting the regions, deserting our infrastructure needs in regional Victoria—that this is an absolute disgrace. I say that because over three federal budgets not one bit of new funding for any major regional infrastructure project has emerged in the Albanese government's federal budget for regional Victoria. This is yet more confirmation that this inadequate, incompetent Labor government does not care about the regions. All it cares about doing is propping up a really bad Victorian Labor government with dodgy projects—not only undercooked but with no proper business case. The federal government should not commit funding to the Suburban Rail Loop until this project has been subject to Infrastructure Australia assessment of a full business case. The fact that $2.2 billion was funnelled to this project under circumstances where the Albanese government turned its back on regional Victoria is, as I say, a shocking reflection of Labor's contempt for regional Victorians and, frankly, the regions right across this country. Prime Minister Albanese has gone back on his pre-election commitment that nationally significant projects would be subject to full Infrastructure Australia assessment. Do you know why? He just did a dodgy deal with Dan. That's what this is all about. Daniel Andrews, the former premier, rang him up and said: 'Mate, we need $2.2 billion. Don't worry about anyone else. All those seats in the regions? Forget them. We want you to prop up this project.' As we now see, this is an absolute debacle. The coalition wrote to the Australian National Audit Office in December 2023 seeking an audit of the Albanese government's decision to commit $2.2 billion towards the Victorian Labor government's Suburban Rail Loop project. The project, as I say, does not have a full business case. The Victorian government has delayed submitting full business case documents to Infrastructure Australia. This is a project mired in smoke and mirrors and deception. Evidence provided to the Senate estimates revealed Infrastructure Australia requested detailed information from the Victorian government more than 18 months ago, with no response. By ensuring proposed amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Act enabling a full inquiry by Infrastructure Australia were withdrawn, the Albanese government has refused to subject the Suburban Rail Loop project to a review. As we have heard, the Victorian ombudsman found the project had blindsided key transport and infrastructure agencies, denying state experts the opportunity to provide impartial policy advice to the government or to assess this project against other infrastructure priorities. We don't even know how much the Suburban Rail Loop will ultimately cost to build. However, the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office released an updated cost-to-build assessment in March 2024. This estimate found a $16 billion cost blowout, taking the full Suburban Rail Loop east and north cost to build and operate to an eye-watering $216.7 billion through to 2084. Contrast that with funding for any new projects in Bendigo, in Ballarat, in Corio, in Corangamite: a big fat zero. Over three federal budgets, there has been no funding for any new projects. This is a disgrace. This demonstrates that this government is completely out of its depth and it has no integrity and no transparency. We're now seeing further evidence of it. (Time expired) 17:25 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I too rise to take note of this damning Auditor-General's report. Whilst I appreciate Senator Henderson's wonderful advocacy for regional Victoria, I want to talk about Queensland's infrastructure needs. My office is based in the Ipswich region in South-East Queensland, which has been crying out for additional infrastructure to accommodate the tens of thousands of new residents who are moving to that area. It's one of the highest growth areas in the whole of Australia—the south-west corridor—crying out for the roads, rail and bridges that the greater Ipswich region needs. Here we have this travesty of $2.2 billion of federal government funds being directed to the mendicant, bankrupt Victorian government for a—is this serious?—$216.7 billion project. This is nonsense. I can hardly believe it. That's unbelievable. And they haven't got a business case. There's no business case. Senator SCARR 282997 There's no business case—absolutely no business case at all. I'm going to ignore you, Senator Shoebridge. There is no business case and no confidence in deliverability. Well, how could you come to a conclusion otherwise when you've got a mendicant state government proposing a $216.7 billion project? When they've capped out in terms of revenue- and taxation-raising measures in Victoria and businesses are looking to close up shop and move to Queensland or South Australia, how in goodness's name can they afford $216.7 billion? Let me tell you what we could do with that $2.2 billion in my state of Queensland in the greater Ipswich region: we could build a second river crossing over the Bremer River, which is absolutely fundamentally needed for Ipswich—and it has been recognised by independent stakeholders as a priority project—so that when floods do occur on the Bremer River there's a second river crossing to enable the people of Ipswich to have connectivity. That's what we could do with far less than $2.2 billion. We could then move to Amberley Air Force base, which has an absolutely disgraceful issue in terms of traffic management. Former Deputy Prime Minister McCormack tried to sort that out with the then state Labor government, but the state Labor government failed to come to the party. It's still a deathtrap. We have thousands of people at Amberley Air Force base, and in peak hour it's just about impossible to safely get to Amberley Air Force base, one of our key Defence installations. We could fix that for the $2.2 billion. We could fix the Mount Crosby interchange as well, which is another deathtrap in the greater Ipswich region. We could fix that for $2.2 billion. We could also progress the Springfield-to-Ipswich public transport corridor, which would provide a loop in terms of the railway or public transport options that would go from Brisbane around to Ipswich and then back to Springfield and to Brisbane. We could do all of that with that $2.2 billion. This is the opportunity cost. Every single dollar of taxpayers' money is crucial. When you direct $2.2 billion of taxpayers' money to a dodgy—listen to this figure—$216.7 billion project, it's madness. What about the rest of the country? Confidence in deliverability? There could be no confidence in deliverability. So I congratulate Senator Henderson on her advocacy for regional Victoria, but what about Queensland? What about the people of Ipswich, the greater Ipswich region, where they've been taken for granted by the Labor Party for years and years and years? The people of the greater Ipswich region deserve their roads. They deserve their rail. They deserve their bridges. Yet the Albanese Labor government is directing $2.2 billion—which could be spent in one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia, in the greater Ipswich region—down south. Albo, or, I should say, the Prime Minister, is sending that $2.2 billion down south to Victoria to assist in a $216.7 billion project, where there's no confidence in deliverability—in fact, there's probably confidence that it can't be delivered—and no economic or business case. Madness! Absolute madness! This is unbelievable. It's just staggering. And the Labor government should deeply reflect on this. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Productivity Commission 87 17:30 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise to take note of government document No. 4, Productivity Commission Report No. 106, A path to universal early childhood education and care, dated 28 June 2024, in three volumes. I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Today the Productivity Commission released their final report on the future of Australia's early childhood education and care, or ECEC, system. At over a thousand pages, the report makes 56 recommendations and is the culmination of 16 months' worth of work. This document considers how to build an affordable, accessible, inclusive, high-quality education and care system. The report also highlights that ECEC can improve the outcomes for children, particularly those experiencing disadvantage and vulnerability. As a former early childhood educator, this is something that I and everyone else who has worked and works in the sector knows all too well. Children who experience vulnerability and disadvantage actually benefit the most from quality early childhood education and care, but they are currently the least likely to attend, unfortunately. A strong early childhood education and care industry is good for workers, good for parents, good for children and good for the economy, and we know from research that quality early childhood education is critical for a child's social, physical, emotional and cognitive development. It prepares children to start school, lays the foundations for lifelong development and learning and directly leads to better health, education and employment outcomes later in life. There is no doubt that the long-term benefits of investment in children's early years far outweigh any cost. As highlighted in the report, early childhood education is not reaching those who need it most, and this is something that the Labor Party recognises as being a priority. The cognitive benefits for children who receive quality early childhood education can be linked to $1.06 billion in higher earnings over their lifetimes, and a further $495 million in higher taxes paid to government—just a thought for people to consider. Since coming into government, we've already made a significant number of reforms to the sector, but we know that there is more work to do to ensure the ECEC sector works for all families across Australia. As confirmed in the report, we need to prioritise the ECEC workforce, making it bigger and better, and that's why we have already acted to increase wages by 15 per cent for the ECEC workforce, which the report suggests will be effective in relieving recruitment and retention challenges. What this means in reality for an early childhood educator is an extra $100 a week from this December and an extra $155 per week from next December, or around $7,800 per year. For an early childhood teacher, the increase is even more, adding up to an increase of around $13,000 a year from next December. We know that this has already had an impact on retaining early childhood and education care workers. I also hope that anyone who might have left the industry because of low wages can make the decision to come back, in the knowledge that this government values your work and experience and will continue to fight for better wages and conditions for you. Yet another way we are growing the workforce is through better training opportunities. This includes more university places for early childhood education teachers and fee-free TAFE, such that, already, there are about 30,000 more early educators working today than there were two years ago when we were elected. But the truth is that we do have to do even more if we're going to build the bigger, better and fairer early childhood education system that our children deserve. We also want to ensure that having a fairly paid ECEC workforce does not come at a higher cost for families, which is why we tied the wage increase to workers with a commitment from childcare centres to limit fee increases to 4.4 per cent in the 12 months from August this year. This will keep prices down for the more than one million families who place their children in early childhood care, and it comes on top of other savings we've delivered in the last 12 months. Access to affordable early childhood education means that parents can work, train, study and volunteer, boosting not only our economy but our social equity as well. The changes we made in the last 12 months mean that a family on a combined income of $120,000 today, with one child in care three days a week, is now paying about $2,000 less than they otherwise would have been. I thank the Productivity Commission for this important report that will help inform and shape our strategies on achieving a high-quality, truly universal ECEC system for all Australians. As the government that has done more for the early childhood education and care sector than any other government, we welcome the release of this report today. (Time expired) 17:36 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I too rise to take note of the Productivity Commission's report, A path to universal early childhood education and care, which has been tabled in the parliament and publicly released today. The coalition is currently making its way through the Productivity Commission's final report, which includes more than 56 recommendations and almost 1,000 pages of information, data and findings, and a response will be provided in due course. We note that the report highlights the achievements in the sector made under the previous coalition government, including the increase in early childhood education and care places by 50 per cent, the increase in the number of four-year-olds enrolled in ECEC to 90 per cent, and the increase in women's workforce participation. I note with concern that the Albanese government has sat on this report for weeks, and, while releasing it today, has taken no position, despite it having been in the minister's drawer. It's no great surprise that the government is giving no indication of its position, because Minister Clare, as the overarching Minister for Education, has seen chaos in school funding on his watch. We have a school funding war underway in this country, courtesy of the Minister for Education, we have the university sector in meltdown and, of course, despite the fact that the government has had this report for a number of weeks, we have no insight into where the government is going on this. What we do know is that Labor continues to talk the big game on child care, but the reality is that there are families who continue to miss out—there are many childcare deserts across this country—and many other families who are paying higher costs. That is because, despite the government's rhetoric, despite their memes and other slogans, despite their sloganeering, in the last 12 months out-of-pocket childcare costs have increased by 8.4 per cent. Labor's so-called $4.7 billion 'cheaper' childcare package has not only not delivered a single place for families without access to early learning; it has imposed greater out-of-pocket costs on families. When you think about what families are enduring at the moment, with the cost of everything going through the roof because of Labor's homegrown inflation, one of the highest of any advanced country in the world, it is no surprise that families have also been hit by increased out-of-pocket costs for child care. As I said, there are no new places for regional Australians suffering from no access to child care, so it is an insult to parents that Labor continues to claim that families are better off under this government when so many families are struggling to make ends meet, including in relation to child care. Education costs across the board have gone up 11 per cent. Gas and electricity have gone through the roof, as have food and fuel. People are dreading going to their mailbox or their inbox and opening their bills. So many families dread how they can barely get food on the table, let alone how they are going to pay their bills. I also want to raise that we have seen reports of centres increasing their fees by up to $30 a day. Despite the rhetoric from Labor on the so-called cheaper child care, this promised subsidy has been substantially eaten up by higher fees since last July. To families in regional, rural and remote Australia, I say once again: where is the Labor Party for all the families who are struggling to find one childcare place for one child? Of course, when you cannot find child care, you cannot work. Families in regional Australia did not have the same options. As I say, the Labor government, despite promising so much and talking the big talk, has delivered very little, and it's very regrettable that the government has so little to say, despite this report. COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 89 Report 89 17:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On behalf of the chair, my colleague Senator Allman-Payne, I present the report of the inquiry of the Community Affairs References Committee on menopause and perimenopause, together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I want to start by thanking all of the witnesses who participated in this inquiry and all of the submitters who poured all of their love and their frustration and their raw honesty into the words that they shared with our committee. It was an enormous privilege to hear what they had to say, and I'm so grateful that the Senate provided that platform to listen to women and to listen to their experiences. I'd also like to deeply thank the secretariat—in particular, Claudia and Apolline—for the detailed work they did in pulling together the wealth of evidence that has now gone into this excellent report. I'd also like to thank all of my Senate colleagues who participated in this inquiry and made it such a successful and interesting experience—in particular, the chair, Senator Allman-Payne; but also Senator Marielle Smith, who, of course, co-sponsored this inquiry reference with me; Senator Louise Pratt, also from the government side; and then, from the opposition benches, Senator Maria Kovacic, Senator Wendy Askew and Senator Hollie Hughes. The level of engagement from all of the senators on this inquiry was really gratifying, and I thank everyone for their work and for the passion with which they approached this topic. We know that women have been suffering in silence for far too long, and we know that we often don't pay enough attention in this place, frankly, to gender equality in the women's health space. This was the reason why, almost a year ago now, not only was I the first person to say the word 'perimenopause' in federal parliament but I recognised that there was a deep need for the lack of policy in perimenopause and menopause to be redressed. So it was with the intention of trying to establish an evidence base and to hear from women in the community so as to give us the information we needed to develop that policy that I was proud to propose this inquiry be undertaken. I'm very pleased that not only was the inquiry co-sponsored by the government but there was unanimous support from the chamber to do this necessary work. It sends a really powerful message that after almost a year of hearings—and we had quite a few of them; seven in fact—we've reached a consensus report. I want to acknowledge that, whilst some additional comments were made by coalition senators, everyone has signed on to these recommendations, and they're very strong. They're perhaps not quite as strong as they would be if it was just me writing them, but this is part of democracy, this is part of compromise, this is part of bringing together the evidence base and making some suggestions to government. I'll briefly run through some of the key recommendations. We're really pleased at the strength of sentiment and the consensus report that has been produced. We urge the government to read this carefully and to please respond within the timeframe that you're meant to, unlike on the reproductive health care inquiry report, which was also a consensus report, that sadly has been gathering dust on a shelf of the government benches now for almost 18 months. Let's not repeat that, hey, because women deserve better. I also want to flag that, whilst some women experience almost no symptoms of perimenopause or menopause, and that's great for them, there's a real variety of experiences, and women experience mild, moderate and sometimes extremely debilitating symptoms. This is affecting them not only in the healthcare space but also in the work space. Part of the intent of this inquiry was to look at both health policy and workplace policy, so I'm pleased that we were able to do that. I want to start in the health space. We heard horror stories from many women who already lacked the education to work out that what they were experiencing was in fact perimenopause, but, when they went to seek some advice from their GP, many times their GP didn't put the pieces of that jigsaw puzzle together either. GPs are obviously very busy, they're very bright people and they've got a lot to stay across, but this inquiry heard that we really need to better educate GPs on this particular issue. One hour in undergrad is not enough. We also need to give them the tools to make sure that, when they're seeing patients, they've got electronic prompters to help them work out, 'Okay, maybe this person is perimenopausal,' and to acknowledge that the age range for when perimenopause and menopause can happen is in fact a lot broader than perhaps you might expect. We heard that not only was it hard to get a diagnosis—and sometimes women had to go to multiple different GPs before they felt heard; they didn't feel disbelieved or dismissed—but, once they were able to get a diagnosis and some treatment prescribed, actually the most modern and often most suitable treatment for them was simply out of reach for their financial means. We took evidence that the most up to date treatment with the fewest possible adverse impacts, the least possible slight increase for cancers, is not on the PBS. We took evidence that, if you're on the full suite of MHT—which is the new word for HRT, menopausal hormone therapy—with both oestrogen and progesterone, and sometimes also testosterone, it can cost you up to a hundred bucks. In fact, one witness said it cost $297 per month for her to get the treatment she needs. Clearly, she could afford it, but I can't think of many other Australians that are in a position to afford it, and no doubt she made sacrifices to be able to spend that amount of money on her treatment. So we heard that the treatments need to be affordable. We also heard there's an awful shortage of them. That's wreaked havoc for people who might have a prescription for a particular type of MHT, but it's then discontinued, it's hard to get a GP appointment to get a substitute, the substitute is not quite right and they've got to go round to 12 different chemists to try and get their script filled. What an absolute nightmare. The recommendation from this committee was that we look at ways of addressing those shortages and that we look at ways of addressing the financial cost of getting appropriate treatment. We heard that big pharma wield an awful lot of power in that decision-making process and that, effectively, if they decide that they don't want to go on the PBS, you can't really compel them, and, therefore, Australians can't get affordable medicine. There's got to be a way around that. This committee recommends that the government consider finding a way of making MHT more affordable for Australian women and people who need it. So we invite you to brainstorm some solutions, perhaps look at some of the international examples that the committee looked at, and find a way to make sure that MHT and other treatments are both affordable and accessible. So there was really powerful evidence in the health space. We then took quite a lot of evidence about what to do in the workplace, and I acknowledge that this was the more contentious element of the inquiry. We did reach consensus that, clearly, people wanted flexibility. If they were suffering debilitating symptoms—and, as I said earlier, not everybody does, but for those who do—what they wanted most was understanding and awareness from their employer, and then the right to have flexibility, such as the right to maybe start a bit later if they'd had an absolutely rotten night's sleep, the right to be able to take a toilet break when they're having really heavy bleeding or the right to request to work from home if they just were not up to the job that particular day. This committee recommends that that flexibility be included in our fair work laws—a right to request flexibility on the basis of perimenopause and menopause. I think that is a really good, strong recommendation. We also encourage employers to work with their employees and develop perimenopause and menopause policies. We need to bring this issue out of the shadows. There should not be a stigma around something that more than half of the population go through. Part of how we dispel that stigma is a national education campaign for everyone. That's important. But employers need to actually consult and talk with their staff and together have a workplace policy about this issue that will enable people to feel more comfortable raising this issue and generally reduce that stigma. The third part of the workplace piece is leave. I approached this inquiry thinking we should have menopause leave. I want to acknowledge that I changed my mind during the course of this inquiry. I listened to the evidence and I was persuaded, for a number of reasons, that actually what would be more beneficial for a larger number of people would be reproductive health leave. That would ensure that people with all sorts of different issues can have the benefit of that leave. It would also mean that men can take it too if they want to go and get the snip or if they want to go with their partner to the first scan of their baby. I think it's important that we make sure that this leave is available for everyone, including men who might need it too, because flexibility might not be enough when those symptoms are really debilitating. I acknowledge that that's one of more contentious recommendations, but the Greens strongly support the union campaigns and the campaigns of many advocates for paid reproductive healthcare leave. I'm really pleased that we got this inquiry up and, again, I really thank everyone for their participation in it. I look forward to the other contributions. 17:51 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also write to speak on this report. As deputy chair of the committee, I want to thank my colleagues who participated in this inquiry, particularly the chair, Senator Allman-Payne, and my colleague Senator Waters for her initiative in bringing it forward and her willingness to allow me to co-sponsor it with her and for her genuine commitment to improving women's health outcomes too. I also want to thank the experts, academics, advocates and professionals who participated in our inquiry and presented to our public hearings. We are grateful for your expertise. I thank you for your contributions in an area that perhaps hasn't been appreciated or heard in the way it should have been for a very long time. I really hope our committee and our inquiry help to change that. Most of all, I want to thank every woman who provided a submission of her own lived experience or who came to our many hearings around Australia to share her story with us. Some of these stories were shocking and confronting, but everyone was genuine in their desire to create change. Especially those women who shared very intimate details of their healthcare journeys and very harrowing stories of their healthcare journeys, I want to thank you for doing that with our committee because your evidence shaped the recommendations in our report. Nine months ago, when we referred this inquiry, I spoke of the need to shine a light on this issue and to spark a national conversation which could be part of addressing some of the stigma and discrimination which surround these issues. We expected to hear from women across the country, but I think all of us were a bit overwhelmed and surprised by the number of submissions that came in and the impact it has had on women who were able to share their stories. I have been working on issues of women's health for a long time and it is clear that, the deeper you dig, the more you find that women's experiences of pain are too often dismissed and ignored, whether that's for periods, endometriosis, PCOS, issues related to pregnancy, maternal health care, mental health or all the way through to menopause. Women tell us they are not always believed and they are not always getting the good-quality primary care that they deserve. They tell us that their pain is dismissed or carelessly attributed to other causes. They tell us that they are labelled as 'irrational', 'emotional', 'hysterical' or 'crazy' and of the devastating impact of these statements. It's almost like when we are taught about women's health at school the journey begins at puberty and ends at childbirth, like nothing of significance or consequence happens in a woman's life after that, as though her health journey simply disappears. But that is absolute nonsense. Menopause isn't an optional part of ageing. It will affect every woman lucky enough to reach middle age at some point in her life. So why does it feel like our society hasn't been prepared for that? Why is it the case that our health system is letting so many women down? So many women have walked into their GP's office and have not felt heard and able to access good quality advice and care. Why has the stigma that surrounds menopause been able to impact and infiltrate so many aspects of a woman's life? It was appallingly clear to us through the course of our inquiry that medical professionals are not being properly taught how to treat menopause effectively and that there's not enough contemporary training and professional development to ensure that, when a woman walks into her GP's office, she is getting good quality, up-to-date and accurate care. We heard in our committee that medical students receive as little as one hour of training in menopause. Again, menopause is not an optional part of a woman's life. It's something that affects 50 per cent of the population. It's time for that to change. Many of our recommendations go to what needs to happen within our healthcare system when it comes to training medical practitioners and clinicians and providing them with professional development and support so that when a woman walks into that consult, she gets good quality care the first time around; she's not shopping around to five or six different GPs desperate for help. We've heard this from women time after time. If they couldn't get good quality care and didn't know where to go for good quality information, they started scrolling. When they started scrolling, they were overwhelmed with junk products and junk advertisements for products that could do more harm than good. Socia media can be an enormous benefit for women. It can provide incredible opportunities for peer support. But throughout this inquiry, I spoke of my own algorithm, my own Instagram page, targeting me and marketing me with products to treat menopause. We need to make sure we're looking at these products. We need to make sure that the TGA is reviewing them. There is validity in considering how some of these products are labelled. We have recommendations that go to that, the TGA, and women in regional and rural areas, for whom stigma can take a different shape. We know that country women, like the country women in my family, just tend to get on with things. That stigma looks a bit different. We also know that, in many of these communities, you don't always have more than one GP or more than one option, so shopping around isn't possible. And if woman's GP isn't providing that good quality care and doesn't have up-to-date information on the treatments available for menopause, then there are very little options for her. One woman spoke to me of her need to drive hours and hours to find a GP qualified to provide her with good quality care. We also heard throughout our inquiry that the evidence base on the impacts of menopause just isn't sufficient. We know menopause doesn't affect every woman in the same way. Many, many women will go through perimenopause and menopause flawlessly. They won't have a symptom that impacts their ability to participate in the workplace. They won't need care from their doctor. They won't need medication. There might be some annoyances, but it won't seriously impact their lives. But there are some women for whom menopause can be really troubling and present really serious challenges and obstacles to their participation in the workplace. We were thinking about those women when we made our recommendations around the workplace and what might need to change. Our recommendations focus on flexibility and what we can do to give women a right to request that flexibility. For example, workplace adjustments. For many women that's a small change, like being able to prop a desk fan up on your desk while you're at work can make a difference. A breathable uniform can make a difference. If you usually catch the peak-hour train and you're going through a hot flush, it might be helpful to catch the 9.05 train every now and then, so there's that little bit of flexibility in your starting time at work. Small changes can make an extraordinary difference. We want women to have the right to request them, and we want workplaces to start talking to the women in their places of work about what makes a difference to them. However, there are different challenges for women who don't work in offices. If a woman works in an early learning centre where she is subject to the need to maintain ratios, she is often outside. For a woman who works on the till at a supermarket or for a woman who's working in a factory or construction, there's no desk to put a desk fan. Changes to uniforms aren't going to cut it. This is where we think there needs to be more research done into what flexibility and workplace support look like for these women and whether reproductive and sexual health leave is actually the answer for them. I admit a lot of the evidence we received about what could change in the workplace came from women in white-collar workplaces. If we're going to support the women who feel like their economic participation is impacted by some of their symptoms, that conversation needs to be much, much broader, and so do our policy solutions. So we've called for research there. We've called for more work to be done and for that to happen in government. Again, I reaffirm that not everyone will experience negative symptoms of perimenopause and menopause. For many, many women, this will not be a journey that causes distress or impacts their ability to thrive at the peak of their careers. But, for a number of women in our community, it will have an impact. There are things we can do in our healthcare system, changes we can make, which would provide extraordinary relief, and there are small changes we can make in our workplaces—changes which might be the difference between a woman at the peak of her career being able to continue at work or go for that promotion and her not being able to do so. If we're not having a conversation in our workplaces about that, those things won't change. We have 25 recommendations. I thank the committee for the generosity they extended in trying to get to recommendations which we could all stand up and support. I think they're sensible. I think they're reasonable. I'm proud of what we've done to spark this national conversation together. But it's now over to us as a government and to workplaces across Australia—especially, may I say, the medical profession—to get up to speed on perimenopause and menopause. Women are waiting for change, and it's time we delivered that for them. 18:01 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales (): I take note of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into menopause and perimenopause. I would like to thank the hundreds of women who came forward with their experiences with menopause and perimenopause, the medical experts who gave their advice, and the countless women's organisations who worked with the committee on this inquiry. I also thank my colleagues Senators Waters, Marielle Smith, Pratt, Allman-Payne, Askew and Hughes. This was a group of women who worked together in order to try and come to some answers that would actually create meaningful outcomes for Australian women. During the inquiry, I received countless emails from women who were grateful just to be seen and heard after generations of invisibility on this issue. They came forward despite the stigma that surrounds menopause and perimenopause. One woman wrote to me and said: 'I worked in a private equity firm and began going through menopause in my mid-40s. In 2018, I was sat down and asked to leave my job because my manager believed I "wasn't coping with the pace of the job anymore" and they "needed someone with a more youthful approach".' She said, 'How insulting after 10 years of loyal, dedicated service.' Another woman who contacted me said: 'I am so pleased that there is a Senate inquiry into menopause and perimenopause. I'm not sure how much "good" will come of the inquiry, but I sincerely hope that light is shed on the subject and the conditions are able to be freely discussed and not dismissed as female hysteria or taboo.' I firmly believe that much 'good' can come of this inquiry and of this mostly consensus report. The report makes a series of very important recommendations which will undoubtedly assist all women—our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends all across Australia—experiencing perimenopause and menopause, including some who are currently wondering what on earth is happening to their bodies. Maybe they'll be able to look to this and go, 'That's what is happening to me,' where others before them haven't been able to. As I've said many times in this chamber before, half of the population experiences menopause, and we need to update our systems to accommodate this phase of life, especially as our population gets older. We can only fix problems if we acknowledge them. We can't fix problems by pretending that they do not exist or not talking about them because they are a little bit uncomfortable or awkward to talk about. One set of recommendations I would like to highlight surrounds education and awareness. What we heard during the inquiry process was there is a general lack of understanding of menopause and perimenopause across the board, whether that is women themselves, doctors or workplaces. There is a clear need to do more in the education space. Bettering our education and awareness on the topic of menopause is the first step of many that will make a positive impact on the lives of women. Like many of the women who gave evidence, I too had no idea that many of the symptoms I was experiencing were related to perimenopause or menopause. It means women will know what to expect when they experience menopause. Doctors will be more able to provide correct diagnoses and treatment. Workplaces will find ways to accommodate, and the stigma surrounding it will be reduced. Another important set of recommendations surround the access to hormone replacement therapies, which make a real and significant difference to the lives of some women experiencing menopause. Women who choose to take MHT should be able to access it readily. They should not have to run around for hours to find a pharmacy that has it in stock. This is Australia in 2024. If we need a medication, we should be able to get it. Ensuring timely and affordable access to these therapies is in the domain of the Australian government, and I look forward to seeing their response to this report. The only real area of divergence in this report is on the topic of menopause leave. As we outlined in our additional comments, it is the view of the coalition senators that the conversation on menopause-specific leave was primarily driven by a small group, and that the vast majority of evidence submitted actually flagged serious concerns over what negative impacts could be derived from such a policy. Coalition senators absolutely agree that a review into workplace flexibility has merit. Industrial relations laws are complex, and it is our view that the Community Affairs Committee's remit is on health and social services. During this inquiry the interaction with businesses and IR experts was limited, so we sought to extend that into a deeper discussion, into deeper scrutiny and a deeper inquiry. That is why it was our view that the Senate refers an additional inquiry into the impacts of IR laws on menopause to the Education and Employment References Committee, which is better placed to inquire into these matters and make accurate and compelling recommendations in this space. I think it is really important for us when we speak of what the outcomes of this are to reflect on the many and varying experiences of Australian women, on the opportunity that we have here to be their voice and to do it in a way that is respectful and can deliver meaningful outcomes. I think there are many times where there are different agendas that mean we do not deliver the outcomes that we need and I do not believe this inquiry was one of those. I believe we worked in good faith to deliver the best possible outcomes for Australian women. I hope that, as a result, we can see a change across the board both in workplaces, in medical educational institutions and in our ordinary lives, where we can talk about problems in the same way that we talk about mental health and have it as a normal part of our everyday lives. I thank again my colleagues for their participation in this inquiry. I just want to finish up with a couple of our additional comments in our report around the widespread concerns of Australian women around having sensible discussions designed to increase public awareness, to destigmatise, to provide access to treatments and supports, and to encourage further research and foster new pathways for vocations related to menopause and perimenopause. 18:09 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you, Acting Deputy President Allman-Payne, for your own contribution to this inquiry. It is good to see you sitting in the chair presiding over this discussion. Women in Australia are demanding a better understanding from workplaces, medical practitioners, research bodies, governments and our society more broadly about their experience of perimenopause and menopause. But I guess the same could be said for our reproductive lives as a whole. There's a growing movement in our nation where women are determined to no longer live with preventable and too often debilitating symptoms of perimenopause. Equally, as this inquiry showed, women are concerned about their long-term health, and there are a whole range of health risks that change with menopause, such as heart disease, stroke and more. And, I have to say, I know personally what a difference it makes to have a GP who listens and responds to your needs at this time of life, and I give my thanks to Dr Belinda Wozencroft. However, as the evidence for this inquiry shows, too few women have access to the supports they need. So our report from the Community Affairs References Committee on issues related to menopause and perimenopause is timely. I thank Senator Waters and Senator Marielle Smith for bringing it forward. I also deeply thank my colleagues who were there, asking questions and participating together. I think it was good that, as women, we were able to engage with other women, medical practitioners and everyone around the nation to discuss these issues. I do wish at times there had been some engagement from male senators—but perhaps it might not have been so much fun! The inquiry sat a little too close to home for me in its relevance at times, so I stand here tonight very much part of the movement of women asking for change and recognition of these issues. Women's poor experiences when seeking health care for symptoms of perimenopause and menopause were deeply reflected in the evidence put forward to the inquiry, with more than 300 submissions, seven days of public hearings, a hundred people or more giving evidence. I thank all of those people, and I want to give particular thanks to the women who shared with us their personal stories and experiences, some very traumatic. On that note, I have to say that at times, as they were speaking about their own experiences, I felt like they were portraying my own experience back at me. We heard stories of delayed diagnosis, over- or underprescribing medication, the effect of out-of-date medical knowledge on MHT, misdiagnosis or total dismissal of their pain and symptoms. There were harrowing stories from women facing significant barriers accessing appropriate health care. Our inquiry showed that we have a health system that, in its foundation, has been built by men and largely based on men's biology. I guess at the time, as it evolved, it was a baseline for normal, because their hormonal profile did not have the fluctuations, perhaps, that women have and, perhaps, that is why our medical system did this. However, that is not normal. It is normal in our lives that our hormonal profiles fluctuate and change. We saw, in the course of the inquiry, a representation of the fact that women have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials and medical research, resulting in a gender data gap. We even saw old tropes about women being overly emotional and hysterical, and this their recent and current experiences with medical practitioners—current experiences, frankly, of medical misogyny. Stigma, shame and self-doubt make it difficult for women to discuss their needs with their general practitioner, let alone in their workplace, with their partners, families and other healthcare providers. We saw examples of limited or no access to health professionals who are trained with even a basic medical knowledge about menopause. This was exacerbated by the experience of living in a rural or remote area. We saw limited or no access to evidence based information so that women could understand an absolute myriad of symptoms and treatment options—symptoms that go far beyond what you might expect in terms of a hot flush. We saw inadequate training for our normally very dedicated health professionals—health professionals who are still captured by an outdated understanding of menopause hormone therapy. I want to highlight some of our recommendations: the need for a national response and a perimenopause awareness campaign and that menopause and perimenopause modules are included in all medical university curriculums and the need to mandate this education for all physicians practising in the public health system across Australia. When you look at the fact that the largest group drawing down dollars in the Medicare billing system are women reaching perimenopause or in menopause, there are in fact savings to be made by doing this properly; we can't show up, time and time again, undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, for our symptoms. We also recommended that workplace laws should ensure women can access flexible working arrangements. As our inquiry saw, midlife can be a tough time for some women. We balance a lot of things: the busy lives of our children, demanding jobs, financial stress and, perhaps, ailing parents. When you add to this your own perimenopausal and menopausal health issues, it is little wonder that we did see the evidence of some women cutting their hours or dropping their income at a time of their life when we would hope that they would be growing their careers. I was particularly moved by the experiences of women experiencing early menopause—women whose medical practitioners threw them into early menopause with cancer treatment or a hysterectomy and yet whose medical support did not include addressing the immediate issues that would arise from going into early menopause. This was really distressing to listen to: the lost education and career opportunities for women who, because of these kinds of symptoms, were unable to continue working because they didn't have access to the help or support they needed. In finalising these remarks tonight, I want to say that the very best part of this inquiry—and I'm really quite moved by it—is seeing firsthand the incredible difference that the right support and care makes; the wonderful movement of practitioners; women getting together to talk about their experiences; successful campaigns for adjustments in workplace entitlements and flexibility; but, more than anything, a reduction in stigma by having an ability to talk about the symptoms and issues as they arise. Women are engaging and talking to each other. There's an incredible community of practice that is growing. There are a number of physicians who are ethically treating women with MHT. And there are the global trends where we see these treatments improving all the time. British Columbia saw, for example, free menopausal hormone therapy recently announced in their jurisdiction. So I'm very pleased and proud to be part of this movement, and I very much commend the report to the Senate. 18:18 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I also rise to take note of the Community Affairs References Committee's report on perimenopause and menopause. The inquiry looked into issues in a way that was comprehensive. We spent a great deal of time looking into this matter. We travelled around the country hearing from women and men of all persuasions and circumstances about the varied experiences that they'd had and about how the range of symptoms, mental and emotional experiences and treatment roadblocks impacted on productivity and their ability to flourish in the workplace. We also heard from a range of business groups, medical organisations, clinicians and health practitioners involved in the employment, treatment and care of women at this stage of life. I guess one of the biggest takeaways of the inquiry for me was the sheer lack of understanding and awareness surrounding menopause and perimenopause. I admit that I had never heard the term 'perimenopause' before I was put on this inquiry. As a woman who's getting towards the end of my 40s, it's extraordinary that I had never heard that term. We did learn that menopause is a lot more than a hot flush and no more babies. There's a whole lot more that goes on with menopause, and I think a lot of women don't know that what they're experiencing is perimenopause. At this stage, I want to take the time to acknowledge my colleagues from around the chamber who were on this inquiry. There's nothing like a group of women sitting around sharing experiences, such as what the hot flush looks like and how itchy skin, which was something I was experiencing—and had no idea—was a possible symptom of perimenopause. I would like to give particular thanks to Senator Allman-Payne, who without I'm not sure I'd already have my Oestrogel. She taught me all about what I should be getting, so that when I walked into my GP I knew exactly what to tell Jeremy I wanted. This just demonstrates the importance of having the conversation, the need to have the conversation, and for it to be out in the open. It is extraordinary to think 50 per cent—really 51 per cent—of the population will go through this. They will go through menopause. Whether they experience significant symptoms or not, whether they struggle with it or cruise on through, they are going to go through this; yet it's something that is still taboo, that is not spoken about. I know as we all were travelling and talking about it, certainly most of our mothers never breathed a word about menopause. Even when I was at school, when girls got their period it was something that was secretly talked about between you and your mum and no-one else. You never breathed another word. But you see teenage girls now, and it's like, 'Whatever.' It's not a big thing. The shame, the stigma and the embarrassment around menstruation issues have dissipated. It's got to what I always think is a good stage where people can openly joke about it or make a comment or where it's not a big deal, and boyfriends don't hide tampons under the bananas at the supermarket. They're all quite happy and open when it comes to those issues. I really hope we can get the same way with menopause, because the more open and frank discussions we have, the more we can see the funny side of it and the more we can support each other. The more we acknowledge that this is a natural part of life, the more the acceptance will just naturally grow, and it will not be some big deal that everyone's got to deal with. We did hear that there are a lot of areas that need improvement. The recommendations that we've made have highlighted the need for that broader awareness, that need to destigmatise and increase understanding. We probably just need to get the term 'perimenopause' out there, because lots and lots of women have never in their lives heard of it. We want to empower women to speak openly about this and about their experiences. I think it's also important that we empower men to speak about it as well. And it would be nice if once in a while one of the blokes in here to put their hand up for a community affairs committee inquiry that's looking at things that they think are soft social issues, not big tough ones like defence or national security: 'We don't go to that.' Particularly for men who have partners, wives, daughters, mothers, they are going to be part of this experience whether they like it or not. By having those open and frank discussions, mothers and sons—I have two teenage boys—they will understand what's happening, or what is going on at any given moment, so that when they are in relationships later in life it won't be something that confronts them or be something about which they have no comprehension in terms of what it means for them or their partner. The lack of knowledge of GPs was really quite disturbing. Women's anatomy was not even taught in the fifties, which is 80 years ago. Less than 80 years ago, they did not even teach women's anatomy. GP learning is something that has to be significantly improved. A lot of GPs still have a lot of outdated views when it comes to hormone replacement therapy. They are still drawing the breast cancer link. Obviously, those things can be much better managed, products are different and a debunking has occurred. There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed when it comes to GPs. Men are encouraged to have prostate checks, the bowel cancer screening checks go out and there is heart health. All of these things are discussed but there needs to be a focus more on women's health, particularly post babies. Everyone does a lot pre babies. You spend a lot of time at the doctor with babies. Then you kind of go into a health vacuum because you are kind of just ticking along. There does need to be more of awareness and understanding that women at some time will require longer consults. When things are happening and changing within, whether it is anxiety, whether it is sleepless nights, whether it is itchy skin, these can all be signs of perimenopause or menopause and it does not have to happen bang on 50. It can happen much earlier in life. Women need to stop being dismissed out of hand that this could not be happening to them because they are too young. We heard time and time again of the number of women who did enter early menopause and were fundamentally gaslit by the health professionals—that there was no way they could be experiencing this. I acknowledge Senator Waters' comments around her very clear passion for menopause leave at the beginning of this inquiry. It does show why these things work, how people's minds can be changed and attitudes can be shifted, because we did hear an awful lot from women's groups as well as industry groups that menopause leave might not be the right way to go. Certainly the coalition's additional comments have opposed, if you like, that it should be a legislated kind of leave. When we talk about the awareness of menopause, when we put it out there and talk of the symptoms, not everyone gets brain fog. We don't want everyone thinking that every woman in their 50s all of a sudden becomes addled; that is not what happens. But we do need to acknowledge these things occur. If we get the awareness out there and destigmatise this, we want it to be something that is a positive for women. Women when they are going through menopause are quite often at the peak of their career, at the peak of their productivity. We should be really harnessing that to make sure we are not losing women at that time of their cycle and not bringing in any sort of unconscious bias from employers about hiring women in their mid-40s and beyond. You are going to get the best out of women much in those years. Their kids can get the bus home by themselves. There are a few things have gone on in their lives. They are probably not dealing with nappies anymore or as many school assignments or racing around to sports, so they have more time. They are not going into the workforce looking for part-time; this is when they can step up to full-time work. We need to make sure that employers understand menopause is something 50 per cent of the population is going to go through. It is not the end of the world. A lot of women are not going to have a lot of symptoms. Eighty per cent of women are going to skate through with mild or no symptoms at all, but we do need to break down the stigma and raise that awareness. 18:29 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I won't speak for long. I want to associate myself with the comments from my colleagues that spoke to this report. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to senators Waters, Marielle Smith, Pratt, Askew and Hughes for the collaborative way in which they worked on this inquiry. It was a real joy to work with you. I also want to thank the secretariat for the incredible amount of work they put into all of the inquiries, particularly this one. But most of all, I want to thank those women. It was a real privilege to sit and listen to your stories, your lived experience evidence, and the committee will be forever grateful for the contribution you have made because it will benefit all women in this country. 18:29 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I, too, want to take note of the Community Affairs References Committee report tabled today. This inquiry examined issues related to menopause and perimenopause. The experience of menopause is a highly personal one, and, while no two journeys are the same, this inquiry highlighted a concerning common thread that was brought sharply into focus. Menopause is still a highly stigmatised experience for women in Australia. For too long, women have been suffering in silence with systems that can range from hot flushes to brain fog, chronic fatigue, disturbed sleep, itchy skin and menstrual changes, just to name a few. The severity of symptoms is different for every individual woman. For some, it can be just a blip in their day; for others, it can be quite debilitating. Symptoms are also often deeply personal and emotive. It can be difficult for women to share with those around them, even close family and friends. The purpose of this inquiry was to understand the menopause experience of women across the country, to shine a light on it and to bring it out of the shadows. Sharing personal experiences can be challenging. In this context, I want to thank each person who made a submission or gave evidence to the committee during the inquiry. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the hardworking secretariat for their diligent and in-depth work on this topic. I also want to thank broadcasting, who travel the country with us and make our hearings happen. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes. I want to thank, as others have, the community affairs committee members who participated in this inquiry, all of us women. I'm pretty sure we all learnt something about the menopause experience along the way. One of the incredible things about participating in these inquiries is that we get to hear the firsthand lived experience of those we hope to help improve their lives and their menopause experience. The evidence we received clearly showed that the experience of menopause and perimenopause and its impact on the workplace is a highly personalised and individual experience. It also highlighted the awareness and education gap across most industry sectors on how best to support female employees entering midlife. Working together, the committee has taken a collaborative approach, and I am pleased that we were able to agree on constructive recommendations to help improve the experience of women at this stage of their lives. Many of the recommendations in the report are around raising awareness and improving the educational understanding of menopause and perimenopause for medical care providers, workplaces, and the community in general. I believe the recommendations reflect the desire of the committee to improve the menopause experience, including through education and awareness for employers about the impact of menopause in the workplace and the need to provide flexibility and understanding to employees. I was pleased to be invited to participate as a panel member at the Clifford Craig Foundation's Let's Talk Women's Health Brunch in Launceston a couple of weeks ago. The topic was menopause at work. The keynote speaker was Theo O'Connor, director of menopause@work ASIA PACIFIC. Thea is well known for her innovative approaches to health across various environments and has played a key role in helping numerous workplaces in many diverse industries become more menopause friendly. She was also one of our early witnesses in the inquiry. It was truly refreshing to hear her speak about empowering women to navigate their careers in the life stage of menopause with confidence. I must admit that, as a postmenopausal woman, I certainly felt motivated and challenged to take on the world, and I'm pretty sure the 200-plus women in the room did as well. I later joined Thea and local Launceston GP, Dr Natasha Vavrek, on a panel to discuss the broader aspects of menopause. Dr Vavrek is a director of The Bubble Tasmania and a consulting specialist women's GP at The Bubble Launceston. She provided a positive approach to the management of menopause symptoms, highlighting the benefits of GPs undertaking additional training in this area. Around the room, you could sense the relief that people were actually willing to talk openly about menopause, even the half a dozen men who dared to come along. The question-and-answer session was extremely interactive and informative. I look forward to participating in future discussions on this topic in the coming years, which brings me back to the inquiry where many witnesses shared their experiences of dealing with menopause in silence. What a heartbreaking and difficult situation to be in. Some even said they thought they were experiencing early-stage dementia or they were losing it and, as a result, they had considered leaving their workplace rather than seeking support. Unfortunately, that suggestion has been supported by evidence in relation to the retirement age of women. As coalition senators, we believe there is a need for a balanced approach between government oversight and private sector autonomy to give employers the tools needed to help women experiencing menopause and perimenopause to continue participating in their lives and to continue to be actively engaged at work. However, we want to ensure that any intervention or mandated change by the government does not penalise or ostracise working women. Instead, we need to destigmatise and raise awareness of the symptoms and how they impact women at work. It's in this context that I and my coalition colleagues do not support the introduction of legislated menopause leave. We believe it is something that should be assessed at a business level, with more flexibility being provided as required. And who is to say that by mandating menopause leave it wouldn't lead employers to consider that hiring men is more cost-effective, ultimately leading to unintended consequences and exacerbating the gender disparities in the workforce. Despite some disagreement on this point, I was pleased the committee was able to agree to the report's other recommendations, including the need for further awareness and education and the need for a broader community based awareness campaign aimed at destigmatisation. This is particularly prevalent in the healthcare sector, with the committee hearing evidence of the lack of education among primary care physicians. In some cases, as we've already heard, there's just one hour during GP training spent on menopause. I actually recently heard from a GP who was told during their training that menopause patients are known as the 'sinking heart patient'—the one where you know they're coming in and you want to get them in and out as fast as you can. That was the advice she received from her training physician. One approach could perhaps be promoting a menopause specific check-up, along the lines of the prostate awareness material for men, as women approach midlife. And, in support of that, also encouraging healthcare professionals to participate in modules to educate and specialise in women's health, including menopause. They are available. We heard evidence that the lack of expertise among healthcare professionals had led to delayed diagnosis and treatment options, including the reluctance among health professionals to recommend hormone replacement therapy. Coalition senators highlighted the importance of enhancing access to menopausal hormone therapies as they are crucial for women experiencing severe symptoms. Also, ensuring equitable access is a key element in effectively managing the more debilitating effects of these conditions. We all want to improve the experience of women in midlife who are experiencing perimenopausal and menopausal symptoms, and I want to reiterate my thanks to all those people involved directly and indirectly with this inquiry. The majority of the findings of this report are sensible and designed to increase awareness, destigmatise symptoms, and provide access to treatments and supports. We also encourage further research with a view to developing new pathways into vocations related to these conditions. It's only through focused education campaigns, awareness campaigns and efforts to destigmatise and create understanding that will we be able to foster flexible arrangements at work that have the best chance to succeed. Bringing these conditions and their symptoms into the conversation is important if we are to truly destigmatise perimenopause and menopause. I thank the committee for its role in helping to shed light on it as we seek to improve the experience for women in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 98 Delegated Legislation Monitor 98 18:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I seek leave to make a statement beyond one minute. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Leave is granted. Senator O'NEILL 140651 Thank you. I present Delegated legislation monitor No. 11 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise with some pride in the work that this committee is doing to address Delegated legislation monitor No. 11. This monitor reports on the committee's considerations of 69 legislative instruments registered between 23 July and 15 August 2024. I note my committee member Senator Paul Scarr in the chamber and thank him for his goodwill and his integrity in the way in which we discuss these matters. It's a great committee to be a part of. In this monitor, the committee has concluded its examination of the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2024. The committee has been engaging with the Minister for the Environment and Water on this instrument since monitor 6. The instrument regulates the export of mixed wastepaper and cardboard from Australia. It requires exporters to hold a wastepaper and cardboard export licence, which carries obligations including recordkeeping. The instrument also provides matters the ministers may or must consider in making decisions relating to an export license, including to accept an undertaking to pay a license fee. In monitors 6 and 9, the committee sought further information from the minister about a broad discretionary power included in the instrument. The instrument provides that a fee charged for a wastepaper and cardboard export license, renewal or variation is taken to have been paid if the minister has accepted an undertaking to pay the fee. The instrument requires a minister not to accept an undertaking unless the minister has regard to a number of factors, including 'any other matter considered relevant'. The minister previously advised that the factors relevant to determining 'any other matter' may be unique and not easily identified; however, the committee pursued the matter, seeking more substantive guidance on factors, including examples. The minister responded by providing helpful examples of some matters that may be relevant to determining whether to accept an undertaking that a fee will be paid, including the reason the liability has not been paid and Australia's relations with the importing country. The committee welcomes the minister's undertaking to amend the explanatory statement to include the advice provided to the committee about the broad discretionary power. The committee notes it does not expect explanatory statements to include an exhaustive list of relative factors and considerations for a decision-making power; however, to help users of the law better understand their rights and exactly how the instrument operates, it is important to include examples of relevant matters that may be taken into account. On the basis of the minister's undertaking, the committee is pleased to conclude on this matter. The committee also raised scrutiny concerns about the nature and scope of personal information that may be collected under the instrument and about applicable privacy protections. The instrument requires license holders to keep certain records, including documents that demonstrate the licence holder's compliance with the enabling act, and the committee considered information previously provided by the minister on the nature and scope of personal information collected as part of this recordkeeping requirement and privacy safeguards. We asked the minister whether this information could be included in the explanatory statement. The committee thanks the minister for her subsequent undertaking to amend the explanatory statement to include this information. On the basis of the minister's undertakings to update the explanatory statement, the committee is pleased to conclude its consideration of this instrument and thanks the minister for her engagement with the committee. The committee has also resolved to withdraw the motion to disallow the instrument, and I gave the chamber notice of the committee's intention to withdraw earlier today. I am pleased to advise the chamber that the number of undertakings that have been outstanding for more than 90 days has continued to decrease—to 21 in this monitor. In the past sitting fortnight alone, 16 undertakings have been implemented. The committee welcomes the ongoing engagement from agencies and ministers and their commitment to the timely implementation of undertakings. The committee is continuing to closely monitor outstanding undertakings in line with its new practice. I would also like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of the committee's scrutiny principles and expectations. It's an assumption that senators know the role of the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee, but that is not always the case. It is an important part of the way in which laws are made and managed in this place. The role of the committee is actually to assess both disallowable and exempt legislative instruments, set against a set of scrutiny principles that focus on compliance with statutory requirements, the protection of individual rights and liberties, and principles of parliamentary oversight. The committee's 13 scrutiny principles are actually outlined in Senate standing order No. 23. It makes very clear, for those who are organising a response to the committee, what is required for us to be able to consider what is being proposed by the department or the minister. The committee has also published guidelines on its website that outline the committee's expectations as to how each of the scrutiny principles may be addressed in an instrument's explanatory statement. The first of these principles, principle (a), asserts that delegated legislation has the same force of law as an act but its making must be first authorised by an act of this parliament. Part of the committee's scrutiny work is to assess whether delegated legislation is made in accordance with its enabling legislation and complies with other legislated requirements, such as whether there are any limitations or preconditions to making the instrument. The committee then examines all explanatory statements to check that these required matters are actually addressed. For example, the committee expects that all explanatory statements set out the enabling act and provision that provide the authority to make the instrument. If the enabling act states that the instrument can only be made once statutory preconditions are met, the explanatory statement should set out what those preconditions are and how they were achieved before making the instrument. Principle (a) ensures delegated legislation has been legally made under primary legislation and that the explanatory statement clearly explains this. Under principle (a), the committee will also assess whether explanatory statements meet the requirements set out in section 15J of the Legislation Act. This section requires certain information to be included in an explanatory statement, such as the purpose and operation of the instrument. The committee expects all explanatory statements to include this information as well as how the consultation requirement under section 17 of the Legislation Act has been satisfied. Other Legislation Act requirements that may be relevant include explaining whether any part of that instrument operates retrospectively and, if so, whether there is any disadvantage to the cohort affected by the instrument. By assessing explanatory statements against the Legislation Act requirements, the committee can ensure that these important accompanying materials explain the operation and effect of legislative instruments for users of the law. Let's not forget that the users of the law are the Australian people. This is about making sure that they can find out what it is that they have to comply with. It's as simple as that. That's really what we do. Further, the committee scrutinises each legislative instrument under principle (b) to determine whether it's constitutionally valid, including whether it appears to be supported by a constitutional head of legislative power. This principle is most often relevant for delegated legislation that authorises expenditure on grants or programs—so this bit's about the money. To be clear, questions of constitutional validity are for courts to determine. However, the committee may raise constitutional concerns or questions to the attention of the Senate in particular circumstances. Where an instrument authorises expenditure, the committee expects that the explanatory statement will clearly identify the constitutional head of power that is relied on to support the expenditure and explain how those heads of power apply to the grant or program to provide authority for the expenditure. Principle (b) is also relevant to the committee in identifying possible infringements on the separation of powers, doctrine or the implied freedom of political communication. In these cases, the committee expects that the explanatory statement will clearly justify how these important constitutional measures are not infringed upon. I advise the chamber that going forward I will continue to use this time to explain the committee's scrutiny principles in a public place and hopefully in an accessible way in order to inform not just the chamber but those listening, the Australian people, of the committee's expectations with regard to explanatory statements to legislative instruments. It sounds very complex and very detailed, but it's about making sure Australians can get the information they need when they're engaging with the law through delegated legislation. It's with these comments that I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 11 of 2024 to the Senate. Debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 100 Scrutiny Digest 100 18:49 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present Scrutiny digest No. 12 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest No. 12 of 2024. The digest contains the committee's consideration of 14 bills introduced between 9 and 12 September and amendments passed during this period. The committee has commented on five bills and three amendments. A number of these bills seek to include a variety of matters in delegated legislation, including in relation to anti-money laundering provisions, the Guarantee of Origin scheme and the wage increase for early childhood education and care workers. Where matters are left to legislative instruments, the committee expects a sound justification for their inclusion in delegated legislation in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill. As delegated legislation is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny that primary legislation is subject to, the committee is concerned that matters intended to be included in delegated legislation are matters that should instead be debated in parliament. This is particularly the case when the matters relate to Commonwealth funding, provisions that create exemptions from the operation of primary legislation and the inclusion of offence or penalty provisions. For example, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, which is currently before the Senate, and the consequential amendments bill would provide that much of the Guarantee of Origin scheme is administered by rules and regulations, including a provision allowing the rules to prescribe a circumstance where a requirement under the bill does not apply. The Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 would enable the criteria by which a grant of public money will be awarded to be set out in non-legislative guidance. Finally, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 would allow for regulations to prescribe certain elements of exceptions that apply to an offence created by this bill. In all of these instances, the explanatory memoranda failed to include an explanation of why these measures were necessary and appropriate for inclusion in delegated legislation, and as such the committee is seeking advice from relevant ministers. Finally, I wish to highlight the committee's comments in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024, which seeks to make a number of amendments to the existing offences of targeting a group or member of a group based on certain protected attributes. It does so by seeking to expand the list of protected attributes, lowering the fault element for existing offences, introducing new offences relating to the threat of violence or force and seeking to remove defences of good faith. By removing these defences this removes existing safeguards that aim to ensure the offences are not overly broad, noting the potential impact of these offences on freedom of expression. The committee considers it has not been established why it is necessary to remove the defences entirely from these provisions without providing the court with the discretion to consider the circumstances in which the speech was made and has sought further advice from the Attorney-General in relation to this very important and very sensitive matter. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 12 of 2024 to the Senate. Debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 101 DOCUMENTS Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Defence, Great Barrier Reef 101 Order for the Production of Documents 101 18:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Great Barrier Reef, the 2026 census and Defence workplace behaviour. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Canavan, are you seeking to take note of the ministerial statement? Senator Canavan 245212 I rise to take note of general business notice of motion No. 608, order for the production of documents, on Tamboran Resource. It was due to be tabled last week, on 12 September. My advice is that it has not been tabled and that I could speak about that delay in this section. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 To be clear, Senator Canavan, I am advised that the only matters that could be spoken about are the matters that have just been addressed to the chamber by the minister. Senator Canavan 245212 That's not what I was advised. Okay. Thank you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 We can seek further clarification offline, but that is my advice at this point in time. (Quorum formed) COMMITTEES 101 COMMITTEES Energy Planning and Regulation in Australia Select Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 101 Membership 101 18:58 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 18:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Energy Planning and Regulation in Australia — Select Committee — Appointed— Senators Ghosh, Grogan and Waters Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Brown, Ciccone, Cox, Darmanin, Faruqi, Green, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, McKim, O'Neill, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and Whish-Wilson Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator Shoebridge. Question agreed to. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 101 Reference 101 18:59 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Before moving the motion, I advise the chamber that Senators Hanson and Roberts will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Hanson and Roberts, move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 March 2025: The benefits of establishing an independent and transparent judicial commission to encourage public confidence in the justice system and uphold the separation of powers, with particular regard to: (a) current and best practice complaints handling and resolution processes related to judicial officers and courts administration; (b) the financial cost associated with establishing such a commission; (c) current and best practice processes to support appropriate scrutiny and accountability of courts, commissions and tribunals, to ensure equity is upheld; (d) processes to improve efficiency of the justice system; (e) how the Commonwealth Government can support the effective and efficient administration of state and territory courts, tribunals and commissions; (f) how costs are awarded and whether reform in this area is required; and (g) any other related matters. I was motivated to move this motion as a result of a friend who works in the legal industry—I had not heard from him in a long time—sending me a message a few weeks ago. It basically said that we needed a judicial commission. I was surprised that he sent me this. Within the next 24 hours, I had another friend also send me a text message with a link showing that the Queensland Law Society has long advocated for the establishment of an independent judicial commission in the state. I've had a number of people over the years come to me with various gripes about the legal industry, and it's something on which I've said,: 'Look, separation of powers—the judiciary is the judiciary. We're in politics. We're the parliament.' But I think it's time that we had serious consideration of how judges come to their decisions. There's a famous saying: 'Who will guard the guardians?' I know that throughout my time here, in estimates, we often ask the bureaucrats questions and we don't really get satisfactory answers, but at least it's a process where we can expose the workings of government and people can see them. It frustrates many of my followers, I know, but I do think that, by shining a light on the practices that occur, eventually we will seek to improve the level of quality assurance and service delivery and, hopefully, lift the standard of decision-making. It's for that reason that I think we need to make the same decisions in regard to the judiciary. I don't pretend to be a legal expert by any means, but I know that, when I did my Master of Tax Law, I was often intrigued by some of the rulings that I just thought were totally irrational or dysfunctional and didn't make a lot of sense. On a personal level, I've always been very frustrated by the Tasmanian dams decision, whereby Bob Hawke back in 1983 took the state of Tasmania to court—or was it the other way around, with Tasmania taking the federal government to court?—because the federal government wanted to use the foreign treaties power to override the plenary powers of the state government to control water in their state. The High Court ruled in favour of the federal government that time, but, if you ask me, I don't think for a minute that our founding fathers, when they framed the Constitution and gave foreign treaty powers to the federal government, intended that 50 or 100 years later the federal government could sign a treaty with a foreign body and then overrule the state government, which has the plenary powers with water. It's always intrigued me—well, it hasn't intrigued me. It's actually been a frustration of mine. In that case, I felt that was judicial activism. I don't think the people of Australia would have wanted that, because it diminished the sovereignty of the states. Last week I tried to move a motion to look at reforming the roles and responsibilities of state and federal governments, but I think that is something that should be dealt with by the parliament; I don't think it should be dealt with by activist judges. Almost 40 years after that Franklin Dam decision, we had another bizarre ruling out of the High Court that also greatly frustrated me, and of course that was Palmer v Western Australia, where Clive Palmer took Western Australia to court over the fact that Western Australia had closed its borders. Section 92 of the Constitution clearly says we have free movement and free intercourse amongst the states. In the High Court ruling, the High Court judges relied on an obscure case from the late eighties to do with the sale of crayfish between South Australia and Tasmania. That also came under section 92, but it was the trade and commerce limb of section 92, not the free intercourse limb of section 92. In that case back in the eighties, Cole v Whitfield, the High Court ruled that Tasmania had rights to fisheries and responsibility for fisheries and could block South Australia from selling crayfish into Tasmania. That is fair enough. It is the role of state governments to control their fisheries. But comparing dead crayfish to the live movement of people is, to me, cherry-picking and a bridge too far. To somehow argue that the sale of crayfish could be a precedent for the movement of people among the states epitomises how the judges in this case did not really want to be activists; they just wanted to wash their hands of the whole thing. They just picked some obscure case and said, 'Oh, look, here you go: we're going to merge the limbs again. People, crayfish—what is the difference?' Well, there happens to be a big difference because, as we saw, many people were unable to see their loved ones pass away. Mothers were unable to cross the borders to give birth. We had people sleeping in cars and tents and whatever rendered homeless because they could not return to their home states. These judges need to be held accountable for their decisions. Now, don't get me wrong. No-one is perfect and you are not always going to get it right but we need to stop judges from using precedents to cherry-pick a case because it might suit their objectives or because they want to wash their hands of a particular case. I am sorry but the judicial system has a responsibility under the separation of powers to hold politicians to account through the courts, okay? Because we can't have politicians not being held to account by the judiciary when we have those separations of powers. We need that genuine separation of powers. Obviously the politicians are not going to hold themselves to account because we have that internal conflict of interest. These are some of the reasons why. An interesting article was sent to me when the Queensland Law Society did advocate for the establishment of an independent judicial commission. They said, 'The primary aim of such a commission is to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice and to promote the separation of powers. A strong and independent judiciary is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system as well as government and public institutions.' That is a very, very good point, because in the last 12 months a case was taken in front of a judge. The judge ruled that these particular applicants had no standing. It turned out that the judge had represented the defendant in prior cases and had never disclosed her connection to the defendant, or what would have been the defendants had they got standing. Yet again, you have got to ask yourself: why isn't this judge being held up to scrutiny for the fact that she did not disclose that she once represented this particular alleged defendant, or what would have been a defendant had standing been given? So, yet again, when it comes to judges, it is not always the fact that they wash their hands or they are activists. Sometimes they actually have a conflict of interest. These judges, like everyone else, need to be held accountable to the people. Just in the last week we had the issue of a lady in Victoria who was actually locked up for 22 days in the COVID pandemic because she did not wear a mask. The judge actually found in her favour that the Victorian government had acted incorrectly in locking her up. The young lady who was locked up in jail for 22 days for not wearing a mask was offered $15,000 to settle. She quite rightly wanted to take a stand because she wants to fight. It's not easy to take a stand against the big institutions in this day and age, because they will step on you if you take them on. To her credit, she had the guts to take them on. She won in court. But, lo and behold, the court ruled against her in terms of costs, and now she's got to find $200,000 to pay for her own legal fees. So this is another thing that we need to look at in this inquiry, if it gets up: the cost of trying to protect your rights or hold people to account—not just the government but big corporations or whatever. It's not easy. Many people just do not have the money to do this, because you are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there's no guarantee that, even if you do win, costs aren't going to be awarded against you. So I would recommend to people that we do vote this motion up. I know we've got a hectic workload and all that, but that's why we come down here: to fight the fight—to fight for freedom. I'll just throw one other thought in there, because I've had another constituent put this idea to me and I didn't know—and I stand to be corrected, because, like I said, I don't pretend to be an expert on all legal matters. Apparently, in the States, some judges are actually elected, and that way, if a judge gets too far away from what the community wants or expects, they get booted out of office through an electoral process. In other words, judges are elected and not selected, and I think there's some merit in that. I don't know if you'd want to take that all the way through to the High Court, but it would certainly be something worth thinking about at your local magistrate's office. In my home state of Queensland, where crime is rampant, are the magistrates cracking down enough? To be fair to the magistrates—with the greatest of respect—they may be bound by the laws made by the government of the day that prevent certain repeat offenders from being locked up. But these are issues that we need to look at. I'll finish with this: who will guard the guardians? I think that everyone should be held to account; everyone should feel as though someone is watching them, because, if they don't feel like they're being watched, they're inevitably going to get lazy and not necessarily maintain the integrity of their roles. So I'll finish on that, and I would strongly recommend that everyone support this motion to investigate the establishment of a judicial commission. 19:12 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia The government opposes this motion and calls out what is clearly an attempt to have an inquiry into courts—cloaked, on the face of the language of the motion, in what appears to be neutral language. But the breadth and nature of the terms of the inquiry suggest that it is little more than an attempt to set up a parliamentary inquisition into judges and courts, and nothing that has been said by Senator Rennick has done anything to allay that alarm—in fact, it has increased that alarm, because what Senator Rennick has just done is to open up a whole range of issues that suggest that this inquiry is not only a bad idea but would strike at the heart of judicial independence and our separation-of-powers doctrine. Taking a big step back: the Commonwealth Constitution establishes the parliament, executive and judiciary as three separate branches of government, but obviously the executive and the parliament overlap. The text and structure of the Commonwealth Constitution embody the separation-of-powers doctrine that is reflected in chapter III of that document, and that concerns the judicature. It has been articulated in a number of cases by the High Court, including the Boilermakers case back in 1956. But perhaps most importantly, the institutional and societal values that the separation-of-judicial-powers doctrine seeks to safeguard are judicial independence, the rule of law and the preservation of individual rights. It does it in a number of ways, but section 72 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that judges of chapter III courts: (i) shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council; (ii) shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session … on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity … It also provides that judges shall receive remuneration— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Ghosh, sorry to interrupt you; just hold for a moment. I might just ask for a bit of order in the chamber. It's hard to hear. Senator Ghosh, you have the call. Senator GHOSH 257613 Judges' remuneration shall be fixed, and that remuneration shall not be diminished during a continuance of their time in office. Judges also have fixed tenure up to the age of 70. Subject to the removal procedure outlined, they are there for the period of their appointment until they're 70. These constitutional guarantees of tenure and security of remuneration, as well as the process and narrow basis for the removal of judges, are intended to serve a fundamental tenet of our justice system—that is, the impartial and independent adjudication of disputes. That requires judges to be free from external influence, and it requires societal respect for judicial institutions. With respect to my colleague Senator Rennick, his remarks and the proposal that is before us today strike at both of those elements. The former chief justice Robert French, writing extracurially, said: The courts in a sense walk a tight rope between the executive and the legislature, responsive to community sovereignty, endeavouring to be sensitive to community values, but not yielding to the tyranny of the majority. Judicial independence and impartiality ensure that that is case. In a narrow sense, a judicial commission can serve useful processes, but the proposed inquiry would be a waste of the Senate's and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's resources were it to be in that narrow sense. Senator Rennick's remarks earlier today really struck at the heart of Australia's constitutional system and are to be deprecated. It was the United States Supreme Court, in Marbury v Madison, that said: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. The fundamental principle of judicial review has been accepted by the High Court of Australia on a number of occasions, but perhaps most prominently in the Communist Party case. It is vital to the maintenance of a separation of judicial power but also to the maintenance of a constitutional system of government that those judges are able to enforce the Constitution, to interpret what it says and to not be inquired into afterwards because members of this place or members of an appointed judicial commission take issue with their reasons. That sits at the heart of what Senator Rennick has said here. The expressions are truly alarming—'various gripes', 'bizarre decisions'. Decisions of courts that essentially Senator Reddick just disagrees with would be subject to inquisition because of that disagreement. The role of the courts in providing important checks and balances on the exercise of powers by the parliament and the executive cannot be overstated, and you cannot put parliamentary scrutiny of judicial reasons through an inquisitorial body or executive scrutiny of judicial reasons through an executive body above that independence and that ability to enforce the law and to interpret the law at a judicial level. It's also the case that courts provide an important public service in resolving disputes, and, in holding the power to interpret laws and determine their application in individual cases, they provide a vital function of dispute resolution in our society. That is not something that this parliament, or a judicial commission created by it, should lightly interfere with. Our courts are fundamental to the good governance of our society. It is important that they continue to be based on the highest standards of integrity. There is a role for a judicial commission in that context, but it is a very narrow one. Australia has a very good record and a proud record of being served well by our judiciary. As with other branches of government, our courts must serve the Australian people, and it is important that the Australian people are able to see that integrity is at the heart of our judicial system. Our legal system and our laws must be transparent and accessible. The laws, rules and structures of our legal system should be understood by those applying the law and accessible to people who are outside the legal community and those who are served by it. That's why the Australian Law Reform Commission was asked to conduct an inquiry in 2021 into judicial impartiality and the law on bias. The commission produced a report entitled Without fear or favour: judicial impartiality and the law on bias. The terms of reference required the commission to specifically consider: whether the existing law about actual or apprehended bias relating to judicial decision-making remains appropriate and sufficient to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice; whether the existing law provides appropriate and sufficient clarity to decision-makers, the legal profession and the community about how to manage potential conflicts and perceptions of partiality; whether current mechanisms for raising allegations of actual or apprehended bias, and deciding those allegations, are sufficient and appropriate, including in the context of review and appeal mechanisms; and— a range of matters related to those terms of reference. That goes to the heart of ensuring the integrity of our legal process and our judicial system without engaging in a free range inquiry or inquisition into judges and courts when they hand down decisions that people in this place or outside it simply disagree with. In assessing this, the Law Reform Commission was required to consider the law and procedures of courts in the context of other institutional structures and practices supporting judicial impartiality and public confidence in it. There have been a range of Senate and other inquiries into this topic previously as well. They range back to 1993. There was the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the cost of justice: checks and imbalances. There was the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into gender bias and the judiciary, from 1994. There was the same committee's inquiry into legal aid and access to justice in 2004. There was the inquiry into Australia's judicial system and the role of judges by the references committee in 2009. There was also the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs into the family law system in 2017. The Australian Law Reform Commission considered these various reports and was guided by the following principles: the court has a vital role upholding judicial impartiality; the limits of judicial partiality are determined by the function of courts; litigants and the public have a legitimate interest in judicial impartiality; the law is shaped and dependent on the other institutional structures; and transparency, equality, integrity and fairness are crucial complementary values. The commission found in its report that public confidence in the Australian courts is high. The Australian judiciary respected internationally for its integrity and its impartiality. The commission crucially also found that the substantive case law on actual and apprehended bias, as clarified by the High Court of Australia, does not require reform—that is, that the law on this is right. It's not to say judges are perfect, because, of course, they're not, but the law relating to bias and the law requiring impartiality in judicial decision-making in Australia is sound. To that end, the commission made 14 recommendations directed at further promoting and protecting judicial impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary. The Albanese government at the time welcomed those recommendations. They were intended to enhance transparency and consistency and to reinforce public confidence in the judicial system. Most of those recommendations are related to federal courts or chapter 3 courts, relating to action that was required. I want to talk about three of those recommendations specifically. They were the ones that were directed to the Australian government. Recommendation 5 calls on the Australian government to establish a federal judicial commission to consider complaints about the judiciary. At the heart of my speech today is not an objection to a judicial commission per se; it's an objection to referring these terms of reference to a Senate committee, and then it's enlarged to a deep and truly worried objection to what Senator Rennick seemed to be implying about what the scope of that inquiry would look at and reforms that he would seek to flow from it. The creation of a federal judicial commission does have wide support, and it is supportive of transparency while not undermining independence in our judiciary. The government has since held a public consultation on the scope of a federal judicial commission, and that sought input from stakeholders and interested members of the public on the model and key features of a federal judicial commission. It is an important institution, but it needs to be very carefully calibrated so as not to undermine the independence of judges and courts and so as not to undermine public confidence in the court system, which is high. The second recommendation relevant here is recommendation 7: The Australian Government should develop a more transparent process for appointing federal judicial officers on merit … That is a recommendation that this government has wholeheartedly adopted, and the Attorney-General has reintroduced a transparent, accountable and merits based appointment process for the federal judiciary as a priority. No matter what the bodies of the Australian government are, whether they be courts or executive bodies or commissions, appointments to them must be merit based. It is an essential principle that everyone in this place should adhere to in order to ensure the long-term and successful functioning of institutions in our society. The final recommendation I will speak about is the recommendation on diversity, which was recommendation 8: The Attorney-General (Cth) should collect, and report … on, statistics regarding the diversity of the federal judiciary. Promotion of adversity at high levels and in high institutions is important, and it's important to have the data to inform that kind of policymaking and those kinds of appointments. The Attorney-General is also engaging closely with federal courts and the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration to consider how collecting additional data on the characteristics of the judiciary can occur and how best to deploy this research in order to deliver better appointments. There have been a number of inquiries into this topic by the Senate, and there's a stakeholder consultation process that's been undertaken, so the reference to the committee is not required. The scope of what Senator Rennick was talking about would strike fairly fundamentally at the concept of judicial review in our constitutional system, it would strike at the independence of our courts and it would strike at public confidence in the judiciary. So I think ultimately it's a pernicious suggestion, and it is a suggestion against which this Senate should set its face. 19:27 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland The first statement I should make is that if this reference did go to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, which I chair, we would have the benefit of Senator Ghosh's obvious deep well of experience, and I commend the senator on the thought and reflection which he put into that contribution. If this did go to the references committee, we would have the benefit of that expertise, along with that of other members of the committee. I don't see Senator Rennick's terms of reference as necessarily being objectionable on the face of it. My main concern is the workload of both the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. There's a lot of important legislation coming through this place. It does need rigorous examination, and we also already have some very important references which we're trying to finalise. I believe—and I say this in good faith—that all of us need to consider the workload which is placed on the secretariat in particular and their ability to manage inquiries such as this. So I'd just like to put that on the record. I don't believe Senator Rennick is proposing anything other than in good faith. I think that Senator Ghosh's reference to the independence of the judiciary is actually reflected in the preamble to the terms of reference, which talks about upholding the separation of powers. There were some remarks that Senator Rennick made with respect to what he considered should be the ambit of a judicial commission, which I think would be ventilated in the course of an inquiry. On the face of it, from my perspective, I would have thought a judicial commission would need to consider what role it plays in terms of section 72 of our Constitution, dealing with the judicature, which Senator Ghosh referred to. Senator Ghosh referred to the provisions accurately. This parliament does have a role in terms of considering the removal of a judge on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, but there is a question as to how this parliament would come to that view. I think a judicial commission potentially has a role in that regard. But, as I say, the committee on which I'm serving at the moment has a very large workload, as does the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and I think the Senate needs to consider that, notwithstanding, on the face of it, the worthy nature of this referral. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 106 ADJOURNMENT Domestic and Family Violence 106 19:30 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales On Friday I will be chairing a hearing into financial abuse as part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. This inquiry was brought to the committee by my good friend in the House the member for Swan, Zaneta Mascarenhas. Ms Mascarenhas has long been an advocate for women's issues, and her insights have been of great benefit to the quality of the evidence received so far. I also want to indicate the unanimous support of the members of the committee in advancing with this inquiry. Financial abuse is a form of intimate-partner violence whereby money or the financial system is used as a means of coercive control. It's insidious in nature, deeply scarring in harm and, unfortunately, not widely known in the community. Its breadth can be hard for ordinary, decent Australians to comprehend, and it was often frightening to hear the cunning methods that abusers employ. The committee has heard evidence from financial institutions, victim-survivors, advocacy groups, academics, frontline workers and independent experts on the prevalence and devastating impact that this form of intimate-partner violence causes. Evidence to the committee has outlined the mismatch in understanding of the debilitating impacts of financial abuse—including financial coercion, manipulation and fraud—and the existing legislation and enforcement mechanisms. I should also put on the record that we have heard about financial abuse by children of their parents and the abuse that's enabled in that context by a range of sophisticated instruments that give power to children which is then abused by those who acquire that power. The sophistication of abusers in controlling and turning the apparatus of the financial system against victims, often with lifetime impacts, warrants action, and on Friday last week we heard from a remarkable woman who gave chilling evidence: Julie Adams, the mother of a victim of intimate-partner violence. Her daughter was Molly Jane Wilkes, may she now rest in peace. Julie described her daughter as a beautiful, feisty and kind 22-year-old who, sadly, took her own life after years of coercive control by her husband. In November 2020, Molly left to go to the USA to visit her, at the time, ex-partner, and just a few months later they were married. During their very short marriage, Molly was subject to relentless abuse and extreme control. Julie said that her daughter's abuse was emotional, financial, sexual and only occasionally physical. He sent thousands of messages calling Molly vile, derogatory names and demanded she provide money at his will. As an illegal alien in the US, she lived an extremely lonely and isolated life. When she finally hung herself—death by suicide in the garage of their home in Las Vegas on 28 July—she was alone, but her bags were packed. She was trying to leave. In the context of the hearing last week, we heard a new term that was truly shocking to me, and that is 'suicide by domestic violence'—just the constancy of harassment and intimidation leading people to such a point of hopelessness that they feel they cannot go on. Sadly, by evidence of her mother, Julie Adams, that was the case that we saw with Molly Jane Wilkes. Sadly, in a story the committee has heard many times, the financial abuse of Molly Jane Wilkes didn't end with her death. Molly's perpetrator was eligible, under the superannuation act as it stands, to claim her $64,000 of superannuation and death benefits. He was legally able to benefit from her death—the death of a woman he abused. This loophole in legislation exists and even if Molly's abuser was convicted of a domestic violence offence, he still would have been eligible for the payout. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Superannuation is such an important system that was created to level the playing field. I will lend my efforts to ensuring that— (Time expired) Central Land Council 107 19:35 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I stand before this Senate to provide a statement on behalf of the former chair of the Central Land Council, Matthew Palmer. He wrote to me: Dear Senator Nampijinpa Price, I write to inform you of the outcome of the Central Land Council meeting held yesterday in Tennant Creek where my position as the Chairperson was terminated effective immediately. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, I have Senator Gallagher on her feet. If you wouldn't mind resuming your seat. Senator Gallagher? Senator Gallagher ING President, we've raised this a couple of times today. I understand Senator Nampijinpa Price would like to read that letter. We didn't provide leave for that letter to be tabled earlier today, particularly because it raises the names of a number of individuals. I'm wondering if Senator Nampijinpa Price might at least omit the names that are included in that correspondence until suitable investigations have been able to be had. There are serious allegations being raised and individuals being named in that correspondence, so I'm wondering if that's the way to deal with it in a more appropriate way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, are you seeking to respond? Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 I'm happy to take on your advice and will continue to read the statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Okay, so you've heard the request from Senator Gallagher? Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 I have heard the request; yes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Thank you. He says: I am an Arrernte elder who accepted this position with the view that I would be able to make a difference in the lives of our indigenous mob and to be their voice in an environment of injustice and corruption. … … … I brought my grandfather Joe Ross, Arrernte men Randall Williams and Brian Young to the meeting for support. I was told they were not allowed into the meeting, that the meeting was for staff and delegates only. I was not afforded the right to procedural fairness, neither was I given to opportunity to present my case, the decision makers were not impartial, and they had a personal interest in the outcome. I felt unsafe in the meeting room. I was asked to leave the room on three separate occasions; further, my legal team was shown little courtesy, my barrister via teams was closed out mid-sentence. Ms— … Shaw (CLC Delegate Region one) had threatened the delegates should they not cast a vote they would lose their position within the CLC as delegates. She said, "So you mob need to place your vote, or you will lose your position in CLC". I was subject to seriously unfair treatment. I was given limited opportunity to give my case, beyond a few very leading questions. This meeting, called in Tennant Creek undermined my support base in that my mob weren't able to travel. The Warrumungu mob were in support of Barb and— the deputy chair— and this put me on the back foot from the outset. I walked into a lion's den, I felt the meeting was hijacked by— Ms— … Shaw and— the deputy chair— … and delegates were bullied … The meeting was scheduled to start at 8.30am but did not begin until after 3pm and went until … 7.30pm as the deputy chair was late having not complied with council rules by failing to be on site the day beforehand. People were obviously leaving and coming back in and it was monopolised by— Ms— … Shaw who refused to consider any arguments raised by my lawyers. The meeting was forced to go very late into the evening as a result. I was handed a letter by Kate O'Brien (Principal Legal Officer CLC) at the conclusion of the meeting. This letter was a significant document. There is no way in which this letter could have been written in the time between when the decision to remove me was arrived at and when it was handed to me. I was then swiftly taken outside to remove my personal belongings from the— Central Land Council— vehicle and to return the vehicle. This left me, my grandfather and family without means to return to Alice Springs. The letter given to me did not outline the reason for my termination. This was humiliating and disrespectful to me and my family who watched on in horror as this took place. At this time, I still do not understand why this is happening and I am in shock. I understand that Warren Williams was appointed Chair from today 17 September and Barbara Shaw will be Deputy Chair. Today I'm receiving phone calls from delegates expressing their deep concern for an unfair process dealt to me by the land council. I implore you to share my story to right this wrong. … … … Matthew Palmer. I have also been updated on the circumstances surrounding this that the Arrernte men, Mr Randall and Mr Brian Young, had the police called on them when they inquired as to why they could not be there in support of Mr Palmer. They were then informed by the police to move themselves 50 metres away from the entrance of the building. They had done nothing wrong. They were there respectfully supporting the now former chair. It is disgraceful that this conduct even occurred. This is what goes on out of sight, out of mind. This is what traditional owners in remote communities whose first language is not English have to deal with. If you know English, you are a step ahead, just as the now deputy chair well knows. I am outraged by this conduct and everyone in this place should be utterly outraged. The minister should be investigating. Since it has been suggested in this chamber, I hope there is an investigation into this matter because I will not be resting until there is. Middle East 108 19:41 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania On the morning of October 7 2023, Hamas terrorists launched an attack on Israel. They did not focus on the Israeli army's installations though; they attacked, raped, murdered and kidnapped innocent people, not to mention what happened to the children. This included Jewish refugees who fled the war in Ukraine and Jews who had escaped other countries to come to Israel after the Second World War. Hamas did not discriminate. They brutally attacked those young people at a music festival—Thai, Nepalese, migrant workers, and Christian and Muslim Arabs—who, as writer Lee Yaron put it 'had the gall to live among Jews as fellow citizens'. On 9 October, pro-Palestinian protesters marched to the Opera House steps in Sydney. The Opera House was lit up in white and blue, as was Parliament House. At this stage, Israel had not responded to Hamas's declaration of war. The crowd, these un-Australians—I refer to them as gutter trash—waved antisemitic banners and flags and chanted 'eff the Jews' and 'eff Israel'. As the Premier of New South Wales said the next day: 'To have some people celebrate atrocious indiscriminate killing and kidnapping from Israel is appalling.' Jew haters wasted no time. They called into question the truth of what happened. They questioned the rapes, the murders, the torture and the taking of hostages, of whom 97 remain in tunnels under Gaza to this day. In Australia, Jewish schools advised mums and dads not to put their kids in school uniform. Jewish parents told their children not to admit they were Jewish. Swastikas were painted on Jewish businesses and on the streets of Jewish communities. Six hundred Jewish Australians had their private details leaked and put on the internet. Jewish university students reported they felt unsafe on their own campuses, as more and more of them had to walk past pro-Palestinian rallies chanting hateful antisemitic slogans and calling for the death of all Jews. In this country? And we saw the hard left and the Greens use the events of October 7 to justify their anti-Israel views, shifting the blame for the massacre from the victims to the perpetrators. Instead of listening to calls from our security services to avoid divisive language, some in this place and the other, mainly the Greens, did everything they could to whip up division and hate. I have been increasingly horrified by the antisemitism in this country and, like the Australian Human Rights Commission, I ask myself: how could this possibly be happening on our own home soil? It was such and is such shameful behaviour that it makes me feel ashamed of my own country and it makes me angry and, at the same time, it makes me terribly sad. Attacking the Jewish community, painting hateful symbols on our war memorials, attacking electorate offices is not going to bring the terrible suffering of Israelis and Palestinians to an end. I ask that all Australians call out the hate speech, antisemitism and Islamophobia wherever and whenever they see it. Finally, I would like to wish all Jewish Australians a happy new year. At this time, we must remember the victims and hostages and the amazing resilience that the Jewish community has in the face of unimaginable adversity. I will be lighting a Yahrzeit candle on 7 October, and I encourage all Australians to show their love, support and appreciation of the Jewish community. Agriculture Industry 109 19:45 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The Australian government, the Albanese government, has gone to war against almost every industry—resources, business and, notably, the agriculture sector. Look no further than the ban on live sheep exports, which will have an enormous impact for the sheep industry and associated industries and for rural and regional communities everywhere. When our farmers do it tough, so too there is a ripple effect for every Australian. In my home state of South Australia the agriculture sector is already facing a difficult season, and the Albanese government is just making it worse, with more red and green tape, more regulation that does nothing to improve productivity or prosperity. Farmers work the seasons and know each year is different. South Australia had a very wet 2023, including severe weather lashing our state in December, ruining more than 50 per cent of the cherry crop and other fruit. But Mother Nature has since delivered a different story. It has been a dry run in 2024, topped by this week's uncharacteristically severe September frost. This winter's crop production is forecast to fall by nine per cent, and for canola it will be more than double that. Farmers are already talking of transporting fodder from across the border, yet another financial burden in a never-ending cost-of-living crisis. Every Australian is impacted when farmers are hit hard. You know that because it is you, the public, who is paying at the supermarket checkout. The Prime Minister's face should be on every single supermarket receipt, every insurance bill and every utility bill, because it is his economic mismanagement that is adding to your costs. No matter if you are a vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian or meat eater, this is relevant to you. We know South Australians are paying at least 12 per cent more for their food, and South Aussies have had the sharpest increase in the nation. This month, fruit and vegetable prices have seen their highest rise since December 2022—higher prices and less choice. Higher prices are pushing more families to the brink and ever more are lining up to Foodbank and other charities, people who haven't been seen at these charities before. These are the new working poor—hardworking Australians who know that every dollar they earn is buying less because their real wages are down, along with their living standards. It is no coincidence South Australia has the most renewables in our energy mix. We also have some of the highest power prices in the country. This week we've heard there was no modelling on whether a newly constructed $600 million hydrogen hub in Whyalla will result in cheaper power for consumers despite investment by both the South Australian and federal Labor government. Just like you, farmers are also paying more for their electricity and petrol. They are, like you, desperate for relief. But the piggy bank for many has already been raided. The Albanese government is not working for those in the cities, towns or regions and has failed to do what matters to make a difference for all of us. They tore up the agriculture visa even though agriculture needed 172,000 workers. They made enormous cuts to regional infrastructure. On water buybacks, they ignored the need for economic and social safeguards. They are locking up fertile farming soil on a reckless race to renewables, installing 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines and in situ infrastructure as well as clearing thousands of hectares of native bushland. They have made industrial relations changes impacting casual employment, which agriculture and regions rely heavily on. They're asking farmers to pay tax on unrealised capital gains on superannuation. It is unfair. It is madness. The 39,000 people employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in South Australia, my home state, deserve much better. Those living in regional, rural and remote areas deserve attention, because when farmers are hit by government or by Mother Nature, all of us, everywhere across Australia, are impacted. The Albanese Labor government would do well to remember that. When farmers are impacted, we are all impacted, wherever we live. Freedom of Speech 110 19:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Well, it turns out that it's not only One Nation who is fighting to defend free speech in Australia. There are fighters for this most important democratic right everywhere. I am delighted to tell a story about one of these great Australians, a 14-year-old young man named Liam, and the lesson his history has for members of this parliament. It was about three months ago, in a year 9 classroom in Queensland, that an assignment was given to students: nominate your personal hero, write a speech about them and deliver a speech to the class. Our intrepid young speechwriter began his assignment by nominating me as his hero. Liam's teacher immediately told him he couldn't do that as I was a figure that was 'too controversial'. Believe me when I tell you that this is not the first time this has happened in an education setting. The teacher then suggested a number of other public figures, none of whom Liam considered to be his personal hero. Liam decided that he'd go ahead anyway and write a speech about Senator Pauline Hanson. He wrote about me representing forgotten Australians and never giving up. He wrote about my pride in Australia and my patriotism. He wrote about his own pride in Australia and his own patriotism. He wrote about my views on multiculturalism and its impacts on our nation. He wrote about how I put Australia's best interest first. He wrote about my love for my country and how he shared it. And he wrote about bringing common sense back to Australia's political system. I think that last point was a very astute observation for a young man at the age of 14. Many politicians have only a very tenuous relationship with common sense. For standing up for himself, Liam got a failing grade and was forced to miss the sports session he always looked forward to at the end of the school week. He spent that session in detention. He was detained for standing up for his right to freely express his views. Over the past few years that has become an all-too-familiar story all over the western world. That's why Liam wrote to my office to let me know what had happened to him. I was humbled by his description of me, and we should all be humbled by his personal courage. Understandably, I was also outraged at how he was treated. He was a young Australian who defied arbitrary authority to stand up for his right to free speech and his right to express a political opinion. Regardless of his opinion and whether you agree with it or not, he showed great courage and he deserves great respect. He exercised the most important democratic right any of us have and he did so with dignity. I know his parents are very proud of Liam. In fact, his mother wrote to the school to protest his treatment and demand a passing grade for having successfully completed his assignment. She was successful in getting Liam a C-minus. I've since read his speech and I've given it a B-plus. I'd like to have given Liam an A, but I strongly believe we should always give our young people something to strive for. It has been my privilege to host Liam as my guest in Parliament House today. It has been my privilege because Liam stood up for a democratic right I have championed since I first came to this place 28 years ago. Liam's story is a reminder that freedom of speech is a fundamental right that we must always protect, because there will always be those who try to take it away from us. Liam's bravery is an example we can all follow. It is Liam who is the real hero of this story. I say to teachers out there: 'How dare you criticise someone who chose me or anyone else? That is their choice. You asked them to do it, and yet you want to strip them of that right to choose who they want because, in your political opinion, I am too controversial.' That's not what should be taught to our kids. Critical thinking should be taught, a way of thinking to encourage. But our teachers today are forcing their own political opinions on young students coming through the system. Is that really what we want? I don't think so. That's not the Australia that many people have fought and died for, for our right to freedom of speech and right to an opinion. So he is hero to all Australians who believe in the right to freedom of speech and to all Australians who stand to defend it. And do you know what, Liam? You are my personal hero. Thank you. Senate adjourned at 19:55