2024-09-19 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 19 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 BILLS 1 BILLS Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is a delight to rise to speak on the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024, which is an important piece of legislation for this Senate to consider, given the abrogation of duty by this government when it comes to doing the right thing by the people of Australia—communities that need a government that serves in the national interest, gets the balance right and does the right thing by those who need them to. We are moving this bill because the government refuses to do the right thing. Let's go back through the history of how this Labor government decided a goldmine should not be built near Blayney, in the central west of New South Wales—McPhillamys goldmine, which would create 800 jobs, generate $1 billion worth of economic activity through its construction phase and return hundreds of millions of dollars of royalty revenue to the state of New South Wales annually. Of course, royalty revenue is how we pay for hospitals, how we pay for schools and how we deal with the growing need for essential services in all our jurisdictions. But the opportunity to take that revenue has been denied to the state of New South Wales, and now they will be hundreds of millions of dollars worse off. This mine and its tailings dam had full state and federal environmental approvals. For five years, this project and all associated with it went through the Independent Planning Commission in New South Wales. The project has complied with every requirement under state law. It has met every environmental standard and every planning requirement, and cultural heritage considerations were dealt with at that stage. So, the project got the big tick. The state of New South Wales, with its rigorous process, backed it in. And I'll come back to this a bit later, but New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns seems to be, as far as Labor premiers go, a pretty good one, calling out the federal government on making the wrong decision here. The mine also had full federal environmental approval. The EPBC Act is known for its fraught nature. It is broken. It is out of date. This government have committed to fixing it, although they haven't yet and won't be during this term of parliament—a broken promise. But the fact that these laws had been complied with, that this project had met every standard required of it under the EPBC Act—including the tailings dam, which is the subject of contention here—was not enough for this government. There was full state and federal environmental approval and planning approval, and cultural heritage considerations were met and dealt with, but still here we are dealing with a situation where this Labor government has used another piece of legislation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, section 10, to stop this project from going ahead. It's a terrible outcome. It's a terrible situation for the people of Blayney and for Australia in particular. The biggest concern, though, is not all of these matters related to the economy and to the fact that this met with full environmental and planning approval and had dealt with cultural heritage considerations in an appropriate way. It's the sovereign risk issue that now rears its head. It's the fact that investors overseas are looking at Australia and going, 'Even if you have full state and federal environmental, planning and other approvals, you might still have your project knocked on the head.' Regis Resources, the company behind the McPhillamys goldmine—the one that would have created 800 jobs, generated $1 billion of economic activity in the life of its construction and then generated all that royalty revenue—themselves said, 'Why would anyone look to come and invest here if you can comply with every law and then out of nowhere a decision can be made of this nature?' We tried of course to convince this Senate to overturn this decision. We moved a disallowance in the last sitting week and, by one vote, sadly missed out on the opportunity to do so. We're still waiting for the minister to provide a statement of reasons, the one that's required under the act, to inform this Senate, the community and the proponents why she actually made the decision she did. We had a motion in this place to ask for that statement to be provided by Monday just gone. Instead we were given another document, not the one we asked for. But the interesting part of this is that even the government voted with us on that motion. The Australian Greens, however, decided to vote against it. Why they would not want the minister to comply with the law and provide a document that she is, by law, supposed to produce baffles me. What's to hide? Why cover it up? Where's the transparency here, particularly when it comes to a project that had met every federal and state approval and had dealt with all of the cultural heritage considerations? Given we have not yet been able convince parties in this chamber to do the right thing by the people of New South Wales, by the people of this country and indeed by some of the groups I'm about to reference, we've introduced this bill. It's to give everyone another chance to tell Australians and the international investor community who they're backing in. Is it the inner-city voters, who tend to vote Green, in Sydney and Melbourne, or is it the people of Australia, who require employment, and the investors, who want certainty rather than sovereign risk? Let's see where people vote when ultimately we come to a vote on this bill. So why are we doing it? It is in the national interest for us to pursue this issue. The government has failed to do what's right, so the opposition has had to take this on. It is in our national interest that we have a thriving mining sector, one that complies with the law of the land, which this project did on so many levels. It's in our national interest, it's in our economic interest and it's in our social interest to have this project commence. I want to go to some of the things that have been said by those closer to the process. I might start with the CEO of Regis Resources, Mr Jim Beyer, who wrote to a number of members of this place on 4 September. I'd like to quote from some of his letter. It was a letter that I understand also went to the minister for environment, Minister Plibersek. He says; This decision has ceased progress of the Project indefinitely and caused uncertainty within the community and the wider mining sector about the viability of investment in Australian mining. This puts paid to the claim made by the minister that 'they can just go back through the assessment process. They can just find another location for their tailings dam. This doesn't cause sovereign risk'. The reality is that it does. This is someone who knows a thing or two about what it takes to invest in these projects. I might add $192 million was written down in relation to this project, including the purchase, the cost of complying with all the approvals they did get and the cost of going through the section 10 process, which has ultimately killed this project. It isn't just a tailings job they've blocked; it is the entire mine. If anyone in this place can find me a mine without a tailings dam, I'd love to know about it. The proponents of the mine seem to think you need a tailings dam, or else this mine won't work. Mr Beyer goes on to say: As part of the application process— that is, the section 10 application under the ATSIHP Act— over a number of years, more than 1,700 pages of expert reports, legal summaries, representations were submitted by Regis Resources, including 15 expert specialist heritage reports. Regis also engaged six separate expert archaeologists and anthropologists through the assessment process as part of the section 10 application. That goes again to the point around Regis having complied with every federal and state requirement: environmental, planning and cultural heritage. All of it was complied with based on expert advice, science and fact. I'll go on: … since 2016, Regis actively engaged and consulted with 13 registered Aboriginal parties, including the section 10 applicant. The application that was made at the beginning of this process in 2020 and the ultimate application that was decided upon were very, very different. Mr Beyer goes on to say, 'As a result of this process, it culminated in a situation where the final decision made by Minister Plibersek was made on claimed cultural significance that bears no resemblance to the original claims made on the initial section 10 application.' How could things shift so markedly in that time? How could a claim made with such certainty in 2020, about cultural heritage considerations, be completely different to the one a decision was made on? Is it not fact? I would love to know how, and this is why we've been asking for the statement of reasons. Mr Beyer also said: Additionally, as part of the section 10 process, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council submission clearly indicated that there was an absence of reasonable basis to assert particular Aboriginal cultural significance of the Belubula River, it's headwaters and springs. That is, of course, the local land council recognised at law as the authority able to speak on behalf of country. The minister also made a claim that mining companies want to go for the cheapest, easiest and most convenient option, implying that Regis Resources was cutting corners and wasn't seeking to comply with the law. Mr Beyer puts paid to that. He says, Minimum cost was not the primary selection criteria at any time. The construction methodology chosen for the site is downstream and is one of the most expensive, and also one of the safest. He goes on to say, 'Given the minister said, "You can't build your tailings dam here," for reasons we still don't understand because she hasn't given us the statement of reasons, to find an alternative site for the TSF'—that is, the tailings facility—'could take anywhere from five to 10 years.' Alarmingly, he also points out: Should the minister have harboured other environmental concerns in relation to the project— as she has cited in some of her commentary in relation to this project— such as downstream water quality or destroying the river, one might question why the minister had already herself approved the project on environmental grounds through the EPBC decision— as well as rigorous environmental approvals through the New South Wales government process. I'll tell you what: that is alarming reading for someone who is making decisions about the future of investment in Australia. There are other views in relation to this which need to be taken into account. Let's listen to the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, because this is, of course, in relation to Indigenous cultural heritage. They say the proposed development 'would not impact any known sites or artefacts of high significance'. They go on to say that it's a matter of concern to the council: … that a range of claims have been made on this issue, by people and organisations lacking the experience, expertise and authority to hold themselves out as authorities on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage … We question the motives of people and organisations who participate in promoting unsubstantiated claims and seek to hijack Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in order to push other agendas. This is the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council saying this. That is incredibly concerning and, of course, the applicants were supported by Labor's taxpayer funded Environmental Defenders Office too, which is worth noting in this debate. I want to conclude by reflecting on another Indigenous leader, Wiradjuri elder Roy Ah-See, who had the courage to come to Orange and speak to the community there about Ms Plibersek's decision. The minister decided not to come to that bush summit. She was invited and would've been made very welcome if she had come to explain her decision. Mr Ah-See wrote to Minister Plibersek around the same time as Mr Beyer. His letter says: You and your advisors completely rejected their evidence— relating to his community— and have disrespected these highly regard Wiradjuri elders. Your advisers never even spoke with them. This is disgraceful. It's obvious your minds were made up. You and your advisors have refused to accept the OLALC authority to promote and protect Aboriginal Culture and Heritage under Section 52(4) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Your recent interview on ABC morning news, you stated that you and your advisors, spoke to— in the minister's words— the MOST APPROPRIATE GROUP in this matter, therefore, you have systematically made the 121 Local Aboriginal Land Councils which make up the Land Rights Network irrelevant. It points to concerns now of the undermining of a structure and a regime that was in place to empower traditional owners around what happens on country. That's been undermined. Mr Ah-See says it himself. He says: You have created a category and given authority of a group of people outside of Native Title. Recently one of these people was engaged by a local farmer and was caught dropping artefacts on a proposed wind farm area. These same people in a recent event in Bathurst stated that all land is Aboriginal land regardless of freehold title and they will be claiming it back. Your comments and decision has paved the way for all environmental groups to stop any economic development on land handed back any LALC within the network. There are a range of concerns about this process. How can a project which had full environmental planning and cultural heritage approval at state and federal level be knocked on the head like this based on claims made by a group that Indigenous leaders, Wiradjuri elders, are saying have no authority to do so? This Senate needs to do the right thing, and it should support this bill to do it. 09:16 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The mover of this bill, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024, is the shadow minister for the environment. Up until the point when this bill was introduced, I had always thought that he had a position and that the Liberal and National parties had a position that we should apply the law, that the law should be upheld and that the rule of law was an important thing. But what this private senator's bill indicates to us is that, if the mover of this bill were ultimately the minister for the environment under a Mr Peter Dutton led government, the law would not be upheld and actually it would be overturned when it suited the minister. That's not what this parliament should do by considering this bill, and it's not what the Australian people would want. I think it is really important to get the facts on the table when it comes to this piece of legislation and the minister's decision. There have been a number of pieces of misinformation out there, particularly by the mover of this bill but also by others who have been talking about this decision, so it is really important to get the facts on the table and to reiterate from the very beginning that applying the law is something that, on this side of the chamber, we think is the appropriate thing to do. Those opposite seem to think that you can pick and choose the laws that you apply. The Liberals and Nationals rightly know that our government is required to make environmental decisions in accordance with the facts and in accordance with the law. It's what happens in every single case. It's what's happened here. It's what happened under the previous government. It's not appropriate to comment on the detail of the specific approvals before the minister, because we know there are processes involved with a decision like this. But I can say that the government understands that the company wants the cheapest and easiest option for this project. That's their prerogative. That's their job to do. The company wanted the government to tick off on this project exactly how they had planned it, and others wanted the project to stop altogether. But that's not what the minister decided. The minister did neither of those things. The minister, in making this section 10 decision under the law, protected a small area so that a waste dump can't be built on the headwaters of a springs of a river that's significant to local Aboriginal people. Protecting heritage and development is not mutually exclusive; we can do both. The government hasn't blocked the mine completely. But the minister's decision protects around 400 hectares of a 2,500-hectare site. It's about 16 per cent of the site that's being considered. The company has an opportunity to find a more appropriate site for their waste that avoids cultural heritage, and I welcome the news that they are working with the New South Wales government to do just that. I note that both the CEO and the chair of the board have bought tens of thousands of shares in the company since the minister made this decision, and the share price is up 20 per cent. So these doom-and-gloom predictions for this project are not accurate; they are misinformation, and they don't reiterate the facts of this case. Clearly, the company and shareholders think that there is a way through, looking at this project and other places to put this tails dam. The minister has ticked off on more than 40 mining projects, and we don't assess projects without knowing the details or applying the law. We don't do what those opposite are promising to do, or what this legislation promises to do, and ignore the law completely. What should be deeply concerning to the Australian people and to those in the Senate is that the opposition leader has said that he would approve projects without knowing the details or applying the law. This is deeply concerning. It's proof that the Leader of the Opposition would plunge Australia back into the type of chaos we saw under Scott Morrison. Nobody in Australia forgets the situation where we had multiple ministers in multiple ministries because the previous Prime Minister didn't like the decision that was being made on PEP-11, so he decided to become the minister for resources, the Treasurer, the health minister and a couple of others, and go beyond what the scope of the decision would ever be. It is really important that we don't go back to that type of lawlessness. We need transparency and accountability because those who oppose the decisions and those that agree with them need the facts in front of them. We don't want to go back to a process where, like under Scott Morrison, the Leader of the Opposition is showing he's prepared to ignore the law, cut corners and play favourites. Clearly, the opposition want a system where getting projects approved depends on whether they like you or not or whether you're mates with them rather than whether you comply with the law. That's no way to run a government. We would go back to the world of sports rorts, car park rorts and robodebt all over again if the government started behaving in that way. It's a dangerous way to operate—a recipe for uncertainty that will scare off investment and kill jobs and that won't increase the amount of renewable energy projects we need to transition to net zero. The Leader of the Opposition must immediately explain whether there are other projects that he'll approve or axe without knowing the details or applying the law. The Liberals have said they'll halve environmental approval times, but they haven't said how they'll get there. We know that environmental approval times blew out under the previous government because they failed to fund the environment department properly. We know what Peter Dutton really means when he talks about quick approvals; it means Peter Dutton will waive through approvals on his pet projects without any consideration of their environmental impacts. Not even the previous government were prepared to do that—and we've talked a lot in this chamber about the decisions made under the previous environment minister, including a section 10 decision. It is extraordinary that we're now in a situation where the Liberal and National parties would go against that type of decision and say, 'There is no place for a decision like that under the law, so we need to change the law itself.' I understand why the Liberals and Nationals are sensitive about the environment and economic development and projects, because under their government they had 22 energy policies and landed none. We saw them abolish climate laws and laugh about sea levels rising in the Pacific and we saw renewable energy investment scared off. It was a world in which there was no further economic development, because nothing was getting done, and the environment was being destroyed at the same time. Their response to this process has been to say that a decision like this shouldn't have been made under the law, and we don't agree with that. But it does make me concerned about what would happen if the Liberals and Nationals were in government. What would happen to the environment and cultural heritage if that were the case? Would they propose to abolish the ability to protect cultural heritage under section 10? That is essentially what's being proposed in this legislation today. A decision was made by their current deputy leader, Sussan Ley, under section 10, and a decision was made by our minister, under section 10, to protect cultural heritage. What they're essentially saying today is that they would abolish that protection. We have seen what happens in this country when cultural heritage isn't protected. We saw the damage to Juukan Gorge. We saw the irreversible destruction of cultural heritage, which is a shame on this nation and should never happen again. There should never be another Juukan Gorge. So it is incredibly important that we have laws in place to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, and it is really important that rulings are applied according to the law, not with the minister being given an opportunity, like those opposite are proposing, to overturn decisions and overturn these laws. The bill also makes me incredibly concerned about what the Liberal and National parties have in store for other types of environmental laws. We know they don't support changes to the EPBC legislation. We know they don't support nature positive laws. We know they don't want to protect the environment. It makes me really concerned about the other types of legislation they'll overturn on day one in office. It is really concerning when we hear from those opposite that there are things that are more important than cultural heritage and environmental protection. We need to have laws that protect the right to develop projects but also ensure that we protect our environment. We've heard from those opposite, from time to time, their intention to repeal water quality legislation that protects the Great Barrier Reef by ensuring that we have better water quality. We know there's a lot of work to do in that space. Would they rip up those laws if they had the chance? I think so. Would they rip up laws that regulate the amount of land clearing that can happen and the regulations involved in that? Would they abolish cultural heritage legislation altogether, so that there is no system to protect our ancient cultural heritage. I come to this debate and this decision from a point of view of wanting to protect our environment and our cultural heritage but understanding that we also need to have a systematic way in which to approve the construction of projects across the country. I don't deny that the balance is difficult, but it's something we must grapple with. Those opposite are saying that there's no need for a balance because there's no need to protect cultural heritage and the environment. The problem with that is that, once we lose cultural heritage and special protected places, things like the Great Barrier Reef, they are gone forever. You can't get them back. You absolutely cannot get them back. If the Liberals-Nationals are proposing to abolish laws that protect cultural heritage and protect our environmental assets, like the Great Barrier Reef and other World Heritage listed assets, they should say that. If that is their plan, they should tell the Australian people that, because once we lose those very important environmental and economic assets, like the World Heritage listed places they are talking about, we will never get them back. I don't seek to speak for the traditional owners in this country on Aboriginal cultural heritage. I'm very grateful for the time with them and the way I've learnt from them. But cultural heritage is a gift to this country that we should protect. It is recognised by people around the world as something unique and important to our country, and we should have laws in place to protect it. That is the view of our government: that when there are laws in place to protect cultural heritage they should be applied, and decisions should be made with the full raft of evidence available. Cultural heritage is a gift, and once it's gone you cannot get it back; it is gone forever. What an incredible loss, if we see those opposite, given the opportunity, destroy the environment, destroy cultural heritage and slow down environmental approvals by defunding the environment department. That is what we would see under the Liberals-Nationals. That is why we are not supporting this legislation. It's an outrageous stunt from the Liberals-Nationals. It is a complete degradation of their responsibility in wanting to be an alternative government. They should be ashamed of themselves for even putting this forward. (Time expired) 09:32 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to contribute to the debate on the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024 proposed by the opposition. I first want to go back to what section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protection Act represents: cultural heritage. Having a cultural heritage linkage in this country is about identity. It is about existence. It tells a story of where people came from, where people lived, where they camped, the place they have a connection to in that country. Section 9, section 10 and section 12 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protection Act are all important elements of that. They give us the right to contest decisions, the right to alert the government of the day, the minister of the day, that ancestral remains exist in a place, that there are sacred places that may not be recorded, and stories—the intangible and tangible cultural heritage that may exist and that may have never been recorded because people have not had the opportunity to do that or may not be aware of the processes by which they're able to do it. We know that in this country there are many native title determinations that are still coming down the pipeline. I'm not a native title lawyer, but my claim group have been through the native title determination process twice in the High Court, and the thing I did was pay attention. I paid attention to the amazing amount of archaeological material and stories from my ancestors, from my old people, gathered during that time, recorded by anthropologists and held in trust by lawyers through our claim group. All of these stories allowed us to prove to the High Court that we had a linkage through our cultural connection in Noongar country to one of the largest cultural blocks in this country, an amazing part of the south-west area of Western Australia. Now, within that, we had the opportunity to have a conversation about what should be protected and what land came back. There's a settlement process, settlement of the native title, a determination—and there is even a recognition act in the Western Australian parliament that recognises Noongar people—that said 'always was, always will be'. It's that conversation. There's a conversation that is batted around in this place and even outside, in the media, that we should stop having those conversations. We should stop acknowledging that this land belongs to First Nations people. It's never going to stop. We're going to keep acknowledging that that's what happened—that sovereignty was never ceded in this country, because it was not. It has not been. And, if you paid attention to any of the things during last year's referendum and read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, you'd understand that sovereignty is a spiritual notion. It is about the way we care for country. It is about the way we care for everything in the environment and the unique biodiversity that this country has and always has had in relation to that. Before I came to this place one of the things I did was work as a policy officer. I thought to myself, 'We're going to keep having this conversation in this place because the opposition are absolutely on a one-way ticket for this election to keep bandying this issue around, to keep dividing the nation, to keep baiting people in a conversation to divide and to tell us that we are not important.' They think that they proved that we shouldn't have progress in this country after last year's referendum result. Okay, the Voice was won. Well done! Great campaign! But we're moving on. How about truth-telling? How about agreement making so that we can resolve the unfinished business of this country? How about that? Cultural heritage is right at the heart of that. I know of plenty of section 10s that are on the minister's desk, still awaiting approval. But in this instance, for Kings Plains and the declaration attached to that section 10, Minister Plibersek has taken the opportunity to protect that area, as did—you heard from Senator Green's contribution—the previous minister for the environment, Ms Ley, in the other place. In her duty as the minister she chose to, under section 10, protect this area. It's consistency, right? When we make laws in this place, we should think about their durability, not that they're just going to last one government. If you're the alternative government, either side of this chamber, and you're going to keep that game up, then you're actually going to have to think about how this is going to be applied when you're not the minister or in power. I went back through, as I said, some of the policy that exists. This bill is talking about the section 10 protection of our cultural heritage against a tailings dam, a tailings dam that's attached to a goldmine. So the project will still go ahead; they just need to find an alternative place because of the cultural heritage that exists at those headwaters. But I thought I would go back and have a look at the leading practice policy for tailings management on DISR's website, and guess what? It comes from September 2016 and is still current, which means that this government never updated it. Lo and behold, if I go to page viii of the introduction, guess who signed off on it? Matt Canavan. Senator Canavan, when he was the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, signed off on this Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the mining industry.I see Senator Canavan will come on later in the speaking list. But what's interesting is that section 5.1 of this document actually talks about 'land tenure and use, including cultural heritage areas'. Wow! So this is the opposition's policy, followed by the government. They are following the law and the policy around tailings management and consideration of—lo and behold!—heritage areas. Section 5.1 also talks about 'social, recreational, commercial and heritage values that may be affected by the TSF'. So the area in which the minister has made a determination is based on the 'social, recreational, commercial and heritage values'. Well, imagine that! Imagine the government and the opposition having the same policy and following that legislation and it being consistent. That's the determination she's made, which makes this whole bill ineffective. They are seeking to overturn something that's been made by one of their own, Senator Canavan, when he was the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. But let's get to the really important part that Senator Duniam mentioned: sovereign risk and how foreign investment and economic development in this country are at risk because investors don't want to come here. Well, guess what? Here's the newsflash: 86 per cent of the mining companies in this country are already foreign owned. So don't come in here and talk about 'made in Australia' and all this sovereign wealth for Australia. No, that's a myth, and you need to cut that out. That's ridiculous. You are talking about attracting foreign investment here. You're supposed to be here to represent Australians. Then you want to talk about how cultural heritage should be destroyed—'Let's just get rid of it.' We've been down this track. As Senator Green said, the A way forward report about Juukan Gorge was an international news story—46,000 years of history, culture and connection for the PKK people, who had their rock shelters blown up by a mining company in this country, who had no remorse, having already been told that they shouldn't be within the perimeter to do blasting in the first place. But what's happening is the sheer ignorance because of the power of the resources companies in this country. You come in here and talk about the red tape, the green tape and now, as Senator Hanson mentioned yesterday, the black tape. Guess what? Here's a reality check. We are not going anywhere. We are not going to stop fighting to protect our country. We are not going to stop fighting to protect our identity. It is about time we settled the unfinished business of this nation, and that's what the A way forward report recommends. The recommendations when I sat on the northern Australia committee were very clear: it is time for truth-telling and time to fix the gag clauses of these mining agreements. Just recently we heard about another one, the BMIEA on the Burrup Peninsula, where Woodside want to make sure they can extract gas until 2070, ruin the wonderful rock art of the Murujuga area and make sure that those traditional owners never have a say and are unable to protect their cultural heritage. So we are seeing Juukan Gorge 2.0, and, if this bill gets up today, that's exactly what's going to happen. The speakers that will come in here after me today will talk about land councils, so I want to go to the point Senator Duniam made about land councils, because I think that's just unbelievable. My colleague Senator Shoebridge, a senator for New South Wales, spoke about this last time this was up, in relation to the OPD that the opposition tried to get up last week. On the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, anyone can be a member. If you're an Aboriginal person, you can be a member of the land council. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act in New South Wales empowers the land council to do the following: to administer the New South Wales ALC account and mining royalties account. Well, well, well; these are the people at the top of the tree. These are the people that, in fact, members of the opposition and those from the crossbench were criticising in here while they were chatting away during the division yesterday. These are the people who are at fault or responsible for all the things that they want to talk about, but they want to back them in when it suits them. When it suits their narrative, they're happy to back those people in—and we will see that right here on the chamber floor today, so keep watching, folks. They are also granted funds for payment of administrative costs and expenses for the local Aboriginal land councils. I know people that have moved—Murri people from Queensland, other Koori people from other areas. In fact, people from my home state of Western Australia moved to New South Wales. They had a phone call from the Aboriginal land council saying: 'Would you like to become a member? You're a landholder who bought a house here.' That goes against the whole principle of cultural heritage and your connection to that country. There are stories, as I said. There are identifiable sites, connection and identity that exist. You can't just, because you're a blackfella, go and live in somebody else's area and start claiming that you can sell it off because you want mining royalties—you absolutely cannot, and you should not. The opposition come in here and argue that they absolutely should, for Regis Resources—that Regis Resources should just bulldoze their way through and set up a tailings dam, even though we learnt our lessons with Ranger and Jabiluka about the danger of the waste from these areas. Tailings dams are not properly regulated, and this piece of policy that lies around on the DISR website is not up to scratch; it's not fit for purpose. The Minister for Resources in the Labor government should look at that, because right now we are continuing to see the toxic waste from these mining projects seep into the water. On top of that, the opposition are ignoring the farmers who are worried about 60 per cent of their water being taken by this mine. So here's the hypocrisy right here today. 09:47 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Despite the confected outrage you hear in this chamber quite often, there are a number of reasons behind the coalition's introduction of this private senator's bill, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024. Most of all, we hope a sufficient number of senators might see common sense and join us to overturn an utterly disgraceful decision made by the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, on 13 August 2024. That decision, which was to unilaterally uphold an Indigenous cultural heritage application under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, has now stopped all progress, as we know, on Regis Resources McPhillamys goldmine. I had the opportunity to visit Blayney, in New South Wales, the other week, and I can tell you that locals are very concerned with the current decision that has been made. The bill provides an opportunity to reverse the effect of the declaration made by Ms Plibersek, and it goes further than that; it exempts the entirety of the more-than-2,000-hectare mine site from any similar declaration in the future. To date, Ms Plibersek has provided little to no information regarding the events that led to her decision being made or even the considerations she made in deciding to enforce a section 10 ruling over the tailings dam for the Regis McPhillamys goldmine. By the time Ms Plibersek's decision of 13 August was made, many aspects of Regis Resources' Blayney project were already underway and a significant investment of around $200 million had been made. The mine would have delivered profound benefits and opportunities to the people of Blayney and the communities in the surrounding region, the state of New South Wales and, of course, our country as a whole. Over $200 million in royalties would have been collected for the New South Wales government to build and maintain hospitals, schools, roads and other public facilities. These are projects that the Greens seem to think just—poof!—come out of the air like magic. The project would have delivered around a thousand local jobs—again, they don't just come out of nowhere—and $1 billion in direct investment into Australia. It would also have delivered a number of job opportunities to local Indigenous people—but the Greens aren't interested in that either, and neither is this government apparently—resulting in social and economic empowerment of their communities. There's no interest in that coming from the government or their allies in the Greens. The actions of the Minister for the Environment and Water have rendered the entire project unviable. Regis Resources have said that they do not currently have any viable alternative options, and the project will now cease indefinitely. The company has made it clear that it would take at least another five to 10 years to even develop an alternative tailings dam option. Those opposite would have you think that you can pluck another place out of the air just like that—it's simple! In any case, after that, another Labor environment minister could simply impose another section 10 decision on the alternative site. The Prime Minister has shown extraordinary weakness on this matter too. Regis Resources wrote to him back in June this year, warning him that the project would have to be stopped if Ms Plibersek upheld the section 10 declaration. He failed to even respond to their concerns. Instead, he allowed his environment minister to go on her merry way and proceed with her detrimental decision. Our resources sector makes an enormous social and economic contribution to Australia, and the government puts our country's best interests in jeopardy when they heighten our sovereign risk with decisions like this one. In this debate, Labor senators will presumably fall in behind Ms Plibersek's pathetic excuses that Regis Resources could easily shift the tailings dam to another location—we've heard that repeatedly—that former minister Ley once did something similar and that the potential risks of Blayney right now are akin to those at Juukan Gorge in 2020. Again, there is confected outrage. These claims are false and have been discredited. Regis Resources have made it very clear that there are currently no viable alternative locations for their tailings dam. Ms Ley, when environment minister, did not personally scuttle a $1 billion project or cause $192 million in financial writedowns, nor did she cost a community nearly a thousand jobs. And, of course, it's ludicrous to compare what has been painstakingly considered and planned at Blayney with what happened at Juukan Gorge, but you'll hear those cries of confected outrage from those opposite. Ms Plibersek's declaration needs to be reversed and the project needs to be reinstated to ensure the local community and close to a thousand prospective employees are not left behind during what are already difficult times in a Labor induced cost-of-living crisis. Tanya Plibersek's disastrous blocking— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Excuse me, Senator. Can you please refer to people in the other place with their titles. It's 'Minister'. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Minister Tanya Plibersek's disastrous blocking of the Regis Resources proposed goldmine at Blayney—in short, she is of the belief that the construction of a tailings dam for the project would violate Indigenous cultural heritage in the area. That has now been made an unviable project. Accordingly, it will, along with the actions of Robert Tickner in the 1990s, in the infamous Hindmarsh Island bridge case, go down as one of the worst cultural heritage decisions ever made by a federal minister in Australia's history. It's an embarrassment, to be quite honest. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I find it utterly embarrassing when Indigenous Australians are used as poor excuses for blocking such projects in such a manner. It's of course important to note that Minister Plibersek's decision flew in the face of over seven years of compliance by the company, with a multitude of environmental and cultural heritage processes and obligations. Seven years! Just like that, with the stroke of a pen, it's brought crashing down. As part of this, Regis commissioned 15 separate extensive cultural heritage surveys. They also engaged in exhaustive and detailed consultations with at least 13 registered Aboriginal parties. But it only takes one to pull the linchpin and make everything come crashing down During that long, arduous and onerous journey, Regis successfully cleared every state and federal environmental requirement they were forced to meet—despite the confected outrage. They also satisfied, yes, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the body with local Indigenous authority under New South Wales law. The Orange land council reached the very clear conclusion that the construction of the tailings dam and the broader mine would not adversely impact any significant Aboriginal sites or artefacts. What's the point of having them there if they're not even going to be listened to? Regis's proposal also has the full backing of the New South Wales Labor government, led by Premier Chris Minns. Perhaps Minister Plibersek should listen to her own colleagues and to the Premier, Chris Minns, himself, because he clearly could see the opportunity this would produce for the local community and Australia more broadly. Among many other recent comments that have portrayed his disappointment and frustration with Ms Plibersek's actions, Premier Minns, on 28 August, said that the state's Independent Planning Commission's decision to allow the McPhillamys goldmine project to proceed was comprehensive and that it was also based, significantly, on the advice of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. He said, 'And, under those circumstances, I think the correct judgement was made.' If he is suggesting that the correct judgement was made then evidently Minister Plibersek's judgement was completely off. But for reasons known only to her—like, literally—Minister Plibersek thought she knew better than all of this, including the Premier of New South Wales. Seven years after the project was first conceived, and nearly four years after the Indigenous cultural heritage application was lodged, the minister swept in, at the equivalent of five minutes to midnight, to say that the proposed site for Regis's tailings dam was too culturally sensitive to be used. If we don't sort this out now, this issue will raise its head over and over again. This bill must be supported so that we can continue to allow projects that will ensure jobs are available to communities, including Indigenous members of those communities. Minister Plibersek chose to bypass— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. The time for this debate has expired. We move now to attendance by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. DOCUMENTS 9 DOCUMENTS Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 9 Order for the Production of Documents 9 10:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm pleased to provide this report to the Senate. In September 2023 the government commissioned the 20-year review into the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The review, led by former Federal Court justice, the Hon. Duncan Kerr SC, was the first review conducted into the IGADF in the two decades since its inception. The government received the review in March of this year. It is thorough and far-reaching at some 139 pages and makes 47 recommendations, which go to a range of complex proposed reforms. Since receiving the review, the government has been carefully considering its findings and how they may intersect with the work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Through this time, there have been consultations, including with the royal commission, the Department of Defence, other statutory agencies, the Attorney-General's Department, the reviewer and advocates in this space. The office of the IGADF has advised that, as part of the consultations, it conducted some 23 interactions with stakeholders and advisory organisations. In April 2024, the government provided the review to the royal commission to inform its consideration and final recommendations. On two separate occasions, the Commonwealth solicitors advised the royal commission solicitors the report had not been published and requested the royal commission carefully consider its use of the report, including any publication, pending the government's review of the report. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that the public release of the review was always intended to follow the release of the royal commission's final report. This is because the government's preference was to respond to the review and the royal commission in a holistic and practical way. Yesterday the royal commission issued a statement outlining the circumstances by which the report came to be published on its website. The statement makes clear that the decision to remove the report from the royal commission's website was made by the royal commission's official secretary. I am advised the official secretary made this decision after she became aware it was on the website on Tuesday 17 September 2024, when the royal commission's office was notified by Senator Lambie's office. I'm advised there was no direction or request from the government, the Deputy Prime Minister, his office, the Department of Defence or the IGADF to the royal commission to take the report down after it had been uploaded to the commission's website. I understand the Department of Defence has issued a public statement confirming this. The Deputy Prime Minister has advised me his office became aware the report was public on Tuesday afternoon at 4.19 pm, when it was contacted by a media outlet with the suggestion that there was a copy of the report in circulation. I'm advised that, by this point, the report had already been removed from the royal commission's website. As the senator is aware, the government commissioned the review into the IGADF. We also called for the royal commission whilst in opposition, We have moved quickly to respond to its interim findings in government and have committed to do the same for its final recommendations. The government remains committed to improving our military justice system and the culture of the Australian Defence Force, because we owe nothing less to the men and women of the ADF and our veterans. The government remains willing to engage with Senator Lambie in that process. 10:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation. It's been nine days now since the report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was released. The report was released last Monday. On Friday, you decided in your wisdom that you'd also release the alleged war crimes report right in their faces—how insensitive—and then we had the debacle that this has been. This report on the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force has actually been on the royal commission website since May, so saying it never should have been on there—that's rubbish. My other problem is I've got the original one that's off the website, which the commissioners have actually redacted for publication. There are names redacted from it—not a problem there. However, I noticed that little redacted thing that you gave me yesterday is now missing. Yes, that's now missing. So I've got to ask why you're trying to cover this up. This is dreadful—to hit the panic button and take it down. I tell you what's even more astounding is that there's nothing in that report. So you get it out there, and Defence goes, 'We've got a problem. We've got a problem here. Pull it down.' It's straight to cover-up, straight to a slap across those veterans' faces. Three years of coming forward, showing courage, telling their stories, putting their families through all this stuff again, and this is what's going on. The first thing you do when you're alerted is pull it down. I just don't understand why it would even be pulled down. I haven't checked this morning, but I hope it's back up there, because it should be, because there is nothing in this report that we haven't already heard from the royal commission. And I tell you why. It's because your government only gave Justice Kerr three months to get this done over the Christmas period, and yet your minister's had it for six months. As I think my request this morning was, I want to know who the minister has consulted and when he consulted them. I didn't hear that. I'm pretty sure that was in my request. I want a list. I want to see what he's been doing in the last six months—why this report was just sitting there. I need to know what the situation is today. The way you guys have handled yourselves in front of veterans in the last nine days has been extremely hurtful. The damage that you have done has been disgraceful. It's been so insensitive. But, what's even worse, you want to fight over this? You want to fight over this when it's quite clear that it says basically the same thing the royal commission does—that the IGADF is not fit for purpose. Our military justice system has been killing our own, those that have served. We've heard the stories. So this is what we need to do. We need to remove it from Defence because Defence cannot police itself; it fails to do so. That's the big story here. But instead of saying, 'Hey, Mr Gaynor, you're going today'—he has no conscience and he hasn't put in his resignation. So the hurt that is running around that veterans community, when no heads up at the top have rolled—none of those big senior commanders up there can see that they were part of this problem, especially over the last 10 years. They do not see fit to resign because they failed to do the job and they were part of taking veterans' lives. That's the big issue today. Nor have I seen your minister have any courage to say, 'You're all getting warnings'—who's getting warnings; who's going?—or at least make phone calls and say, 'I want your resignation tomorrow, mate.' I can tell you that, if you have a minister saying, 'I want your resignation tomorrow,' I doubt there's going to be much argument, because that would be shameful. I would hope that some of those big senior officers up there would have a little bit of conscience and shame still left within them. Until you start doing something, showing that you are actually going to take a big stick to this and you are going to take some of those awards off them—because apparently they were so great with their personnel!—no veteran's going to take you seriously. The sad point is—a mate rang me up this morning, he said, 'I'm really sorry; I know how much work you've done and what's happened here'— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Thank you, Senator Lambie. Senator Shoebridge. 10:09 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I also take note of the minister's statement. There's a reason why the government tried to hide this report, and it's because, on any fair reading of it, it shows why veterans and current serving members in Defence have no faith in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The report says: In times of conflict the lives of those who serve in the ADF can be put in hazard in the interests of their community. Such a risk is assumed by every individual who chooses to subject themselves to the command imperatives of military service. But the risks of rough justice, bullying, sexual abuse, inappropriate conduct or humiliation are of an entirely different character. That is the conduct that the inspector-general is meant to be policing and conducting enforcement activity against through the military justice system, and no-one in the organisation who isn't of at least one-star rank has any faith in the inspector-general. The report also says: The Review has become aware that a not insignificant body of well-motivated critics of the IGADF do hold a perception that the IGADF is 'umbilically-linked' to the command structure of the ADF. The existence of that perception is too widely based as would permit it to be ignored. No-one has faith in the inspector general, and that's why the government buried the report. Now we've had the most extraordinary performance from this government. Barely a week after the royal commission handed down its findings, Senator Lambie and a majority of members in this place are trying to get the government to release this report, and the government are hiding and hiding and hiding, desperately trying to not release the report. Then, when I and my office look on the royal commission website and find it has been published by the royal commissioners as an exhibit, we download it, share it with Senator Lambie and undertake to share it with the public and the veteran and serving community. And what does this government do? It deletes it from the website. They have been spinning and spinning and spinning in the last 24 to 48 hours. They leak a story to the Age, to James Massola, and they tell him that it was an accidental leak by the royal commission. There's a headline saying it was an accidental leak or an unintentional publication. That's their spin. It is not true—false, lies, not true. It was intentionally published by the royal commission, an act of the royal commissioners, not some employed secretary or some staff member who's responsible to the Attorney-General's Department. It was a decision of the royal commissioners. Their letters patent ended on Monday last week when they handed the royal commission's report to the government. In fact, when they handed their report to the government, their role ended. The royal commission ended. Their security passes were wiped, their access to documents was wiped and the royal commission ended. Now we're getting this spin from the government, including this extraordinary statement that purports to be a statement from the royal commission but which could not be a statement from the royal commission because the royal commission ended on Monday last week. There's an employee of either the Attorney-General's Department or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—I am not sure—calling themselves the secretary of the royal commission and purporting to make a statement on the part of the royal commission, when the royal commission ended. This isn't a statement made by the royal commissioners. I don't think they've even been consulted about the decision to remove a public exhibit that the royal commissioners had determined to publish. And why did they determine to publish it? Because they want their report to have credibility and, to the extent they relied upon any evidence, they undertook to publish it so that the veteran community and the serving members in the ADF could see the basis upon which the decisions were made. Then some official, without any reference to those royal commissioners, decided to delete it from the website. As for the government's position about accidental leaks and unintentional this and that—'Oh it was all meant to be covered by confidentiality'—I'm going to call bullshit on that, and now I'm going to withdraw that comment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Shoebridge, mind your language. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 It is lies, spin and deceit, and they've been caught out. Now we get this statement from the minister, who is again putting forward this false narrative that it was a mistake. It was intentional, and this government is editing the royal commission's report. 10:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia This has been a most unnecessary and most counterproductive bungling of these matters by the Albanese government. What we have seen through their mishandling, mistakes and bungling of the handling of these sensitive reports is an undermining of already shaky confidence and trust in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and an undermining of confidence in the government's commitment and ability to address the serious issues facing Australian veterans. As I've said in the various motions and debates that have occurred around these issues over the last couple of days, we owe the most profound debt of gratitude as a country and as a parliament, all of us, to the women and men of the Australian Defence Force who wear its uniform and the veterans who have worn its uniform. We owe them the best in the way in which we conduct ourselves and ensure that their interests, their wellbeing and their welfare are considered and cared for appropriately. The whole point of having had the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was to ensure that government turned a corner and turned a page in the way in which the treatment of veterans is handled and considered. Sadly the government's ham-fisted attempts to sit on the IGADF report and to fail to release it and then to accidentally release it and then to withdraw its public release and then to table it in this chamber under pressure have done nothing but undermine confidence in the genuineness and capability of the government to respond to these most sensitive issues. The release of the report of the royal commission, so fresh in people's minds, should have been a turning point in this debate. It should have provided confidence that the care and wellbeing of veterans were genuinely going in a new direction and on a new pathway underpinned by government transparency, accountability and honesty rather than government cover-ups and bungling. The coalition welcomed the tabling of the report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It contained 122 recommendations. It was a sweeping report. Those are framed around five key priority areas: the prevention of harm; early intervention; the need to improve communication, coordination and collaboration; the need to build capability and capacity; and the need to strengthen oversight and accountability. If we look at a couple of those key areas, the improving of communication, coordination and collaboration or the strengthening of oversight and accountability, how— Senator Shoebridge 169119 That's done well. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Indeed, Senator Shoebridge. How does anybody think that the bungling we've seen by the Albanese government shows any capacity to improve communication, coordination and collaboration or to strengthen oversight and accountability, when they have dragged veterans through this very sorry saga in relation to the IGADF report? Ultimately these issues must be bigger than politics. There are difficult issues here and there will be difficult questions in responding to all 122 recommendations. There may well be times when the parties of government will find that some of those recommendations might require honest discussions with the veteran community about whether all aspects of all of them are actually possible. So I hope that, despite the bungling and the difficulties of this episode, we can find a way now to put it behind us, to put veterans first and to actually ensure that the confidence and trust that has been undermined through this saga is re-established through a proper process to deliver on as many of those recommendations as is absolutely possible by government and to do so as quickly as possible to give veterans the support, the respect and the services they need and deserve. 10:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Well, the minister's explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge's motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government's response. The claim isn't that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn't meant to be released because the government didn't want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn't want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That's not good enough. An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn't get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we're left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we're quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn't lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust. The minister's explanation clearly isn't sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I'll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There's a way to make sure this is a win-win. I'll go through it again. It's making sure sensitive information isn't released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public. This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee's first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it's feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it's time to deal with this issue again. This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn't have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister's claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It's true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it. I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate's scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that's what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired) 10:24 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I'm going to make a brief contribution today in the debate that's arisen out of the minister's explanation on the release of the report of the Office of the Inspector‑General of the Australian Defence Force 20-year review. It's always interesting to listen to the debates in this place, particularly when some senators—not all, but some—try to reshape or rewrite history about the events around the making of such reports. As we noted from what I thought was a very clear explanation from the minister about how this document came into the public domain, it's also worth noting the public statements by the royal commission about the events that occurred and how the document itself came to light on its public website, and the processes by which many documents had been uploaded onto the website and the decision of the royal commission and its official secretary on how it handled that. So, I don't think it's fair to say that the government instructed anyone to remove the document from the website. In fact, I was in the chamber earlier in the week when Senator McCarthy, as the minister on the front bench here, tabled the document, just to avoid any doubt about the status of the document. But we hear from some in this place that there is somehow a conspiracy going on here, that the government is trying to cover up a document, trying to cover up processes whereby we are simply trying to ensure that certain documents are made public, as we did earlier in the week. But what we have from some senators, particularly those from the Greens, is some sort of conspiracy theory around the government trying to, they think, hide evidence from the Australian people. But the minister has made the processes very clear, as has the royal commission. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story! It's also important to note that the review was commissioned by this government, by the Albanese Labor government—not something that those opposite or the crossbench, the Greens, had advocated for. It was the Labor Party that asked that this report be commissioned when we first came into government, just as we also, when we first came into government, made sure the royal commission was supported from day one. That is something I was very proud to call on when I first came into this place, and I'm very proud that the Albanese government has supported that royal commission, unlike those opposite when they were in government. They refused to support the royal commission. Remember, they wanted some other forum, some other organisation to look into these organisations. Senator CICCONE 281503 I know that Senator Ruston and others on the other side will want to try to recast how history was portrayed. But the Morrison government did not support our veterans and did not support a royal commission into the suicides that were occurring in Defence and in our veteran community. Our government, from day one, has made it very clear that we want to back those who wear the uniform, and I know Senator Lambie is someone who is very passionate about this issue and has a very strong and proud history in terms of the support she and her office give to the veterans who constantly contact them for advice, and rightly so, given her advocacy over many years. But I know someone who is married to a veteran, and how important these issues are. And I want to make sure that governments, regardless of which side of the political fence they are on, address the core issues about why governments have had to get a royal commission up and running and why we commission reports, whether it be through the royal commission or whether it be the report that's in question here today that we tabled earlier in the week. It is important that we all get behind our veterans and make sure we do the right thing and fix the wrongs of the past. That is what this government has committed to do from day one. Yet we somehow get caught up in a debate about a document, about whether it was online or not, whether it should be tabled in the Senate or not. The main thing is that governments have to back our veterans. That is the fundamental point here, and that is something that we have been doing from day one. We've also made it very clear since taking office that it's unacceptable that there's been a backlog of claims that veterans have had to put up with for far too long. It's something on which we have said, 'Right, we need to fix that,' and that is why we are putting— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the Senate take note of the explanation provided by the minister. Question agreed to. BILLS 14 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 14

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

In Committee 14 10:30 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The committee is considering the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 and the opposition's amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2854, moved by Senator Ruston. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that amendments moved by Senator Ruston, (1) to (5) on sheet 2854, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [10:35]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 15 10:39 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 15

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Second Reading 15 10:40 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Pursuant to standing order 57(3), the Senate shall now proceed to a division on the motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading on the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 15 10:47 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Much of the preamble in relation to the introduction of this bill related to the context of sexual harassment, and obviously there was a concern in many quarters that there were impediments in relation to people bringing legitimate sexual harassment claims. But isn't it the case, Minister, that this bill doesn't just apply to claims relating to sexual harassment in the workplace? In fact, it does apply to and is intended to apply to claims under any federal discrimination law. Is that the case? 10:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, that's correct. 10:48 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland So, for the record, Minister, it covers every type of claim under the Sex Discrimination Act as well as litigation arising from complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act, the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. Is that correct? Does it cover any claims under any other piece of legislation? Have I left any out? 10:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It covers all discrimination acts—federal antidiscrimination laws. It's worth noting that a significant proportion of complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission are intersectional in nature. That means that they raise issues across a number of protected grounds or prohibitions under various pieces of federal antidiscrimination law. 10:49 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Can I just pursue that point that you've made about intersectionality. If we have a look at the complaints that were received by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2022-23, this is the classification by the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Australian Human Rights Commission identified 302 of those 2,562 complaints, approximately 12 per cent, as related to sexual harassment. Again, this is not my classification; this is the Australian Human Rights Commission's. In 2021-22, it was eight per cent. In fact, even if you take every different type of claim available under that legislation and add them together, less than a quarter, just 22 per cent, of all claims in 2022-23 were made under the Sex Discrimination Act. In 2021-22, it was 16 per cent. Could you confirm that approximately 80 per cent of claims, based on the Australian Human Rights Commission's own figures, aren't made under the Sex Discrimination Act at all, which covers more than sexual harassment, but are covered by this legislation. So, based on the last two years, approximately 80 per cent of the claims made by the Australian Human Rights Commission don't cover sexual harassment and don't cover claims under the Sex Discrimination Act and actually apply under other discrimination legislation. 10:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't have those figures to hand, Senator Scarr. But it is the case, as I understand it, that the majority of antidiscrimination complaints made to the Human Rights Commission relate to disability discrimination. It is important, though, that the same cost protection model applies across all protected attributes and all areas of public life covered by federal antidiscrimination law. Complaints that raise a number of grounds or raise issues across different antidiscrimination acts proceed together in the Australian Human Rights Commission and in the federal courts. That supports the efficient resolution of complaints. From the government's perspective it would not be practical for these complaints to proceed separately or for different costs regimes to apply under federal discrimination law. This would increase the administrative burden on the Australian Human Rights Commission, which would need to deal with complaints separately. The Australian Human Rights Commission itself has recommended that cost reform be consistent across federal discrimination laws, and that's what the government is proposing with this bill. 10:52 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I will be pursuing some of those issues. I note, Minister, that you didn't have the benefit of sitting on the inquiry that looked into this bill, so you don't have the benefit of knowing—or maybe you do know—that the Australian Human Rights Commission did not recommend this cost model. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommended a cost model where courts could actually use their discretion to take into account a range of factors and then come to a conclusion as to where costs should lie based on the interests of justice. So they did not agree to the cost model which is proposed in this legislation. It should be stated that Kate Jenkins, for whom we all have an immense amount of respect, when she put forward her proposal referred to section 570 of the industrial relations legislation rather than the cost model which is proposed under this legislation. I provide that by way of background in relation to further questions we'll be putting to probe this issue. In relation to the scope of the act, there's obviously a process underway whereby the government has been looking at introducing a religious discrimination act. Just for the record, if a religious discrimination act were passed and became law, would claims brought under the religious discrimination act also fall within this proposed cost regime? 10:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. 10:53 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I thought you might say that, but given the government is, in fact, engaging in considerable discussion of processes with respect to a religious discrimination act I would have thought that was something which you could provide an answer to, even if you want to take the point as a hypothetical at this point in time. But I'll move on. Let's talk about who these complaints could be made against. Could you please confirm for the record that the bill applies to complaints which could be made against schools, complaints which could be made against universities and complaints which could be made against other education providers, including in relation to matters other than sexual harassment. 10:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My understanding is that it is correct that it would apply to each of the parties that Senator Scarr has mentioned. Of course, it's very clearly set out in the act the types of parties against whom any discrimination claim could be brought. 10:54 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I want to get this on the record as part of the committee process. Could it also apply to complaints against sporting clubs, including in relation to matters other than sexual harassment? 10:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes. We could go through a very long list, Senator Scarr, but you are aware that, under the legislation, discrimination claims can be brought against sporting bodies. So the answer is yes. 10:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It's not so much with respect to whether or not I'm aware; the benefit of this committee process is for everyone listening to this debate. I have some further questions in that respect. Could it apply with respect to complaints against accommodation providers? 10:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland If a complaint is brought against an accommodation provider, then this would apply. 10:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It could apply to complaints in relation to the sale of land, for example. Is that correct? 10:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't know who you would see as the respondent in that matter. Are you talking about a real estate agent? 10:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Potentially. It could be a real estate agent or the vendor. 10:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland All I'll say is that this would apply to any group against whom a discrimination claim is brought. It might be efficient, Senator Scarr, if you give me a list, rather than us jumping up and down for every individual one. 10:56 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I think one of the benefits of raising each one individually is that it provides people with an indication, an understanding, of the scope of this legislation. The scope of this legislation does not simply apply to sexual harassment claims made, for example, against large employers. It's a very wide cost application under which, potentially, a sporting club or an educational institution can have a claim other than a sexual harassment claim brought against them and successfully defend that claim after they're dragged through the legal process and there will be no discretion for them to actually get their costs of having to defend themselves covered. I don't think that that is necessarily well understood at this point in time. So it's incredibly important that these matters are raised. I want to ask you, Minister, about a small business, maybe with only a few employees, that sells goods and services. Are they covered by this legislation? 10:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What I'll say now applies to each of the groups that Senator Scarr's asked about already. The bill is very clear that the commission needs to take into account, in any cost decision, the relative power of the parties. The commission would be required to take into account whether a respondent—I can't remember the exact wording in the legislation—has the resources, is large enough, to be able to bear those costs. That is the attempt of the government to ensure that this is done in an equitable manner. 10:58 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Again, Minister, I recognise you did not have the benefit of going through the committee process or having looked at these provisions in detail. The relevant provision actually states that, in a case where an applicant is unsuccessful, the applicant may be ordered to pay the costs under certain circumstances. So let's take a small business going through a court proceeding. If the small business that is responding to the court proceeding is successful—potentially, on all counts—in order for that small business to actually obtain its legal costs to defend itself all of the following needs to apply: firstly, the party that is a respondent is successful in the proceedings—that's our small business successfully defending itself; secondly, the respondent does not have—and this is the relevant phrase, Minister—'a significant power advantage over the applicant'; and thirdly—this one needs to apply as well—'the respondent does not have significant financial or other resources, relative to the applicant'. The concern has been raised, especially given the wording in the explanatory statement, that in the usual course an employer would necessarily have, just by the very nature of the employment relationship, a significant power advantage over the applicant. The explanatory memorandum actually specifically states that an employer has a power advantage over an employee—how could it be otherwise?—and in nearly all cases would have a significant financial or other resources relative to the applicant. Again, how could it be otherwise? It's nearly going to be impossible for a small business, potentially a sole trader, to assert their rights and actually get their costs that they've incurred when they've successfully defended a claim, which may not be sexual harassment; it could be any discrimination claim. So, Minister, I know you have a deep level of experience practising law. But I ask you to reflect on the actual wording now you've had an opportunity to look at the wording in the context of a small business that has successfully defended a claim, has been dragged through the court system, and potentially spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs diverted from the business. We're talking about a small business here; we are not talking about Westpac Banking Corporation or Coles. Isn't it the case that this wording in relation to this clause, 'a significant power advantage over the applicant', is deeply problematic in terms of it is going to be difficult for any employer to prove that they do not have the significant power advantage over the applicant. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum itself says one indicia of a power advantage is an employer-employee relationship. Does that not make that clause ineffective given the drafting and especially given the example given in the explanatory memorandum? 11:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, I don't agree with what Senator Scarr is saying. I know there have been certain participants in this debate who have been encouraging small businesses and other groups to be fearful of what this legislation may involve. That is a matter for those participants whether they want to engage in that kind of behaviour. If the government had wanted costs to be ordered or had wanted to prevent costs being ordered against applicants, we would have said so. That is not what we have said here. We have set out a range of considerations for the court to take into account in making cost orders which do include whether the respondent has financial or other resources relevant to the applicant. The bill recognises not all respondents in unlawful discrimination matters are large corporations or well-resourced individuals. In fact, many respondents may be small-business owners or the types of other groups that Senator Scarr has mentioned, because discrimination unfortunately from time to time is committed by sporting groups, small businesses, schools and that is why provisions exist for people to take discrimination actions. But this is why the bill adopts a cost model that would reduce the burden on successful respondents that are not well resourced and not at a power advantage over the applicant while still removing barriers to justice for victims survivors. 11:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm sorry, I did not have time to sit in on the committee so I do apologise if these questions have been asked. I note that the premiums for small business have gone up 30 per cent this year. I cannot get through to COSBOA—72 hours, by the way, COSBOA—so if you are there to help small businesses, it would be good if you picked up your phone. Nor could the Insurance Council get back to me and tell me whether or not by making this it is going to put these premiums for small businesses up more? 11:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Lambie, there is no evidence being produced that I'm aware of that this legislation will increase small business insurance premiums. 11:04 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm sorry, Minister, have you based that on some kind of modelling that I can't find? What are you basing that on? Is that something you are pulling out of there today? What are you basing that on? I'm just trying to work it out. 11:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What I said was that there is no evidence that I'm aware of that anyone has produced that premiums will increase for small businesses. It is not that I've produced evidence that it will not happen; what I'm saying is that I'm not aware of anyone producing evidence that it will. As I say, we have taken steps within the legislation to ensure that these provisions cannot be abused. The way this costs regime would work is that applicants can be ordered to pay the costs of a respondent if they're unsuccessful in their claim under these circumstances: first of all, if the court is satisfied that the applicant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; secondly, if the court is satisfied that the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs; or, thirdly—and all of these need to apply—the other party is a respondent who was successful, meaning that if the school or the small business or whoever had the claim brought against them won, if that group doesn't have a significant power advantage over the applicant and if that group doesn't have significant financial or other resources relative to the applicant. So, if we're talking about a very small business—a mum-and-dad type operation—the court will need to take into account whether they actually had significant financial or other resources relative to the applicant. 11:05 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I wasn't asking about that. I'm simply asking whether anyone inquired or whether any insurance company has come in to say whether or not further insurance costs would be put on small business because of this move you're making. But, if you have evidence to the contrary that says in those words that insurance costs will not go up for small business because of this new bill that you are putting through, I would be very grateful to see that. 11:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Lambie, I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong about this, but my understanding is that no insurers provided evidence to the committee inquiry that suggested they were going to be putting up premiums as a result of this. There have been people out there saying that these amendments will open the floodgates to unlawful discrimination matters or claims that don't have merit proceeding to court. As I say, the bill provides safeguards against claims that don't have merit. If an applicant institutes a proceeding vexatiously or without reasonable cause or if their unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur costs, then the court can order that the person who brought the claim pays the other person's cost. So there are protections in here to prevent that from occurring. 11:07 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, I do note, with respect, that you qualified your answer in terms of the evidence and that you haven't been part of the committee process. I want to read onto the record testimony that was provided to the committee with respect to this issue of insurance costs and the concerns of, for example, faith-based schools in relation to insurance costs. I'll read from a joint submission to the committee on this bill from Adventist Schools Australia, the Australian Association of Christian Schools and Christian Schools Australia. They stated: Discussions with insurance providers— so they've actually had discussions with their own insurance providers about this— has also confirmed that the arrangements in the Bill are likely to result in increased premiums, possibly proactively, as a result of the potential for greater claim payments. So the obvious concern is that, if insurance premiums go up, these costs will have to be passed through to consumers, and that means the families who are sending students to faith-based schools. In other words, parents will have to pay more to educate their children as a result of the costs regime under this act. Some of these schools have already had discussions with insurance providers, and they provided that testimony in good faith. Can you provide a guarantee? You say you don't have any evidence, so presumably you therefore can't provide a guarantee that schools fees will not increase as a result of this legislation because of an increase in insurance premiums. 11:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not going to be providing guarantees about what will or won't happen under this legislation. It's not unusual for the coalition to come into this chamber and make alarmist claims about what government legislation will provide. It is worth remembering that statistics from the Australian Human Rights Commission indicate that only four per cent of finalised discrimination complaints actually proceed to court. So, for everyone who is voting on this legislation, it's worth remembering that it's only four per cent of finalised discrimination complaints that actually proceed to court. And, as Senator Scarr is aware, it's not unusual for parties who oppose government legislation to make statements about what they say will happen as a result of government legislation. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Cash was telling us that the government's industrial relations laws would take us back to the Dark Ages, and that didn't happen either. 11:09 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, you refer to alarmist representations being made. Again, I appreciate you haven't been intimately involved in the committee process, but the concern has been raised by the Law Council of Australia with respect to the impact of this new cost regime on small businesses, on non-government organisations, on sporting clubs et cetera. The concern has actually been raised by the Human Rights Commission itself in relation to the impact of this legislation on small businesses, on non-government organisations, potentially on charities et cetera. It doesn't believe that there is sufficient flexibility in this legislation to protect the interests of those organisations that don't have the financial resources of Westpac Banking Corporation or any of the other top 100 companies in the Australian economy. So isn't it the case, Minister, that legitimate concerns of the nature that have been raised by myself in the course of this debate and also by Senator Lambie and foreshadowed through amendments proposed by Senator Pocock have, in fact, been raised by some key stakeholders in relation to this space, stakeholders who engage in these issues on a day-to-day basis at the coalface, including the Human Rights Commission, who do not support the cost regime in this bill, and including the Law Council of Australia, who do not support the cost regime in this bill because they are concerned. They are concerned it doesn't provide adequate discretion to the judges, and they're also concerned it will have an impact on small businesses and charities and other organisations that don't have the capacity of big large corporates, don't have a hundred lawyers in-house and have to defend these claims by themselves. Isn't that right, Minister, that legitimate concerns have been raised by the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission itself in relation to the cost regime in this bill? Could you confirm that, please, Minister? 11:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, it's not unusual, when government legislation is proposed, that some stakeholders say it's great and some say it's bad. That's kind of what happens. My understanding is that, just as there were some stakeholders who said they were not supportive of this legislation, groups like the Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group, women's legal services, the ACTU and others said they did support it. It's a democracy. Some people support the legislation. Some people don't. Senator Scarr, you'll choose who you believe. 11:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I choose to believe the Australian Human Rights Commission, which is the fiercely independent body set up to protect the human rights of all Australians and which is at the coalface of dealing with discrimination issues. The Australian Human Rights Commission itself is saying that it doesn't support this cost regime because it thinks there are inadequate protections for small business, for non-government organisations, for charities and for individuals that don't have the same level of financial resources. Are you seriously suggesting that the Australian Human Rights Commission should be treated as any other stakeholder in this debate? Doesn't it raise a red flag for you, Minister, that the Australian Human Rights Commission itself is raising material concerns with respect to this cost regime, or do you think its views should be treated as just like any other stakeholder? 11:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Ignoring the irony of a Liberal Party senator standing up for Human Rights Commission—I'll just put that to one side for a moment—the Human Rights Commission is entitled to their view. My understanding is they did propose a slightly different model to what we were putting forward. We took that into account. We took into account the views of people opposed to this. We took into account the people who are supportive of this. Following public consultations, we consider that this bill's modified equal access model best achieves the objectives of the Respect@Work report. This model prevents a court from ordering an applicant to pay the respondent's costs, except in certain circumstances, and this would address a barrier to justice for those pursuing unlawful discrimination matters, while recognising that not all respondents are large corporations or well resourced. 11:14 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland What was the difference between the models you referred to? You understood there was a difference between the model that was proposed by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the model contained in this bill. What was the difference? 11:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My understanding is that the Human Rights Commission supported the model based on section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which includes a hard cost neutrality model, which requires each party to bear their own costs. Progress reported. NOTICES 20 NOTICES Withdrawal 20 11:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 four sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2024 made under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020. Presentation 20 11:16 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and for related purposes. This bill will ban gambling advertising, and it's important that the Senate gets on with it. Presentation 20 Withdrawal 21 COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:16 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the 11th report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 11 OF 2024 19 September 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Gerard Rennick Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 REPORT NO. 11 OF 2024 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 18 September 2024 at 7.15 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 December 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); (d) the provisions of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); (e) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 October 2024 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); (f) the provisions of the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2024 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (g) the provisions of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 October 2024 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to committees: Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans- Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 •Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 19 September 2024 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: This bill brings new industries into the AML/CTF regime for the first time and an inquiry allows these entities to have their say. A November report date is important to allow for early passage of the bill—to stop money launderers and terrorists from continuing to do their work, and to allow businesses time to get ready for the new rules the bill will introduce. Possible submissions or evidence from: AUSTRAC; AGD; real estate, accountancy and law peak bodies Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 13 November. Signed Senator Anne Urquhart SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of Bill: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Consideration of the matters raised by the bill, impact on legal profession and legal professional privilege in particular Possible submissions or evidence from: Attorney General Department Law Council of Australia Australian Lawyers Alliance Bar Association AFP Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Possible hearing date(s): Friday 25 October, Thursday 31 October Possible reporting date: November 2024 Signed Nick McKim SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee time to thoroughly scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Businesses, interested parties and other stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October 2024 to January 2025 Possible reporting date: 3 February 2025 Signed Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Appropriate scrutiny of legislation with a high degree of public interest. Possible submissions or evidence from: Department of Infrastructure Australian Communications and Media Authority Civil Society Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Possible hearing date(s): 11 October 2024 Possible reporting date: 11 November 2024 Signed Anne Urquhart SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Consider details Possible submissions or evidence from: Experts, stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment & Communications Possible hearing date(s): October Possible reporting date: 25 November 2024 Signed Nick McKim SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee time to thoroughly scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Businesses, interested parties and other stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October 2024 to January 2025 Possible reporting date: 3 February 2025 Signed Wendy Askew Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: This bill has many interested stakeholders who have expressed an interest in an inquiry, and the government is in favour of open debate. Possible submissions or evidence from: AGD, Law Council, faith groups, Equality Australia Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 12 December Signed Senator Anne Urquhart SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee time to receive evidence and scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Businesses, interested parties and other stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October 2024 Possible reporting date: 12 December 2024 Signed Wendy Askew Appendix 4 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Consideration of the matters raised by the bill, efficacy of privacy protections in the bill to protect individuals legal and enforcement issues posed by doxxing reforms impact of changes on online platforms and social media Possible submissions or evidence from: Attorney General Department OAIC Digital Rights Watch Australian Privacy Foundation Law Council of Australia Australian Lawyers Alliance Electronic Frontiers Australia Human Rights Law Centre Communications Alliance Reset Australia Tech Council of Australia Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Centre for Responsible Technology (Aus. Institute branch) Tech Policy Design Centre Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI) Adobe Australian Digital Alliance Facebook Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Possible hearing date(s): Friday 25 October, Thursday 31 October Possible reporting date: 14 November 2024 Signed Nick McKim SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee time to receive evidence and scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and other stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October 2024 Possible reporting date: 14 November 2024 Signed Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: There is extensive interest in the government's response to the Privacy Act review, and an inquiry allows for examination of some of the new offences contained in the bill. Possible submissions or evidence from: AGD, Law Council, privacy advocates, tech companies, peak bodies such as ACIC and COSBOA Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: l4 November Signed Anne Urquhart Appendix 5 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee time to receive evidence and scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and other stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October 2024 Possible reporting date: 24 October 2024 Signed Wendy Askew Appendix 6 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee time to receive evidence and scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and other stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Education and Employment Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October 2024 Possible reporting date: 10 October 2024 Signed Wendy Askew Appendix 7 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee time to receive evidence and scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and other stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Education and Employment Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October 2024 Possible reporting date: 30 October 2024 Signed Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra l /prin ci pal issues for consideration: Properly scrutinise the government's legislation and provide a formal opportunity for key stakeholders to give feedback. Ensure 15% wage rise is adequate to support educators and interrogate mechanisms to ensure educators[1] wages are adequate beyond two-year limit of current legislation. Understand the impact of 4.4% fee cap provision. Possible submissions or evidence from: United Workers Union (UWU) The Front Project The Parenthood Early Learning and Care Council of Australia (ELACCA) Uniting Early Childhood Australia (ECA) SNAAIC—peak NGO National Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children Committee to which bill is to be referred: Education and Employment Committee Possible hearing date(s): Any day during the week of the 14th and/ or 21st of October Possible reporting date: Monday 11th of November Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and: (a) in respect of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 13 November 2024; (b) in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 25 November 2024; and (c) the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee.". I will just speak briefly on this amendment. In relation to A, we certainly believe that having a report by 13 November is more reasonable, as well as by 25 November in relation to item B, and that the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 should not be referred to a committee. That relates to, I think, two votes that we've had in this place over the past fortnight, and the arguments that I've used in that are relevant here. We do not believe, once the Senate has voted to not support the bill at the first reading, that referring it to a committee to have a committee inquiry that seeks to do exactly the same thing that I raised objections to earlier this week—an inquiry into what are essentially attacks on the trans community and the gender-diverse community—is worthy of the Senate's time. Where there are issues that affect and personally cause harm to individuals, again, like I said earlier in the week, we draw the line. This is seeking essentially to get around a number of votes in this place where a majority of the Senate has voted not to allow this bill to come into this place and be debated. It is now just seeking another pathway to have exactly the same divisive and hurtful debate in the committee room, as opposed to the chamber floor. For those reasons, we don't support it, and I would hope that the rest of the Senate—a majority of this Senate—would share that view. I don't understand why this Senate should take time to inflict personal harm on vulnerable individuals, and that's what this does. I don't care whatever way people try to dress it up and say it's something else. It is not. It is about causing division and publicly raising concerns about individuals' personal choices. That causes them harm, President, and we won't be part of it. And every time they try, every which way, to get it reborn in this chamber by dressing it differently—through different motions or legislation or referrals to committee—we will have the same principled position on it. We won't be part of anything that seeks to cause harm. We won't be part of anything that seeks to drive division and inflict that kind of division on a vulnerable community who've already endured a lot in terms of public debate about individual choices in this country. The Senate should just get over it and stop bringing matters like this into the chamber. We are leaders in our communities. We should support our communities, and part of our communities is the trans and gender-diverse community. We should be thinking of them and not seeking to cause them harm. That's what this referral seeks to do, and we won't have any part of it. 11:20 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek that parts (a), (b) and (c) be put separately. 11:21 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move an amendment, as circulated in my name, to the government's amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 February 2025". The purpose of this bill is to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to re-establish the definitions of 'man' and 'woman' based on biological sex, removing the concept of gender identity from the act. The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 was amended in 2013 to include gender identity as a protected attribute, which created ambiguity around the legal definitions of men and women and undermined the act's original focus on biological sex. This bill seeks to restore clarity by reaffirming the biological distinctions between men and women and ensuring that legal protections are based on immutable biological characteristics. The activists who pretend that biology and gender are somehow contrived or constructed, and those who believe them and enable them, ignore reality in the most calculated, malevolent ways. I use those terms because their ideology is directly harming women and children and permanently destroying countless lives in Australian families. These are the casualties of the ideological war on the reality that is human biology. Men and women, boys and girls—these are not identities to be swapped or changed by laws, regulations or declarations. They are determined by biology: chromosomes, DNA and the physical features we are born with. We've seen a massive industry quickly emerge to mask or change the physical features that denote the gender we are born to, but the fundamental thing that determines who and what we are, that unique combination of molecules we call DNA, cannot be changed. It's inherited from our parents—the man and woman who conceived us. This is the unchangeable reality that gender activists and their enablers cannot change either. It's a reality they pretend does exist, yet it's the basis of procreation for almost every form of life on earth that's not microscopic. That includes every mammal, every primate and every human being. It is what we are. It is how we come to be. It's the basis of our very existence. The evidence, the facts that support this fundamental truth, cannot credibly be denied. Those who would have us deny it are directly attacking the rights of biological women. For women in Australia it's a new battle for their rights and freedoms all over again. Biological men who claim to be women are intruding on the spaces and rights that real women have fought for over many decades. Men are invading women's bathrooms and change rooms, places where women have every right to expect privacy. This has been allowed to happen even in schools. Men are invading women's sports, putting women's safety at risk and making a complete joke of fair competition with their unfair physical advantages. Men are invading women's spaces online, spaces developed specifically as havens from the unaccountable abuse they often receive online. As we saw in the case of Sall Grover's Giggle app, the law and courts provide them with no protection against these invasions. The courts are enabling these invasions. Generations of Australian women have sacrificed and fought for these exclusive spaces. Their hard-won rights are now under direct attack. That's why I'm moving this amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act. Men may identify as women, undergo drug treatments and cosmetic surgery and wear dresses and make-up to superficially change their appearance, but that doesn't mean they belong with real women who were born as women. With this amendment, One Nation seeks to define these women for who and what they are and to protect their hard-won rights. We don't accept the ridiculous idea that this constitutes an attack on the rights of trans people. It is quite simply a defence against their attacks on the rights of Australian women and girls everywhere. I will keep fighting for this, and the majority of Australians with common sense will actually stand by what I'm trying to do here. You want to shut this down. You're not even prepared to take it to an inquiry and let the people come before you—no debate; no nothing. That's what this government is about: shutting down everything that you don't want to debate about. You're not interested in the women out there that are fighting for their rights. That's what disgusts me about you. What are you frightened of? What are you frightened of in here from the women out there— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, direct your comments to the chair. Senator HANSON BK6 that you will not actually have an inquiry into this? That tells me how gutless you lot are. 11:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania We see you, Senator Hanson. We know exactly what you're up to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, direct your comments to the chair. Senator McKIM JKM The Australian Greens see Senator Hanson for what she is. We know exactly what she is up to here, because we have seen her build her grifting political career on demonising sections of our community. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Kim, withdraw that comment. Senator McKIM JKM I withdraw. But we have seen her build her political career on demonising sections of our community. She started with Asian people, decades ago, demonising Asian people for her own base political purposes. Then she moved on to Muslim people, and she has demonised Muslim people for their religion and their culture for her own base political purposes. Now she's moving on to trans folk. The Australian Greens see Senator Hanson for what she is, and we see her business model for what it is: built on bigotry, built on racism—that is what history shows us about Senator Hanson, and here we find ourselves again today. The Australian Greens are not going to have a bar of Senator Hanson setting up an inquiry to allow trans people in this country to be demonised under parliamentary privilege. We're not going to have a bar of setting up a court for Senator Hanson to hold court in, so she can run her radical anti-trans agenda. Trans rights are human rights. Trans folk in this country have every right to be celebrated, to be supported, to be loved, to be valued and to be nurtured. I want to say to trans people in Australia that the Australian Greens are with you. We have your backs against this kind of demonisation and bigotry that Senator Hanson is trying to peddle in this chamber today—cheap gutter politics from Senator Hanson. The Australian Greens will always have the back of trans and gender-diverse and queer folks in this country. We are the only party that has a track record of every MP, every time, on every vote, whether it be in state or territory or Commonwealth parliaments, voting for marriage equality. We spearheaded that campaign, and we will use that foundation to spearhead the resistance against the kind of bigotry and hatred that trans people are now facing from Senator Hanson and her cohort. Trans rights are human rights. Trans folk are beautiful. My handsome, funny stepson Jasper is a young trans man, and I am so proud of him. He's making his way in life, like so many other young people are, with all of the difficulties young people are facing right now, through the environmental and climate calamity that we are living through, through being unfairly priced out of the housing market—through all of the challenges that young people are facing. I'm so proud of Jasper. He's moved to Melbourne. He's got himself a good job in politics—not with the Greens, I might add; I just want to rule out the nepotism angle there! I am so proud of him. He's a smart, funny, awesome young human. Honestly, Senator Hanson, I'd be happy, and I'm sure Jasper would be happy, to sit down with you and have a conversation about his journey through life and the challenges he's had to face. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, direct your comments to the chair. Senator McKIM JKM I'm very sure Jasper would be happy to sit down with Senator Hanson and have a conversation about some of the challenges he's faced. He has bravely faced those challenges. It's been an awesome journey and I'm so proud to have been part of Jasper's journey through life, and I hope it continues for many, many decades. Trans rights are human rights, and the Australian Greens have got the back of trans folk and will have the back of trans folk every single time people like Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts or anybody else seek to create a platform for their demonisation and seek to create a platform that is deliberately designed to be harmful and hurtful for trans folk. 11:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This bill, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024, needs to be sent to committee to ensure that sensible and reasonable discussion can address the inherent error that exists in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It's been said that sometimes the law is an ass—or an arse, some say! What this means is that sometimes a law is made, validly through parliament, that contains a blatant, obvious, overt, logically impossible, glaring factual error. There are many examples. The error in this case is that a mistaken concept from simply saying something, perhaps based on a mistaken belief, becomes a fact, but it'll never become a fact because it is not the truth. The mistake made in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is that if a person identifies as a particular gender such as female, despite biological evidence to the contrary, they should at law be considered female. This law is insane and delusional, and only normalises those persons with the illness called gender dysphoria when they should be receiving psychiatric care, support and loving compassion. I'm not talking about people who have a preference to partner with a person of the same gender, or those who prefer to dress in the style of a person of the opposite gender to which they were born. I'm not talking about those persons who are born with both male and female genitalia—true hermaphrodites, who are very few in number but nonetheless exist. For me to identify as being two metres tall does not make me that tall; that's the way it is. Thinking it or saying it does not make it true. The Australian basketball team, the Boomers, is not going to select me to join the team. Passing a law that says I am two metres tall does not make it true. That's the stupidity and falsehood of the effect of the current Sex Discrimination Act 1984—a true example of what George Orwell predicted could happen in a future chaotic world. The women's rights movement took a massive leap backwards when Julia Gillard's changes to discrimination law started. It made possible the extreme examples where definitions of what constitutes male and female became blurred. We're now confronted with issues where a female enters a female-only space such as a public toilet and confronts a person claiming to be female who is visibly and biologically male. He is invading her space. She may well be fearful of her personal safety and privacy. That's very important to consider. Women have fought hard for equal rights only to have pseudo-women, not biological women, attack women's rights, wanting to access the privileges of women-only spaces and opportunities. The encroachment of pseudo-women into women's sports events became a debacle at the recent Olympic Games, when a biological male claiming to be female battered women into submission to win a boxing gold medal. Battering women into submission is now a recognised sport because the International Olympic Committee is afraid to confront the truth. At the hands of the Greens and Labor, this insanity that defies and contradicts biology and defies science is overriding women's rights. The biologically male boxer used his strength and physical male advantage to defeat all the true women opponents in the lead-up events. This has led to the world condemnation of the Olympic committee, and I note the International Boxing Federation bans biological males from competing against biological females, as do an increasing number of international sporting bodies. These are all real issues that this bill would address and would do so simply by reasserting biological definitions of what constitutes a male and a female. I support the amendment to move this bill to the committee for inquiry. The people of Australia need to have a say. Julia Gillard's bill did not give the people a say. This Senate can rectify this. Let's listen to the people. Let's engage in honest inquiry, and I must point out Senator Hanson is a woman. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Roberts. I do remind you, when referring to former prime ministers, to use the correct title. The question is that Senator Hanson's amendment to Senator Gallagher's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 24 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. 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. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:42 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia At the request of Senator Cash, I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 3 February 2025". This is a really simple motion asking for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to report back on this important bill before the parliament comes back next year. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here, money laundering and terrorism financing are serious, serious issues and we agree with the government that they are serious issues. In fact, that's why the coalition passed the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act in 2006. The Attorney-General has now introduced 165 pages of dense and highly technical legislation that businesses saw for the first time just eight days ago. So let's look at what the government's own impact analysis says. It says that implementing this bill is estimated to result in an additional regulatory burden of $13.9 billion. These costs will apply to more than 100,000 businesses. This includes 90,000 new businesses who have never had to deal with a complex financial regulatory scheme and it appears that, overwhelmingly, they are small businesses. What sorts of businesses are we talking about? We're talking about businesses in country towns. We're talking about country town lawyers who run small practices in rural and regional areas. We're talking about accountants who do the tax for cafes and bookshops and mums and dads who engage someone to help with their financial affairs. We're talking about the real estate agents who manage your sales and your rentals. One of the main transaction types we're talking about is dealing with property. If you impose $1.85 billion in new upfront costs on businesses that help you buy a property, what does that do to the cost of your home? This is a new home-buying tax by stealth. We are driving the small law firms closer to the wall with increasing regulatory burdens. What impact does that have on our communities, especially in our small country towns? We've already had stakeholders raising concerns that we're going to make it even harder to get a lawyer in the regions. These are questions worth answering. Money laundering is serious, but so is helping people buy a home. We want to make it easier, not harder, to buy a home. We want to make it cheaper, not more expensive, with less paperwork, not more. So it is reasonable to say: 'Let's take the time to look at this properly. Let's make sure we get it right, and let's be clear about the timeframes.' There was no exposure draft for the $13.9 billion bill. The most we've had is a few high-level papers circulated by the Attorney-General's Department. The bit that matters—the actual legislation—wasn't released to the public until just eight days ago. Most of the 100,000-plus businesses who will be covered don't even know it's coming. They need time to look at it. They need time to get advice and draft submissions explaining the bits that work and the places where tweaks are needed. That is how you run a proper committee process, that is how you ensure your legislation is actually fit for purpose, and that is all we're asking the government to do today. 11:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Just on the amendment, we won't be supporting it, obviously. We want this report to be done by 13 November. That is ample time. I would just say to the opposition: just work hard; work hard and get it done. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, that's your job. That's your job. Your job is to do this work. We're giving you essentially six or seven weeks to do this work. Get it done. There is nothing more urgent. They're overdue reforms. We need to get them done. I think the Senate has shown this week how slow those opposite sometimes are to do any work. They don't want to do any work. We want to get some work done. We suggest that 13 November is more than enough time to get that work done. 11:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania While you want to try and rush these bills, we've got a problem here. Remember, you took a couple of staff off us. When you're talking about our national security— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator LAMBIE 250026 Yes, I should work seven days a week, right? This is the problem. You are backing us up. You are throwing it in our faces. We don't have enough time because we don't have the resources. You give us stuff about national security, but you don't want us to look at this stuff. This is where we're at. I can't physically get through this at this point in time, so I doubt if the other crossbenchers can either. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston to Senator Gallagher's amendment to the selection of bills committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. 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. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. 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. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 28 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. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:53 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 3 February 2025". 11:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We support this extension of the reporting of the inquiry into the misinformation and disinformation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, I'm advised that time has expired, so I'm going to put the amendment. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Duniam to Senator Gallagher's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. 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. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. 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. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 28 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. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:58 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Could you put (a) and (b) together and then (c) separately? The PRESIDENT 112096 Okay. The question is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that paragraph (c) of the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 34 BUSINESS Rearrangement 34 11:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 be considered from 12.15 pm, government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm and general business notice of motion No. 634 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 34 NOTICES Postponement 34 COMMITTEES 34 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 34 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 35 Reference 35 12:00 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2025: The adequacy of the voluntary Code of Conduct for Australian Winegrape Purchases (code), with reference to: (a) the structure of, and any inequities in, the Australian winegrape and wine processing market; (b) the nature and impact of current market and trading arrangements on the winegrape and wine processing industries; (c) the impact of the current market structure on employment conditions for workers in the supply chain; (d) the availability, transparency and accessibility of winegrape market price information and its effectiveness in forecasting winegrape prices and demand; (e) the effectiveness of the current administration of the code; (f) the adequacy of winegrape and wine industry representation at regional, state and national levels; (g) policy and regulatory options to improve market competition and address any inequities, including the potential benefits and limitations of a mandatory code, and the applicability of existing mandatory codes of conduct in other primary industries; and (h) any other related matters. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 35 Order for the Production of Documents 35 12:00 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 October 2024, a copy of the following documents as noted in the freedom of information document titled '20/997—Section 23 PGPA ACT Approvals to Extend a Contract by Variation, Skytraders A319 Contract for the Provision of Intercontinental Airlink Services', denoted as document LEX 77549L, and referenced on page 27 of the document: (a) RFI 23/97 Report of 24 September 2023; (b) Deloitte's Aviation Services Procurement Strategy of 06 September 2022; and (c) Current AAD Operations and Logistics 23/24 Budget Forecast. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 35 Order for the Production of Documents 35 12:01 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 October 2024, a copy of the following documents as noted in 'Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed' of the June 2024 assurance review into the Macquarie Island Modernisation Project, denoted as document number 2024 002525 and tabled in the Senate on 21 August 2024: (a) Macquarie Island—New Station Overview Plan and Timeline—FINAL; (b) Macquarie Island—Critical Sustainment Works and Future Station—Canberra 11-12 December 2023 Presentation; (c) Macquarie Island Meetings—Minutes—Geoscience Australia Tsunami modelling meetings—Latest version; (d) Macquarie Island—ARPANSA presentation by Dep Sec (March 2024)—multi page version—FINAL; (e) Macquarie Island—Bulk Fuel Farm Corrosion Report—May 2024 FINAL; (f) 18.6.2024 uploads—Macquarie Island Larc in storm video.MP4—FINAL; and (g) B2425-0020 Securing the Future Macquarie Island_AAD. Question agreed to. Office of the eSafety Commissioner 35 Order for the Production of Documents 35 12:01 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 3 pm on Friday, 27 September 2024, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and/or text messages between Nina Jankowicz (and/or her office) and the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, (and/or her office) for the period 1 January 2024 to 18 September 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 632 standing in the name of Senator Antic be agreed to.    

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

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 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. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 36 Order for the Production of Documents 36 12:08 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than 9.30 am on 8 October 2024, copies of the following draft versions of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's (CSIRO) submission to the independent review of Australian carbon credit units: (a) the draft version titled 'CSIRO submission to ERF Review v4' (including appendices and with tracked changes visible) that was circulated internally, within the CSIRO, as an email attachment in the late evening of 5 October 2022; (b) the draft version titled 'CSIRO submission to ERF REVIEW Oct 6' (including appendices and with tracked changes visible) that was circulated internally, within the CSIRO, on the morning of 6 October 2022; (c) the draft version (including appendices and with tracked changes visible) as it appeared on the morning of 6 October 2022, immediately before the phone call between an executive from the Clean Energy Regulator and a CSIRO staff member regarding the CSIRO's submission to the independent review of Australian carbon credit units; (d) the draft version titled 'Updated submission 6 Oct' (including appendices and with tracked changes visible) that was circulated internally, within the CSIRO, on the afternoon of 6 October 2022; and (e) the draft version (including appendices and with tracked changes visible) as it appeared on 7 October 2022, immediately before the meeting between CSIRO and Clean Energy Regulator staff. Question agreed to. Non-Disclosure Agreements 37 Order for the Production of Documents 37 12:09 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by 5 pm on Wednesday, 25 September 2024: (a) the number of government consultations that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term; (b) the subject matter of the consultations that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term; (c) the number of non-disclosure agreements signed by community sector organisations and other stakeholders as a condition of participating in government consultation since the start of the parliamentary term; (d) the number of community sector organisations that refused to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of participating in government consultation since the start of the parliamentary term; and (e) the number of breaches of government non-disclosure agreements that have been legally pursued since the start of the parliamentary term. Question agreed to. Ilpeye Ilpeye Estate 37 Order for the Production of Documents 37 12:10 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that order for the production of documents no. 589, agreed to by the Senate on 22 August 2024, was only partially complied with; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by 5 pm on Wednesday, 25 September 2024: (i) any agreements, formal or informal, involving Illpye Illpye residents under any formal registered entities including but not limited to the Ilpeye Ilpeye Aboriginal Corporation with any of the following parties: (A) the Northern Territory Government, (B) the Commonwealth Government, or (C) the National Indigenous Aboriginal Association; (ii) any agreements, formal or informal, involving Illpye Illpye residents under any formal registered entities including but not limited to the Ilpeye Ilpeye Aboriginal Corporation with any of the above parties, relating to the special purpose leases, granting of land, granting of freehold title, provision of funding for constructions of houses, (iii) any agreements, formal or informal, involving any of the above parties, and Tjantuna Ltd, and (iv) any agreements between any of the above parties, formal or informal, involving and relating to the $2.1 billion remote housing program 'Our Community. Our Future. Our Homes', jointly funded by the Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government. Question agreed to. Attorney-General's Department 37 Order for the Production of Documents 37 12:10 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minster representing the Attorney-General statements which detail, by state and territory, the number of: (a) deaths in custody, including breakdown by age groups and cause of death; (b) ongoing coronial inquests; (c) incidents of self-harm in custodial settings; and (d) miscarriages and stillbirths in custodial settings. (2) That the statements are due not later than the tenth day after the end of the preceding three-month period commencing 1 January, 1 April, 1 July, and 1 October. (3) That this order is of continuing effect. 12:10 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 won't be supporting this motion. We accept that the rates of incarcerated First Nations people and deaths in custody are unacceptable. In 2023 the government established a national real-time death in custody dashboard available on the Australian Institute of Criminology website. The dashboard provides information on all deaths occurring in police and prison custody as well as in youth detention. This important transparency measure is already in place. States and territories, not the Commonwealth, hold the information that Senator Thorpe is calling for in this motion. In addition, it is not a reasonable request nor is it possible for the Attorney-General to table information about ongoing coronial inquests. I urge the Senate to reject this motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 637 standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:16]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. 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. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 16 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McCarthy, M. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 38 BILLS National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 38

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

Second Reading 38 12:20 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Are you seeking the call, Senator Henderson? 12:20 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I was seeking the call. I was seeking leave of the Senate to propose a formal business which we weren't able to move because of the hard marker. I'm seeking leave in relation to general business notice of motion No. 639. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Is leave granted? Senator Gallagher? 12:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I think the issue is that the bill has been called on. The clerk has called the bill on, and so the window for seeking leave has lapsed. You will get another chance, presumably, when we finish the bill. I'm happy to look at what we can do, Senator Henderson, to work to provide you with the information. We are reluctant to give leave because of the hard-marker rule, but if there is some work we can do to work out how we can provide that information to you, I will do that with the minister. 12:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The coalition supports the bill that is before the chamber, the National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024, because the bill clarifies the operation of the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Act 2021. The 2021 amendment act provides improved pricing arrangements and more reliable supply for older and low-cost medicines that can be more susceptible to medicine shortages. This is related to the minimum stockpile holding requirements, which require companies to hold a minimum of either four or six months of stock in Australia for certain PBS medicines referred to as 'designated brands'. As part of this measure, the Australian government supported the investment by the medicines industry in managing supply chain risks through the MSR through one-off price increases to improve the viability of low-cost medicines. In addition, the designated brands are protected from price disclosure reductions through thresholds, which ensure the price reductions occur only when there is significant discounting in the market or when there is sustained discounting over a period of time. The bill before us today clarifies the operation of the act which relates to designated brands subject to the price disclosure thresholds. The bill includes only technical amendments, which are intended for the avoidance of doubt and do not alter the operation of existing provisions which have been in effect since 1 July 2022. The introduction of the 2024 bill follows a recent Federal Court action by a generic medicines company. While the Federal Court dismissed the case, this amendment addresses the potential risk that the timing of a price disclosure reduction could be invalid. The coalition will support this bill because it clarifies the provisions of the 2021 amendment act, which was brought in under the former coalition government and forms part of the important strategic agreements we made with the pharmaceutical industry. Whilst we support this bill, we are disappointed by the Albanese Labor government's lack of action on the health technology assessment review, which also forms part of the strategic agreement with Medicines Australia. The review was designed to reflect that, whilst we need affordable medicines and treatments available here in Australia, we also need to ensure timely access to new developments as they become available. That balance between affordable and timely access is critical for those patients who have no time to wait. The government was supposed to have released the final report of the HTA review at the end of last year, but it sat on the minister's desk for months. The coalition does welcome the release of the final report last week, which was terribly long overdue. We're now working through the 236 pages of the report and its recommendations. We recognise that, whilst we need safe and affordable medicines and treatments available here in Australia, we also need to ensure timely access as new developments become available. However, I remain seriously concerned that, without a commitment from the government with set timeframes for implementation, we will see this review end up, like so many others, collecting dust on the minister's desk. Australia's HTA system must be evolved to keep pace with advancements in medical technology seen across the globe. We know patients' lives depend on it. It has also become clear that we are falling behind the rest of the world, where other countries are able to make approvals at a much greater speed than we can currently here in Australia. Australia's current HTA processes were not designed with the current technological advancements in mind and need to be updated for the modern realities of health care. We need to evolve our system to keep pace with the rapid evolution of technology that is so critical for the care of Australian patients. Addressing this issue will have a wide range of benefits for patients, their families and the entire health system. This is critical right now as Australia's healthcare system faces significant pressures at every point of the system. Our hospitals are overrun and ambulance ramping is at record highs in states across the country. Primary care is at a crisis point, with Australians facing record challenges in getting access to affordable GP appointments. The Albanese government has failed Australians over the past two years, as the cost of going to the doctor has skyrocketed and bulk-billing rates continue to plummet. They have plummeted by 11 per cent. In fact, it has literally never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that Medicare is covering the lowest percentage of GP fees on record, which means that Australians are paying the highest amount of out-of-pocket costs. This is having serious consequences as Australians are having to make the difficult choice between going to a GP or paying their bills in the middle of this cost-of-living crisis. That is why, last financial year, we saw 2.4 million fewer GP services provided to Australians. Workforce shortages are also impacting on almost every area of the system. This is an area where the government continues to refuse to take urgent action. There needs to be real and urgent action to ensure that all Australian patients have access to the care that they need, when they need it and where they need it, including by addressing the challenges with affordable and timely access to new medicines and treatments to take some of the pressure off our health system. This bill also reflects the importance of stockholding requirements as shown by the recent severe medicines shortages that are occurring under this Albanese government's watch. The recent shortage of saline IV fluids in Australia posed a serious risk to the operations of our healthcare system. Saline IV bags are absolutely critical to the emergency health care provided to patients in Australian hospitals, but doctors in every hospital around our nation were told to ration the amount that they were using on their patients. When asked about this issue in question time last month, Minister Gallagher admitted that the Albanese government had been aware of this impending shortage since May 2023. It was shocking to hear the minister confirm that the government had known about an impending shortage for more than a year and had failed to take any action during that time. The Albanese government refused to show leadership on this national shortage and, instead, lied, deflected and refused to take responsibility. Overseas drug regulators including the FDA, the European Medicines Agency and New Zealand's Pharmac confirmed that they have minimal to no issues with their national supplies. So the government had more than 12 months notice of an impending shortage, and no other country around the world has experienced supply issues of the same scale as Australia. This was clearly a crisis of the government's own making, and it demonstrates the importance of ensuring we have effective measures in Australia to safeguard Australians' access to essential medications. The opposition will support this bill, which forms part of an important strategic agreement that the coalition achieved with Australia's medicine industry for the benefit of patients around the country. 12:29 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I too rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024. As the shadow minister has made clear, the coalition does support this bill, but we do raise a number of concerns. As we know, of course, the bill before us today clarifies the operation of the act which relates to designated brands subject to the price disclosure thresholds. So the bill includes only technical amendments which are intended for the avoidance of doubt and do not alter the operation of the existing provisions, which have been in effect since 1 July 2022. The introduction of the 2024 bill follows recent Federal Court action by a generic medicine company. While the Federal Court dismissed the case, this amendment addresses the potential risk that the timing of a price disclosure reduction could be invalid. The coalition will support this bill, because it clarifies the provisions of the 2021 amendment act, which was brought in under the former coalition government and forms part of the important strategic agreements we made with the pharmaceutical industry. But I don't want there to be any misunderstanding by the Senate. In supporting this bill, we do not support so much of what has happened in the health space for Australians under this government. Australians know that Australia's healthcare system faces very significant pressures at every point. Our hospitals are overrun, ambulance ramping is at record highs in states across the country and primary care is at a crisis point, with Australians facing record challenges in getting access to affordable GP appointments. The Albanese Labor government has failed Australians over the last two years as the cost of going to a doctor has skyrocketed and bulk-billing has plummeted by 11 per cent. In fact, it has literally never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor, and that's even more so in regional Australia and remote parts of this country. Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that Medicare is covering the lowest percentage of GP fees on record. That means that Australians are paying the highest amount of out-of-pocket costs. When you consider the enormous cost-of-living strains that so many Australians are under right now—the cost of electricity, power, fuel, groceries and the dread of walking to the mailbox and opening up the mail to see another bill—Australians do not need to deal with increased costs of going to the doctor. The costs for patients has risen to the highest level on record. This is having really serious consequences, as Australians are having to make the difficult choice of going to the GP or paying their bills in the middle of this cost-of-living crisis. That is why, last financial year, we saw 2.4 million fewer GP services provided to Australians. Workforce shortages are also impacting almost every area of the system whilst the government refuses to take action. There needs to be real and urgent action to ensure that all Australian patients have access to the care they need when they need it and where they need it. So, as I say, while we support this bill, we remain deeply concerned about the way that Australians are being let down when it comes to getting critical healthcare they need under the Albanese government. 12:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 amends the National Health Act 1953 to clarify the operation of provisions relating to the PBS pricing and supply arrangements for older and low-cost medicines, referred to as the 'designated brands'. These provisions were introduced through the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Act 2021—the amendment act—that implemented reforms negotiated with the medicines industry through the strategic agreements to improve and guarantee access to medicines for Australian patients. The bill includes technical amendments only, which are intended for avoidance of doubt and are not, therefore, intended to change the operation of the provisions, which have been in effect since 1 July 2022. These amendments apply retrospectively and prospectively to clarify provisions relating to the 12.5 per cent average, unadjusted price reduction test and the timing of when a brand becomes a designated brand. The amendments are consistent with parliament's intention when it passed the amendment act in 2021, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum to that act, and the overarching policy intent of the price disclosure regime. The bill will continue to deliver a stronger Medicare and PBS. I commend it to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 41 12:35 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 12:35 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 41

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

In Committee 41 12:36 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 273828 The question is that the bill stand as printed. Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr 282997 I think Senator Hanson-Young was before me. 12:37 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I was going to ask that perhaps we start moving on some of these amendments and ask that the question be put, but if you want to keep your contribution short, Senator Scarr, then I will, in the spirit of generosity, allow you to ask one more question. 12:37 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I appreciate Senator Hanson-Young's expression of generosity. However, I have a number of questions. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 273828 Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Scarr has the call. Senator Hanson-Young I0U No, he didn't actually— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: He does have the call. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Scarr has the call. Senator SCARR 282997 Minister Farrell, before we hit the hard marker I was asking questions in relation to the position of the Australian Human Rights Commission on the cost regime that's proposed in this bill. The minister who was then at the table, Senator Watt, said the Australian Human Rights Commission had proposed cost provisions which were similar to section 570 under the industrial relations legislation. My understanding was that the Australian Human Rights Commission had actually proposed a different cost regime, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to perhaps correct that record. 12:38 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Scarr. Of course, I wouldn't dare correct anything that Minister Watt has said in this chamber. In order to make clear the position on the question that I think you're asking: the government considered a range of cost models and determined that this modified equal access model, as adopted in the bill, would address the significant barrier presented by costs in a way that balances the interests of both parties. The government's reforms will be a significant improvement in the status quo. Currently, the default position is that the costs follow the event. This means that an unsuccessful party would be ordered to pay the costs of a successful party. For people who have experienced harassment and discrimination, this is a significant deterrent to commencing proceedings. This uncertainty is heightened by the lack of legal precedence in discrimination law matters. In contrast, the soft cost neutrality approach, recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission, would require each party to bear their own costs in unlawful discrimination court proceedings. This means that, even where an applicant is successful, they may still be out of pocket due to the costs exceeding the damages. This model provides less certainty to applicants about how costs would be awarded. Stakeholders have raised concerns that this model can impact the applicant's ability to secure a no-win no-fee legal representation. 12:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, I'll be more specific—and I realise you weren't here when Minister Watt provided his answer to my previous question. Senator Watt said the Australian Human Rights Commission had proposed a cost model on the basis of section 570 of the Fair Work Act. But isn't it the case the Australian Human Rights Commission actually proposed a cost model which was different from section 570 of the Fair Work Act? And let's bear in mind this is the Australian Human Rights Commission, who deals with these matters on a day-to-day basis. The Australian Human Rights Commission, in its submission to the commission inquiry, actually proposed a cost model different to that proposed in this act—namely, that courts should take into account a range of specified and numerated matters and the interests of justice and any other matters which the court considers relevant. Isn't it the case that this act is a departure from the cost model proposed by the Australian Human Rights Commission, who is at the coalface of dealing with discrimination matters and sexual harassment matters in this country? 12:41 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My understanding, Senator Scarr—and you're right: I wasn't present when the previous comments were made—is that Minister Watt has accurately explained the current position of the Human Rights Commission. Senator Scarr 282997 No. Senator FARRELL I0N Well, that's my understanding. And their current position is the position that we're adopting. Just to be clear about that, the answer I just gave you is, I think, the correct answer. The bill does differ in the way I've expressed it, but it's based on the recommendations from the Australian Human Rights Commission's Free and equalreport. 12:42 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Sorry, Minister, I'm going to have to belabour this point because this is an important point. This is the peak human rights body in this country, which deals with discrimination matters on a day-to-day basis. Isn't it the case that the Australian Human Rights Commission proposed a cost model which was materially different from the cost model proposed in this bill, insofar as it was a cost model under which a whole list of enumerated matters were to be considered by the court and the court was also to consider the interests of justice and any other relevant matters, and then the court would have the discretion in relation to decisions with respect to the award of costs? The Australian Human Rights Commission, on that basis, raised some serious concerns in relation to the sections of this bill, the application of this bill, the cost model, which is an Australia-first, as it would be applied in this bill, particularly in the context of small businesses, charitable organisations and other organisations which don't have the resources that the big end of town have, that the ASX 100 have. They don't have teams of lawyers and general counsel. The Australian Human Rights Commission raised serious concerns in relation to this cost model and proposed a cost model which is different from that contained in the bill. If that is the case, why is the government proposing a cost model in relation to discrimination matters which is different from that proposed by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which deals with these matters on a day-to-day basis? Doesn't that raise any red flags? Doesn't that raise any concerns? 12:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Not for me, Senator Scarr. I think you're nitpicking a little bit here. We believe that what we are doing here is consistent with the sentiments expressed by the Australian Human Rights Commission. I can remember, when I first started working as a lawyer for the Shop Assistants Union in 1976, getting into a situation where, if you had a dispute before the industrial relations tribunal, then it was always accepted in those circumstances that each side met their own costs. Now, you refer to the situation of small businesses. That's not an unfamiliar position for many of the people who will be taking these applications on the employee side. They often don't have access to the legal representation that you describe as coming from 'the big end of town'. I think this is a fair and just application of the costs issue in these sorts of situations. In my view, having come to this issue relatively recently—like in the last 20 minutes—this is an absolutely fair application of rules that would generally apply in industrial relations situations. Now, I don't know whether South Australia was ahead of its time back then in the way— Senator Cadell 300134 They weren't! Senator FARRELL I0N Always! Did you say 'always', Senator Cadell? I'm not sure if South Australia was ahead of its time back then, but I think that's a fairer way to approach these issues. I think we are, by and large, compliant with what the Human Rights Commission is suggesting. I think this piece of legislation is a fair way of treating these issues on both sides. 12:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move amendment (1) on sheet 2566: (1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) The review must commence no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. (3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. Minister, throughout the committee inquiry process concerns were raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Senator Scarr has canvassed many of them in this debate. But it's not just them. There are many others with unintended consequences that could flow from this bill. Many of those were highlighted very eloquently by Senator Scarr in his dissenting report. The bill proposes a significant change. I note that it is welcomed by many, but it is not in line with what Kate Jenkins and the Australian Human Rights Commission recommended around a hard-cost neutrality model. The impacts of these changes deserve proper consideration. Will the government support an independent review of the operation of amendments in this bill? 12:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for his question and for the advance notice that he was able to give us of that question. We very much appreciate your engagement with this bill, but, unfortunately, the government does not agree that a statutory review of this bill is necessary and it will not be supporting the amendment. The nature of our court system is that the new cost regime, once it is in place, will be under constant scrutiny and review. If there are unintended consequences or problems, that will become clear through jurisprudence. The Attorney-General's Department will also be monitoring the operation of the new costs regime as a matter of course; however, the Attorney-General is willing to give an undertaking that a review of the operation of the new costs regime will be undertaken three years after its commencement, with a focus on any unintended consequences. The Attorney-General will write to you, Senator Pocock, to affirm this undertaking. 12:49 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Can I just say this should be a no-brainer? It should be an absolute no-brainer to embed in this legislation a review mechanism, as proposed by Senator Pocock in good faith, so that, if these concerns come to fruition or don't come to fruition, there's an opportunity to have an independent review of the operation of this cost regime to see what the evidence is after this cost regime has been in place for a period of time. The concept of an independent review of the operation of legislation which has been the subject of submissions with numerous stakeholders—in this case, from the Australian Human Rights Commission to small business organisations et cetera—that have raised concerns, should be a no-brainer. It's not controversial. It's one thing for the minister to give an undertaking, but it should actually be in the bill. It shouldn't be dependent upon the actual minister. It should be in the bill, as we include reviews of all sorts of legislation in this place when stakeholders with great credibility have raised concerns about unintended consequences. I see absolutely no reason why the government couldn't in good faith agree to the introduction of an independent review mechanism in this bill—a review, as Senator Pocock is proposing, to commence no later than two years after the date on which this bill receives royal assent. The operation of this cost regime would have two years, and the persons who conducted the review must give the minister a written report of the review within six months of the commencement of the review. Then that independent review needs to be tabled in this place so all of the senators from all the different parties have an opportunity to review and consider that independent review and the evidence generated by that review process, make comments and consider whether or not this was the right path or there needs to be tweaks. This is a very reasonable amendment, and the coalition certainly supports it. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock on sheet 2566 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [12:56]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

 12:59 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'd ask that the question be put. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 273828 The question is that the question be put. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator David Pocock 256136 I'm just seeking clarification: what is this division on? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Whether the question should be put. Senator David Pocock 256136 Not on amendments? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No, just on— Senator Hanson-Young I0U If we need to cancel the division that's fine, but there was no-one moving their amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: For the ease of the chamber, we'll cancel the division. 13:01 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Well, with that delightful guidance, I move opposition amendment on sheet 2384 in relation to costs: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 10) to page 4 (line 20), omit section 46PSA, substitute: 46PSA Costs only if proceedings instituted vexatiously etc. (1) A party to proceedings (including an appeal) in a court in relation to a matter arising under section 46PO may be ordered by the court to pay costs incurred by another party to the proceedings only in accordance with subsection (2). (2) The party may be ordered to pay the costs only if: (a) the court is satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or (b) the court is satisfied that the party's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs; or (c) the court is satisfied of both of the following: (i) the party unreasonably refused to participate in a matter before the Commission; (ii) the matter arose from the same facts as the proceedings. I will make a few comments in relation to it. This amendment would essentially implement what was recommended by Commissioner Jenkins in her report. We all have a great regard for former commissioner Jenkins in relation to this jurisdiction. Commissioner Jenkins actually proposed that the costs provision that should apply under this legislation should be similar to section 570 of the Fair Work Act. That's what Commissioner Jenkins proposed in relation to sexual harassment. Former commissioner Jenkins made a profound change in relation to the issue of sexual harassment and how it is viewed in the wider Australian community and how it is viewed in relation to this parliament, and that was Commissioner Jenkins's recommendation: that Section 570 of the Fair Work Act should apply with respect to costs in relation to this issue. And that is what this amendment proposes. It proposes that this bill incorporate the costs provisions that were proposed by former commissioner Kate Jenkins. As I said, the Australian Human Rights Commission proposed something where the court could consider a whole range of issues in the interests of justice. The bill doesn't reflect that either. But we in the coalition have a great respect for former commissioner Jenkins. We believe that her recommendation on costs provisions should be applied and the provisions that are contained in section 570 of the Fair Work Act should be reflected in this legislation. That would mean that, as a general proposition, each side would pay their own costs, as happens in relation to industrial relations matters. However, there would be a provision allowing the court to depart from that general approach, so that the court could consider the particular circumstances of the case and then decide that, in the particular circumstances of the case, one side or the other should actually bear costs. We think that is a fair and equal-sided approach to this issue. We get great comfort from the fact that the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, someone as eminent as former commissioner Kate Jenkins, proposed this approach. We think that it's the right approach. We are terribly concerned, and the Law Council of Australia has raised concerns, the Australian Human Rights Commission has raised concerns—a whole heap of stakeholders have raised concerns—that what the government is proposing at the moment is too one-sided. For example, it means someone could bring a discrimination claim against a small business or sole trader, and, simply because that sole trader or small business couldn't settle or resolve that matter—and we'd all like to see these matters resolved as quickly as possible—they could be taken to court. Say that small business were to win in court. On the basis of the proposition that the government is putting forward, that small business, unless it went through some impossible hurdles, could not get its costs from the applicant, even though it had succeeded in court. Does that sound fair? Aren't we all meant to be treated equally before the law? What's proposed in this bill would be absolutely the first time this sort of principle has been introduced in any such legislation across the whole of Australia. No other legislation and no other jurisdiction has a cost system like this. Senator SCARR 282997 I note Senator Waters's interjection that I'm wrong in that regard. Well, if I'm wrong, the Law Council of Australia is wrong. Senator Waters 192970 No, it was the whistleblower laws. You should know that. Senator SCARR 282997   With due respect, Senator Waters—and I have a great respect for your interest in this matter—I do not believe that whistleblower provisions and whistleblower laws are an appropriate analog in this context. Senator Waters 192970 You said there was no example, and I'm giving you an example. Senator SCARR 282997 Well, it's not an appropriate example. It's an incorrect example. Whistleblower laws are totally different from this jurisdiction, and I say that as someone who used to be responsible for whistleblower policy in an ASX listed company. They are totally different, and one of the differences is that those whistleblower laws apply to large corporates. That's one of the issues we have. There's a huge difference between Westpac Banking Corporation on one hand and a small cafe on the other, and it's totally unreasonable to impose this cost philosophy on a small business just as you would apply it to Westpac Banking Corporation, ANZ, BHP or Rio Tinto. It's just absurd. I say to the government: when you're considering this amendment, consider the red flags raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission, a fiercely independent statutory body that is at the forefront of prosecuting the case for human rights across this country; think about the concerns and red flags raised by the Law Council of Australia, whose members deal with these cases on a day-to-day basis; and accept the advice of the extraordinarily eminent Australian Kate Jenkins, the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who proposed and recommended the model that is contained in this amendment. With that, I'm happy to support the amendment. 13:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 287062 The question before the Senate is that the amendment standing in the name of the opposition on sheet 2384 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [13:12]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

 13:14 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I would actually like to ask some further questions before putting the next amendment, if I could. In particular, I'd like to ask the minister some questions in relation to an issue around accrued jurisdiction. Just to give a heads up to the advisers who are at the table, this was in relation to an issue which was raised during the committee stage. The new cost regime starts with a subsection that reads as follows—to provide some context in particular to the advisers, because I know the minister didn't have the benefit of participating in the committee process. This is what it says: This section applies to proceedings (including an appeal) in a court that relate to an application made by a person— I want to emphasise that phrase—'that relate to an application made by a person'— (the applicant) under section 46PO in respect of one or more respondents to a terminated complaint. For those listening—this is a bit technical, unfortunately, but it needs to be asked—section 46PO is just the gateway into the courts from the Human Rights Commission. Once you've made your complaint in the commission, if you want to litigate in the Federal Court, an application under section 46PO is how you actually do it. My question is this, again, for the benefit of the advisers assisting the minister: what does that phrase, 'proceedings that relate to, in section 46PO', mean? 13:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Scarr, for the question. The cost provision in this bill would apply to all unlawful discrimination matters that proceed to court. This means that the bill applies to applications made to the court after an unlawful discrimination complaint has been terminated by the Australian Human Rights Commission. These amendments mean that cost provisions in the Federal Court act would be subject to the new section 46PSA, which would be inserted by the bill. The government notes that there are other existing provisions in the Federal Court act regarding costs which will continue to operate alongside the bill. For example, the court will retain its discretion to apportion costs as it sees fit and order that costs awarded against a party are to be assessed on an indemnity basis or otherwise. The Federal Court act provides that, except as provided by another act, the award of costs is in the discretion of the court or judge—subsection 43(2). Where proceedings raise issues that extend beyond unlawful discrimination matters, it will be a matter for the court to determine costs having regard to the Federal Court act and the particular circumstances of the case. 13:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland That answer concerns me because it doesn't engage properly with the question that I asked. I'll tease it out for you more. Again, for the benefit of those assisting the minister, it's this phrase that we're asking questions about, which has been raised by organisations that made submissions to the inquiry. With respect to costs providing a regime under which a successful respondent can only claim their costs in extraordinarily limited circumstances, even if they've been successful, this regime applies to proceedings including an appeal in a court that relate to an application made by a person. Quite typically, in these sorts of cases, there are multiple claims that are made. So, if someone brings a discrimination claim, they'll also potentially bring a breach-of-contract claim and they'll also bring a negligence claim. Their legal advisers will typically give them advice to assert all their rights as they can under different areas of the law. As I'm reading this section, it would mean that this new cost regime—and I'll repeat my view, which I note's contested—would be unique in Australian law, certainly with respect to discrimination law. This new cost regime wouldn't just be limited to discrimination claims; it would go to all the other claims that are brought at the same time, which includes a contractual claim, a claim for negligence—it could apply to anything else. So my question is: in that situation, where an applicant brings a claim that has a discrimination element and also, in the same statement of claim, alleges breach of contract and negligence, will this new cost regime apply to all of those claims or just to the discrimination element? 13:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I have nothing to add to my previous answer. 13:19 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2565: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 15), at the end of subsection 46PSA(6), add: ; or (d) the other party is a small business. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 15), after subsection 46PSA(6), insert: (6A) For the purposes of this section, small business means a business with fewer than 20 full-time equivalent employees. Minister, concerns have been raised in relation to respondents where there is not a symmetry of resources or power. I acknowledge Senator Scarr has been asking some questions about this. Examples put forward include university academics and small businesses. I heard your statement to Senator Lambie that there was not evidence to the committee inquiry that there will be increases to the cost of insurance. Senator Scarr pointed to evidence contradicting this. So I am asking: what guarantees can the government provide that there will not be a really problematic impact on very small businesses and employers who are individuals? 13:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Apologies, I think it was someone who was here previously who was providing answers to some of those questions. This bill provides safeguards against unmeritorious claims. If an applicant institutes a proceeding vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or if the applicant's unreasonable act or omission causes the other party to incur the costs, the court can order the applicant pay the respondent's costs. This means that the risk of an adverse order will continue to deter unmeritorious claims as applicants may be ordered to bear their own and the respondent's costs in these cases. These safeguards will exist alongside the protections against unmeritorious complaints under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act and the federal unlawful discrimination law framework. 13:21 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Again, I rise to support David Pocock's amendment. I think this is a very welcome amendment. I congratulate Senator Pocock on moving this amendment which addresses some of the concerns that were raised by numerous stakeholders to the inquiry we had in relation to this bill. It is difficult to fathom why the government will not listen to the legitimate concerns that were raised by the fiercely independent Australian Human Rights Commission in its submission. The Australian Human Rights Commission is desperately concerned that the cost regime in this bill doesn't draw any distinction between large corporates, the big four banks, Coles, Woolies on the one hand and a small cafe with maybe two or three employees on the other. There is absolutely no distinction drawn between the two. What Senator Pocock's amendment is seeking to try to do is to say that an organisation that has the benefit of an in-house legal team, has the benefit of a corporate central office can pay legal fees et cetera. There should be, on top of these issues, no excuses for the big end of town, and Senator Pocock is saying it is reasonable to treat a small business, with respect to these cost issues, differently. To me that is incredibly sensible. I want to give you a live example because this is the regime that you're proposing. If a claim is brought against a cafe owner with respect to any discrimination, not just sexual harassment as we have established, that cafe owner maybe tried to settle the claim beforehand, did their best to try and settle it. Maybe they didn't try and settle it because they didn't think they were at fault. They have gone to court, defended the claim, spent tens of thousands of dollars, maybe over $100,000—court is not cheap—and been successful. But the way this bill operates, especially when you read the explanatory memorandum, because they are the employer, even though they are a small business—no distinctions made between an employer with 10,000 employees or four or one—and even though they have been successful on every count, they can't claim their costs from the applicant who was unsuccessful on every count because there is a significant power differential—that is, they are an employer and the applicant was an employee. That is the way this act would work. Is that fair? Is the minister seriously saying that's fair? This would introduce this concept for the first time in the Australian legal system— Senator Waters 192970 No, it's not the first time. Senator SCARR 282997 And I don't accept the parallel with respect to whistleblowers. I think that's an absurd parallel, to be frank, Senator Waters. I do respect your interest in this matter, but whistleblowers are a totally different situation. You don't have whistleblowers of the type we're talking about here in a small business. It's a totally different situation that we're talking about here, where a small business has had to defend itself, it's had its day in court and won and then it can't get its costs. What Senator Pocock is proposing is that there be a distinction, which in the coalition's view would improve this bill. I still have objections to the cost regime contained in this bill, as the coalition does. But his amendments would make a serious improvement to this bill, because what the government's doing is simply imposing an additional burden on small business. I spoke in this place in relation to the industrial relations reform that was moved by the government in relation to the definition of casual employee. I made the point that the definition of casual employee now runs to 2½ pages of a piece of legislation. A small business is expected to read 2½ pages to make a determination as to whether or not someone is a casual employee or not a casual employee. They've got to ask themselves 25 questions. What small businesses have the chance to do that under the cost-of-living crisis that they're operating in at the moment? No small business. This is just another whack at small business, and I can't fathom why the government isn't prepared to countenance the sensible amendments from Senator Pocock. Senator Pocock has read the proceedings of the committee, and he's absolutely correct: everyone, from the Australian Human Rights Commission through to the Law Council of Australia, business bodies and other stakeholders, has raised this concern, that you're imposing this obligation upon small business. It's not right. It's not fair. It's not reasonable. That's especially the case when you consider these amendments in conjunction with the fact that the Australian Human Rights Commission is seriously concerned that the provisions in this act mean that claims in the Australian Human Rights Commission are less likely to settle. That is one of the concerns that the Australian Human Rights Commission has raised—that claims in the Australian Human Rights Commission are less likely to settle. Why? It's because one of the things which usually brings parties to the table to settle and engage in discussions is, 'I don't want to risk going to court because I might have costs awarded against me.' The Australian Human Rights Commission is saying that the regulatory pendulum is swinging far too far the other way. That means that matters which should be conciliated and should be resolved in the Australian Human Rights Commission—for goodness sake, shouldn't we be trying to keep as many things out of the courts as possible and getting them resolved as quickly as possible? Isn't that in the interests of the Australian people? Yet the Australian Human Rights Commission is saying that one of the unintended consequences they're concerned about is that matters are less likely to be conciliated in the Australian Human Rights Commission. The other matter the Australian Human Rights Commission raised was in relation to the fact that a court can't take into account or consider, under your cost regime—not the cost regime proposed by former commissioner Kate Jenkins, not the cost regime proposed by the Australian Human Rights Commission, but the cost regime that the Labor government is proposing, with the support of the Greens—whether or not a complainant engaged in the Australian Human Rights Commission process. Don't you think there should be something in this bill that actually says that, if you're going to go to court and putting everyone to the cost and expense of going to court, at the very least the court should be able to consider whether or not you as the complainant actually engaged in good faith in the Australian Human Rights Commission process to try and resolve it? But you don't even include that in the bill. So you're adding a further burden on small business—our poor old cafe owner, family business, fish and chip shop or whatever—which is holding on by its fingernails— Senator SCARR 282997 A further burden is being placed on them through a regime that the Australian Human Rights Commission does not support, Senator Waters—through you, Chair. I would have thought, in these areas, we should be listening very carefully to the concerns which have been raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia. It certainly raised some red flags in my mind, and I really do commend Senator Pocock for taking the time to go through the committee report, to look at the evidence, to consider the application of that evidence and then to come up with this amendment, which, from the coalition's perspective, is a welcome amendment. It does improve— The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T Thank you, Senator Scarr. Progress reported. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T It being 1.30, we will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 49 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Ipswich: Infrastructure 49 13:30 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise today in this place to say: 'What about Ipswich? What about Ipswich's infrastructure concerns? What about the roads and bridges and rail that the good people in the greater Ipswich region need and require?' I was absolutely mortified to read the scathing ANAO report with respect to the Albanese government contributing $2.2 billion to a Melbourne railway loop that is going to have a cost of somewhere north of $200 billion. It is absolutely extraordinary. I had my office in the greater Ipswich region—a wonderful region in my home state of Queensland—which desperately needs that infrastructure. It's one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia, and it's expected to carry the load in terms of population growth. In the greater Ipswich region, we need to fix the debacle that is the Amberley interchange. It is an absolute deathtrap. We could fix that for the $2.2 billion. We could also assist in giving Ipswich a second river crossing, which it desperately needs because of the increase in population and the health and safety concerns that arise during floods. We've had a lot of tragic floods in Queensland over the last 20 years, so Ipswich needs a second bridge crossing. We also need to fix the Mount Crosby Road interchange. We could do all of that with that $2.2 billion. At the same time, we could also progress the public transport corridor between Ipswich and Springfield, which, again, is desperately needed. I say to the Albanese Labor government: 'What about Ipswich? Where's Ipswich's fair share of infrastructure? Where's Ipswich's fair share of the rail, roads and bridges that they deserve as a community? Where's Ipswich's fair go?' Trade with United Arab Emirates 50 13:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria As chair, along with my good friend Senator Andrew McLachlan, of the Parliamentary Friends of the United Arab Emirates, I would like to take a moment to highlight the successful conclusion of negotiations between Australia and the UAE for a comprehensive economic partnership agreement— Senator CICCONE 281503 which I'm sure Senator Helen Polley, as a good friend of that parliamentary friendship group, backs 100 per cent. This agreement is a landmark announcement. It's one that we should all be very proud of, as it represents our country's first trade and investment agreement with a Middle Eastern country. The deal will remove over 99 per cent of tariffs on Australian products, saving exporters and businesses around $135 million in the first year. It will also increase exports by around $700 million each year and fortify two-way investment between our two great countries. The UAE is already Australia's largest trading partner in the region, with nearly $10 billion worth of two-way trade last year, and this agreement will only unlock the potential of this relationship further and unlock more business opportunities. This also includes sectors of our economy that underpin energy transition, such as critical minerals. The deal will also improve access to an important part of the market, particularly for our Australian farmers and food producers, for products such as sheep meat, seafood, dairy, beef, lentils, nuts and steel. This is particularly critical, given that Australia exports around 70 per cent of the agricultural products that it produces. With one in four Australian jobs reliant on trade, I want to commend trade minister Don Farrell and his department and its many officials for achieving such a fantastic outcome for our Aussie farmers, producers, businesses and exporters, and for continuing to diversify Australia's trade relationships across the world. Well done, everyone. Gambling 50 13:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak to the unbelievable gambling losses we're seeing in my home state of Queensland. During a housing crisis where Queenslanders are feeling under more pressure than ever before, gambling corporations are profiteering off the community's anxiety. Queenslanders have lost more money than ever before on the pokies, losing over $300 million in just 31 days. In my home town of Gladstone, losses in July this year tipped over $4 million. In nearby Rockhampton, losses pushed over $7 million. Mackay saw losses of $11 million in the same time. Australia is home to the largest per capita gambling losses in the world. Gambling losses for the country recently topped out at $32 billion. We have less than one per cent of the world's population, yet we're home to 18 per cent of the world's pokies. Government after government has allowed gambling harm to go unchecked. It is one of the greatest working-class betrayals of the contemporary Labor Party that they have cosied up to this parasitic industry, deciding to sell out their base for a few donations. Gambling corporations are profiteering off the pain and misery of the community. We must put people before pokies and profit. What we really need is action from Labor, rather than continuing to sook, deny, delay and defer. Every problem in this country is not their problem. That's all well and good for them, but the Greens are here to fight for you, to fight for real action and to fight for a real future for our community. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 50 13:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Every parliamentarian in this place stands united in ending the scourge of family violence; however, poor delivery, doublespeak and hypocrisy on addressing the issue—rightly, though—must elicit a different response. The Albanese Labor government's recent announcement last week of $4.4 billion to address Australia's family violence epidemic has a respected, long-time contributor in the sector expressing deep distress, disappointment, frustration and betrayal. The poor delivery of the election promise of 500 new frontline and community workers is one thing, but your government's response to the rapid review has turned the heat up. The rapid review acknowledged gender based violence as an ongoing priority and the need for significant funding uplift in certain frontline areas, but No to Violence CEO Phillip Ripper calls out your response to that review as—wait for it—'smoke and mirrors'. The announcement, he says, conflates two separate national partnership agreements: one on domestic, family and sexual violence responses and one on justice. As a key sector contributor, Mr Ripper is calling your announcement a cut of 12.5 per cent in funding for frontline services when inflation is considered and saying that it is not specific to frontline services addressing violence. In fact, it appears that in real terms, with inflation and the ever-increasing violence in our communities, demand for your funding has actually gone backwards. It is not clear what your announcement means in practice, how much funding there is, who is getting it nor when. Despite the current epidemic, the response won't be known until 1 July next year. We look forward to the detail, as the sector waits more than nine months for the money—hardly a rapid response to this current epidemic! Dementia 51 13:38 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania This week is Dementia Action Week. It goes until 22 September, but it's an ideal opportunity to raise awareness around dementia. To put it in perspective, there are over 410,000 Australians who are living with dementia here in this country today, but by 2050 they believe that those figures will actually triple. The impact is going to be felt in Australia, Japan, China, Indonesia, Pacific nations and South-East Asia. There's a significant issue coming as a tsunami on the world unless we finance dementia research and do more there. But we have to raise awareness. It's astounding that so many people still don't understand what dementia is or that there's early-onset dementia and, as I spoke about in this chamber recently, childhood dementia. Dementia is the leading cause of death for women in this country, so it is significant. I want to give a big shout-out to Professor Tanya Buchanan, who is the CEO of Dementia Australia. It is important that we embrace and share knowledge and raise awareness, because it will impact on your family or on a friend. There are things you can do to help alleviate the risks: be healthier, exercise, use both sides of your brain and learn new things. My husband is learning to play the drums—which is quite painful, I might add—but there are things you can do around your diet and exercise. It is coming towards us, so we need more money, more research and more researchers that are prepared to undertake this very important work. Tasmania: Budget 51 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In economist Saul Eslake's words, the Tasmanian budget handed down by Treasurer Michael Ferguson last week is 'a triumph of politics over economics'. By the end of 2028, Tasmania will be $8.6 billion in debt. That's a record, but, sadly, not one that comes with a gold medal. The Tasmanian Liberal government tells anyone who will listen that they are the most responsible managers of Tasmania's taxpayers' money. If Tasmania were a company, today it would be in receivership and the CEO would be lucky to get a gig in the future. But this is politics, and apparently, as long as you keep promising stuff to your voters, you don't get held accountable. The Jacqui Lambie Network member for Lyons, Andrew Jenner, won't sign a new agreement with the Rockliff government because the Premier refused to end the Liberal Party's use of public funds to pay for what the Integrity Commission has labelled 'electoral bribery'. As Mr Jenner put it, 'It is nothing more than blatant vote-buying at taxpayers' expense.' Treasurer Ferguson has announced a record spend on infrastructure: $5.1 billion of Tasmanian taxpayers' money. Saul Eslake found that, over the next three years, Tasmania will be running the country's largest public sector infrastructure program relative to its size. The current Tasmanian Liberal government is good at ignoring things. They have ignored all of Mr Eslake's suggestions for raising revenue. Tasmania, like the rest of Australia, is dealing with a cost-of-living crisis. But, instead of addressing this, Treasurer Ferguson has delivered a budget which prioritises infrastructure projects over the Tasmanian people—like that stadium that we don't need. The Mercury reported today that the cost has already blown out by $60 million. But don't worry, Tasmanians—apparently that is just part of the 'design process'. We don't need a stadium with a roof. We need roofs over people's heads, a health system that works and schools that are preparing our students for the 21st century. Young Liberal Women's Leadership Summit 51 13:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to shine a spotlight on the exceptional young women who participated in the recent Young Liberal Women's Leadership Summit in my home town of Melbourne. Now in its third year, this event creates invaluable opportunities for young women from across the country to come together, build networks, develop their skills and foster connections that will help shape their futures and the future of our great Liberal Party. Summit attendees were lucky enough to hear from Liberal women that have already pursued a parliamentary career and are doing some impressive and important work—people like my colleague Senator Chandler, Zoe McKenzie MP and the state member for Kew, Jess Wilson. They were also able to hear from our amazing candidates for the upcoming federal election, who are just beginning their parliamentary journey. I had the pleasure of speaking at the summit myself and was able to share a little bit about my own pathway to politics—the challenges, the setbacks and the successes that have made it all worthwhile. I also had the opportunity to speak about the Liberal Party's new strategic advancement network for women, the Margaret Guilfoyle Network, which brings together like-minded women from across Australia to offer them a unique professional network and forum in which to learn, engage and connect. Just this week, the Margaret Guilfoyle Network had two very successful events which provided an opportunity for Liberal aligned women to meet other like-minded women and engage in policy discussions. It was a genuine pleasure to meet and connect with such talented and ambitious young women at all of these events. I know firsthand how important it is for young women to be able to see what's possible and to understand that, though the road may be tough, leadership is absolutely within their reach. That should be so, so much easier for them. They are such talented young women. I'd like to thank everyone who attended these events over the past few weeks. I'd also like to thank Sarah Halnan and Lizzy Wheeler for their work in organising the Young Liberals Women's Leadership Summit, and I very much look forward to attending again next year. Housing 52 13:44 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Across the floor sit members and representatives of the Liberal and National parties, who represent people from across the country, and for the last couple of years they've rightly earned the title of the 'no-alition'. At the core, the Liberals and Nationals are a team of naysayers who are more interested in blocking and voting down legislation than having constructive conversations with the government. We know that the coalition has never acted in the interests of working families. Fairer tax cuts? Absolutely not. Why would they do that? Better wages for childcare workers? Nah, absolutely not. Help more renters to buy their first home with the Help to Buy scheme? Nah. That should just be for a privileged few. The Greens have joined with the opposition and One Nation in an unholy alliance to block legislation in this place, even though a shared-equity scheme was in their platform. The coalition's whole strategy, no matter what this government does, is just to say no. Labor has a simple belief that ordinary Australians should be able to own their own home. It's so disappointing to see the Liberals, Greens and One Nation block an important housing bill that would help 40,000 low- and middle-income Australians buy their own home. This government's positive plan for Australia is based on uniting the country, not dividing it. We're about positive, not negative, unlike those opposite. Australians want to own their own home, and parents also want their kids to be able to enter the housing market. This is just one of a suite of measures the Albanese Labor government has under foot to help ease the cost-of-living pressures and address the housing crisis. Middle East 52 13:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Last week, the Canadian foreign minister announced that Canada would not send any weapons or weapons parts to Israel for use in Gaza. She made clear that, under international law, Canada cannot provide weapons or weapons parts to any country if there's a real risk they'll be used to commit human rights abuses, war crimes or genocide. The Albanese Labor government is under the same obligation, yet compare the Canadian foreign minister's statements to those of Minister Wong and her inconsistent deflection about military exports to Israel. All we get here are nonanswers from Minister Wong and bizarre statements from Defence officials, comparing F-35 weapons parts to pencils. Yesterday, three of Australia's most eminent international lawyers, Chris Sidoti, Rawan Arraf and Professor Ben Saul, briefed this parliament on Australia's international legal obligations concerning trade with Israel, and they did it in the face of the recent ICJ advisory opinion on Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. All three of these lawyers agreed that the advisory opinion makes explicit Australia's obligation not to aid or abet Israel's illegal occupation and that this obligation, indeed, goes well beyond the weapons trade. It extends to any political, diplomatic, economic or financial activities that support the illegal occupation. We know that the Commonwealth and some state governments have a raft of trade and military agreements with Israel, and not one has been cancelled, despite the horror we are witnessing in Gaza. To be clear, each of these agreements is designed to aid and abet Israel's illegal occupation or to support the illegal settlements. I want to thank each of the legal experts for their time, their clarity and their professional advice. People in positions of responsibility in this parliament would do well to listen to their advice because history has a way of turning towards justice, and, even if this government is desperate to ignore the legal and brutal real-world truths about the conflict in Gaza, generations who are not represented here yet do understand, and they have justice in their hearts. Housing, Universities 52 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory We've talked a lot about housing this week. Unfortunately, we haven't seen negotiation and we haven't landed on a position that would actually legislate the government's Help to Buy Bill. It clearly won't solve the crisis on its own, but it will help, and it will help people who don't have the bank of mum and dad and are caught up in this growing intergenerational divide that we are seeing. Another key driver of this divide is the growing student debt burden Australians, especially young Australians, face. We know that having a larger HECS debt makes it harder for young Australians to buy their first home, as banks view these mortgages as high risk due to their existing debt. We've just seen data from the ATO showing that the number of Australians with student loans exceeding $100,000 has more than doubled in just five years and is now up to 57,000 people. Total student debt is an eye-watering $81 billion. The Labor government needs to act. We heard them in opposition talk about the disaster that job-ready is yet, coming towards the end of their first term, nothing—no movement on job-ready graduates. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, in June 2020, put it rather succinctly, saying, 'The Job-ready Graduates scheme will leave more young Australians locked out of university and higher costs for those who gain admission.' He was right. Now that he is Prime Minister, I say to him and to the education minister: we don't have time to wait for your new Australian Tertiary Education Commission to be established; we need reform now. Australian students need you to act and scrap the Job-ready Graduate scheme. It is an unfair scheme, it is not working, and you have an opportunity to do so. Dehais, Ms Dorothy 53 13:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On behalf of the Tasmanian federal Liberal team, I rise this afternoon to acknowledge and pay tribute to a true Liberal hero—that is, Ms Dorothy Dehais from Tasmania, who recently in the Launceston Examiner newspaper was described as 'the woman behind the Bass throne'. Dorothy has been a stalwart of our party for more than 40 years, a huge part of our Liberal history in this state and a key part of many successful campaigns, not just in Bass but also across the state. The paper rightly described her as 'someone who knows how to win'. Dorothy, of course, is someone who's raised tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars for our party over that period of time and been instrumental in our election success. She makes sure corflutes are erected, polling booths are manned. All of this is what makes it possible for people like my colleagues and I to serve in this place on behalf of the people of Tasmania. People like former Premier of Tasmania Peter Gutwein, former cabinet minister in the Howard government Warwick Smith are both beneficiaries of Dorothy's commitment to and hard work for our party. She was recently recognised in our party with honorary life membership, and I think it is a fitting tribute to someone who has done so much for our party and through our party for the people of Tasmania, particularly in Bass. On behalf of my colleagues, I wanted to say congratulations and thank you to Dorothy for all she has done for our cause, for her fellow Liberals, for my federal colleagues here, those past and present, and we look forward to many more years of success in Bass and beyond with you. Foreign Investment Review Board 53 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We have to wonder whether this government is capable of stopping any bit of Australia being sold to foreign multinational corporations, or is it all just part of its digital ID plan? We're going to find out when the Foreign Investment Review Board makes its decision on the $24 billion buyout of Australian-founded data firm AirTrunk. AirTrunk is the largest data centre platform in the entire Asia-Pacific region. A conglomerate of multinational investment firms and foreign pension funds is about to buy it. It wasn't that long ago the government somehow let China buy a 99-year lease to control the Port of Darwin, Australia's most northern and strategically vital port. Less than a year ago, the Albanese government decided to keep letting China own the 99-year port lease. Many are still dumbfounded. How could we ever let this happen? As data becomes as valuable as gold in an increasingly digital world, we may one day look back at the sale of AirTrunk in the same way. Data is fast becoming an essential utility for the entire world. All the opportunities a digital world presents are clear yet the risks of profit-hungry corporations and increasingly tyrannical governments abusing digital identity outnumber the benefits. In a digital identity world, where privacy protections are paper-thin, sovereign control of our data centres is a matter of economic and national security, and personal security. Unfortunately, except in the most severe and blatant cases, the Foreign Investment Review Board has a track record of not appreciating the importance of Australians owning Australia. We can anticipate that the Foreign Investment Review Board will rubber-stamp this deal, like so many others. The data centres that Australians' sensitive data passes through and sits in will become foreign-owned. Let's put Australians first and ban foreign ownership of sensitive companies. Melbourne Airport, Energy 54 13:54 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria The government's approval of Melbourne Airport's third runway is another example of Labor prioritising corporate profits over community interests. For years, Melbourne's west has borne the brunt of the city's industry. They've had to deal with severe pollution and toxic soil from the West Gate Tunnel Project. Now they're having to carry the burden of the state's air travel. Noise from the airport is already having a debilitating impact on residents' sleep and wellbeing. Minister King ignored calls from the community, local councils and the Greens to commission an independent health assessment of the third runway, and approved it without assessing the full scope of the risks to the community. At a time when we should be dramatically reducing climate pollution, the Labor government is waving through projects that will increase high-emission air travel. Enough is enough. Melbourne can see you, Labor, and Melburnians' votes are powerful. Emissions are higher under Prime Minister Albanese than they were under Scott Morrison. Labor are climate frauds. Twenty-three coal and gas projects, green-lighted by Minister Plibersek, will run as late as 2080—all under the false claim that we need more gas, when we all know that Australia exports 80 per cent of our gas for embarrassingly small returns. Despite Australians in the last election voting in a wave of new Greens MPs and climate-conscious Independents, the Prime Minister is inviting Mr Dutton over to his house to pour water on the latest environment bill. Without a climate trigger, Labor's environment bill might as well be scrunched up and thrown on the house fire that they continue to pour petrol on, while taking millions in dodgy donations from their mates in the fossil fuel industry. Well, there's an election coming up, and, just like Australia voted for climate action last time, after another term of Labor betrayal, I can't wait to see the Greens win more seats, including in my home state of Victoria: Sonya Semmens in Macnamara, Samantha Ratnam in Wills, Tara Burnett in Cooper and Huong in Fraser. Bring on the next election! Middle East 54 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to speak on the vote in the UN General Assembly last night, regarding Israel. The resolution looked to issues that aren't the immediate issues that are being faced in the Middle East. They are issues that should be debated, and should be debated over time, but the resolution totally ignored the immediate problems. Despite the resolution talking about the ability of states to live side by side in peace, it is totally silent on the attacks on Israel by Hamas and that it is the continuing holding of hostages that is driving the conflict in Gaza. I acknowledge our ambassador to the UN, Ambassador Larsen. In his response, he noted that the situation in Gaza is catastrophic and that the region is on the brink of escalation. He also says that member states need to remain focused on these most desperate and urgent issues, and he's right. That is what the world should be focusing on. We must be focusing on peace. But, in order to stop Hamas's continued attacks on Israel and Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, we need them to lay down their arms and release the hostages. Then we can start building a lasting peace. While I applaud the government and the minister for abstaining from the vote on that resolution, I think it would have been better to vote against it. Housing 54 13:58 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland This week, Australians have been watching the Senate, and what they have seen is the Liberals and Nationals teaming up and voting with the Greens to block housing legislation. What they've seen is a Labor government that wants to build more housing. We've seen this happen before with the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation, which was blocked by those opposite and delayed by the Greens. But what this legislation is delivering right now is 490 affordable and social housing homes in Cairns. Our government is building 490 affordable and social housing homes in regional Queensland. It was announced today, and construction starts next week. This is what the Labor government is doing. We want to build houses; they want to block them. These are the houses that the Liberal and National parties voted against. They voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is now funding 490 houses in Cairns. That is affordable social housing for almost 800 low- and middle-income families that will be delivered in a regional town that is desperately needing housing. The rental vacancy rate in Cairns is one per cent. We need this housing, and that's why the Albanese Labor government is delivering it. But those opposite, the Liberal National Party, Mr Peter Dutton and every single Queensland senator sitting over there, voted against each and every one of those families getting a home. Well, today they can see the difference, because in Cairns we're building homes; you are blocking them. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 We'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 55 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Under Labor, Australia's core inflation is higher than in comparable economies, including the US, the UK, Canada, Japan, the euro area, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand; and our economic growth is lower than in comparable nations like the US and the UK, with some comparable nations already starting their interest rate easing cycles. Minister, why is it that, after three Albanese Labor budgets, Australians are saddled with an entrenched per capita recession, negative productivity, sticky inflation and interest rates staying higher for longer? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question. I think all of those opposite need to go and see a doctor because I think they have the worst case of corporate and political amnesia that I have ever seen. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I'd love to call you. I'm just waiting for your colleagues in particular to recognise that you're standing and to give you the silence you deserve. Senator Henderson ZN4 President, point of order on reflecting on all senators on this side: given it's dementia week, given the many implications of what the senator has said— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, there was no particular reference to any particular senators. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING I withdraw if it makes question time run more smoothly. But the point I was making is that there seems to be no memory of when those opposite were in government, when inflation in the quarter that they left government was the highest that we have experienced in inflation growth. Senator Birmingham H6X But lower than in other countries. Yours is higher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, thank you, Senator Birmingham! Okay. So it was lower. Right. Senator Hume just drew the comparison with the United States. So do you, Senator Birmingham, accept that inflation peaked higher in the United States— Senator McKenzie 207825 Ministers take questions! Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Birmingham shouldn't be disorderly and interject. I think the point that Senator Birmingham made well for me is that, when you use international comparisons to make a political point, as you've just done, it is important to understand the facts, which are that inflation peaked higher in the United States, and inflation peaked later and lower here. And it is a good thing that it peaked lower here, because of course, when you've got inflation, it hits households, and that's the point. And interest rates were higher in the US than they ever reached here. They are currently at 4.3 per cent; they were over five per cent in the United States. So inflation was higher and interest rates were higher. So, when you draw the international comparison, let's actually be upfront and honest. We have a lot going for us in this economy. We have inflation moderating, we have wages growing, we have a strong labour market— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria ABS data shows that, since the election of the Albanese Labor government, real disposable income in Australia has gone backwards by 8.7 per cent. That's a worse outcome than comparable countries. Given your repeated justification that interest rates peaked later and lower in Australia, why is it that the disposable income of Australian households has been hit harder than in comparable countries? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie and Senator Watt, both of you are very fortunate to have voices which project across the chamber. Question time is not the time to exercise your voices. I'm asking you to listen in respectful silence. 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question. We've made it no secret that we accept that households have been doing it tough with the inflation challenge. That is true for households not just in Australia but around the world as the world deals with the post-COVID inflation challenge that every country has seen. That is why, Senator Birmingham, we have introduced all of the cost-of-living support that we could responsibly do without adding to the inflation challenge: to help households. We accept that households are doing it tough, which is why cheaper medicines, better access to Medicare, investments in housing, investments in rent relief, investments in energy bill relief—all of that matters. That's why we're confused about why you come in here and complain about households doing it tough but, when you look at your voting record, it actually shows you voted against support. Our focus is on relief for households and making sure this inflation challenge continues to moderate. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, will Australian households see their disposable income recover at all this financial year, or will Australians ultimately have endured three—potentially four—Labor budgets only to see their household income go backwards while government spending keeps surging? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Households are getting a lot more support than they would have under your economic plan. Our economic plan is about not adding to the inflation challenge, helping households through this, creating jobs and getting wages moving again. Your economic plan is to cut $315 billion from Commonwealth spending at a time when our economy is hardly growing. That is your economic plan. Our economic plan is working. We've got jobs growth. We've got growth in the economy. We've got wages moving again. We've got cost-of-living relief flowing through to households and we're putting down the foundations of growth through our Future Made in Australia plan, which, again, you oppose. Every step that we are putting in place to make sure our economy has the right support for the future is opposed by those opposite. Housing Affordability 56 14:06 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, making housing more affordable matters to young Australians as well as those under pressure from the cost of living. Can the minister explain how delays to the Albanese Labor government's housing reforms, engineered by Mr Peter Dutton and Mr Bandt, will impact the cost of living, particularly for renters and those trying to buy a home of their own? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thanks to Senator Green for her question, and thank you for your two-minute statement, which went through a recent announcement about more housing in Cairns in your home state of Queensland. Our government's priority is helping all Australians with the cost of living. We've delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer as well as energy bill relief, and we're delivering cheaper medicines, cheaper groceries, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, HECS relief and more homes, because that is what makes a difference to Australians' cost of living. This week we've tried to deliver even more homes for 40,000 low- and middle-income Australians. Labor's Help to Buy plan is action that helps Australians who've worked hard and saved but still can't afford a deposit. But what do these Australians hear from Mr Dutton and the Liberals? Well, it's the same as always: 'No. No no no.' Liberals don't want to help Australians with the cost of living. They think that, if they make the problem worse, it will be better for them politically, which is why they've tried to block every cost-of-living measure we've introduced and then come in here and complain about cost of living. They've offered no help, no plans for people struggling, just more negativity—and then they cuddle up to the Greens to help push urgent housing reforms down the track. Remember: these delays were deliberately engineered by Mr Bandt's Greens party and Mr Dutton's Liberal Party. They were deliberately engineered because they don't care that it means Australians on low and middle incomes now have to wait longer to buy a house. It doesn't affect them, so it doesn't matter to them. Mr Dutton and the Liberals created the housing crisis. The Albanese government is trying to fix it, and the Liberals and the Greens are deliberately getting in the way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, can you stop deliberately shouting across the chamber? If you can't listen— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, if you can't listen in silence, I invite you to leave the chamber. 14:09 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, the Community Housing Industry Association has welcomed the Albanese Labor government's first round of funding for social and affordable housing under the Housing Australia Future Fund. CHIA CEO Wendy Hayhurst said, 'It's heartening to see the Commonwealth taking decisive action to address Australia's housing crisis', and today the Prime Minister announced even more social and affordable housing in Far North Queensland. Can the minister detail that announcement and explain the Albanese Labor government's plans to further boost social and affordable housing? (Time expired) 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It says a lot when those who work at the coalface of homelessness and domestic violence services support Labor's housing plans but the Liberal Party and the Greens political party do not. Those on the front lines know that the problems that the Liberal government created over nine years can't be fixed overnight. As Ms Hayhurst said, 'When you're tackling a housing crisis that has been decades in the making, the key is to show long-term commitment and to steadily make inroads', and that is what our government is doing. As Senator Green said, the Prime Minister was in Cairns this morning, unlocking even more social and affordable housing. This is Queensland's biggest ever social and affordable housing project, with 490 homes. They don't like it. They don't like more social and affordable housing in this country, including in Cairns. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, a report authored by top economist Saul Eslake has found that using superannuation for a housing deposit would make homes more expensive, hinder the homeownership of young Australians, reduce retirement incomes and lead to significant long-term costs to the federal budget. Can the minister explain why the Albanese Labor government's housing reforms will help young Australians now and in the long run? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber. Order! Minister Wong. 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Green, for your question. Can I say this: the Albanese government's housing reforms will help young Australians now and in the future, because we want to help 40,000 low- and middle-income Australians yesterday. Mr Dutton's only plan is to let young people raid their super to get into the market, which will only drive up house prices and leave young Australians worse off by the time they retire. According to Mr Eslake, if super for housing was introduced it would be 'one of the worst public policy decisions in six decades'. It 'would do little for the people who are most in need of assistance' and it 'would do most for those who need it least.' 'Super for housing'—just listen to this—'would just make the affordability crisis worse.' Super for housing would just make— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Davey, to cup your hands and yell across the chamber is incredibly disrespectful. I've asked you to listen in silence. That is what I expect. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Your policy would just make the affordability crisis worse. It would make it worse, but you don't care. (Time expired) Environment 57 14:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing minister for the environment, Senator McAllister. Last week in— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator DUNIAM 263418 They don't find it interesting—well. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do believe it's your time as well, Senator Duniam. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Last week in answer to a question relating to McPhillamys gold mine, you said, 'The minister made her decision out of deference to the law.' Given that you claim the law is the reason for the job-destroying decision, will you change the law so it never happens again—yes or no? 14:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We're back on this subject again. I have been clear, on behalf of the minister, that the minister does apply the law assiduously when decisions are put before her. It's a different approach to the approach that has been advocated by those opposite, who over the course of last couple of weeks have essentially advocated that projects they like should be approved and projects they don't like should be rejected— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, it's not your question. Senator McALLISTER 121628 based on who the applicant is and based on the technology that the applicant or the proponent is bringing forward. Well, that is not the approach taken by the government. Incidentally, it's not dissimilar to what we get from down the other end of the chamber. We get a similar kind of proposal from the Australian Greens, who routinely come into this chamber and demand that the minister reject this proposal or that proposal. None of this is in the national interest. What is in the national interest is an actual framework that allows proponents, community organisations and ordinary people to understand the law that applies and to understand and have confidence that the minister will indeed apply that law impartially, based on the evidence that is before her. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 Point of order on relevance, President: I did ask specifically whether the government, who write the laws of this country, would change the laws, not apply the ones that exist. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, you also referred to the way in which the minister made the decision in the first part of your question, and the minister is being relevant. Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thanks, President. The senator asks about law reform, and I had understood that there was a consensus across this chamber that law reform in relation to cultural heritage was required. After the Juukan Gorge disaster, all parties—including the Liberal Party, as I understood—undertook to reform these laws. Indeed, Ms Ley was one of the people who made numerous public comments about this. This law reform process is underway, and the reform processes for these laws and others in this area are ones we would hope you would support. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I refer the minister to an answer she gave in November of 2023 relating to the salmon industry being under threat by this government because, as the minister said, a review into that industry was required by law. Given this review could destroy 5,000 jobs and that entire industry, will you commit to changing these laws so it never happens again—yes or no? 14:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I think senators in this chamber understand, the minister has been required by law to undertake a reconsideration of the arrangements for salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, and she has been very clear about her obligations under the law to do so. This is not a review that was initiated by the government, but it is a review that is required under the law. Again, in this chamber, we have one group of people saying the minister should make a decision based on their preferences, and on that side of the chamber we have another group of senators asserting that the minister should make decisions based on their preferences. Again, the minister will apply the law. It happens that a review of the EPBC Act and the framework around it is underway. There is legislation before this chamber that you could commit to vote for, but thus far you have not done so, and I invite you to actually jump up and vote for the legislation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:18 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Thank you—no commitment to workers anywhere. Given the minister has now said twice that the law is the law and refused to change the laws in a way that ensures we end uncertainty for investors, the community and workers, how can Australians anywhere have any faith this Labor government will ever put regional jobs ahead of green votes in Sydney and Melbourne? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I am waiting for silence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, I've just called for silence. That applies to you. 14:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am certainly very pleased to be invited to speak about this government's commitment to regional jobs and regional investment. I would point the opposition to the many, many initiatives that our government is supporting to actually see a rejuvenation of our industrial base and our regions and to diversify our economy. Perhaps I could refer to the $7 billion over the decade to strengthen Australia's critical minerals supply chains through the new critical minerals production tax incentive, something I believe you are opposed to. Perhaps we could talk about $1.7 billion over the decade for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, supporting Future Made in Australia priority sectors, many of which are based in regional Australia. Perhaps we could talk about the $566 million for Geoscience Australia to progressively map the whole of onshore Australia—and we could go on. (Time expired) Housing 59 14:19 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to Senator Wong, representing the Prime Minister. Senator, over the next decade, Labor plans to hand out $176 billion in tax concessions to property speculators through negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. These pour fuel on the fire of Australia's housing crisis, contributing to massive price rises that have locked millions of Australian renters out of homeownership and made it easier for an investor to buy their ninth or 90th property than it is for someone trying to buy their first home. Minister, do you accept that these tax breaks push up house prices and massively disadvantage renters trying to get in to the property market? Why won't Labor negotiate with the Greens to curtail these tax handouts so more people can afford a home, rather than taking a bulldozer approach on your Help to Buy Bill, legislation which will only make matters worse? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia No. I'm calm, but I haven't had much sleep, so! Senator McKim, you know what our housing policy is and you have spent days working with Senator Birmingham, working with the coalition, to prevent more houses being made available to low- and middle-income Australians. So I understand— Senator WONG 00AOU I beg your pardon? I beg your pardon? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt? Senator Watt 245759 President, I'd ask that Senator Henderson withdraw the remarks that she just made across the chamber. She knows very well what she just said. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Wong. I would just urge all senators to be mindful: (1) it's your responsibility to control your behaviour in this place; it is your responsibility to control what you say and what you don't say. I'm asking you to be mindful of that. We should not have to be seeking withdrawals for comments that are unparliamentary. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU What I was saying was: Senator McKim, you and your party have spent days in this place ensuring that we could not even bring the legislation to a vote. And you know why you didn't want it to come to a vote? Because you were embarrassed. You are embarrassed. We went through all the shenanigans in this place, including what we saw the other day, because you wanted to avoid a vote, because you are embarrassed, because you know you were voting against 40,000 houses for low-and middle-income Australians. Now you ask a question about your demands and some attempt to try and tell people, 'Actually, we didn't vote with Mr Dutton and the coalition to ensure Labor couldn't deliver 40,000 houses to low-and middle-income Australians.' Senator WONG 00AOU You interject on me because you don't like the truth. The truth is: you have been working with them to prevent us implementing our policy, and now you come in here and you bleat about the fact that we haven't adopted your policies! I mean, really! The fact is: you're working with the coalition to stop houses being built. That is the truth. And you should be ashamed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim? 14:23 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania We are very proud of trying to stop you making the housing crisis worse, Senator. But earlier this year— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Senator McKim, resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, you may not have noticed, but I've actually been waiting for you to stop. Senator McKim, please continue. Senator McKIM JKM Minister, you were happy to revise your stage 3 tax cuts because circumstances had changed. The housing crisis has got massively worse since Labor came to power. Why won't you negotiate with the Greens to help fix this massive societal calamity? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll take what Senator McKim said about being proud. Are you proud of delaying more houses for low- and middle-income Australians? Are you proud of voting with Mr Dutton and the coalition, who only want those who have—only some people—to have the benefit of homeownership? Are you proud of the spokesperson for the Greens, who is against 3,000 social and affordable houses in his electorate? Are you proud of that? Are you proud of all the ways in which the Greens come in here, after having opposed social housing and affordable housing in their own electorates, and vote with Peter Dutton to prevent us delivering more social and affordable housing? Are you proud of all that, Senator McKim? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, second supplementary? 14:25 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Yes, we're very proud of Mr Chandler-Mather running rings around the Prime Minister, I'll tell you that. Senator, is your government seriously so committed to handing over $176 billion in tax concessions to property speculators to disadvantage renters that you would actually go to a double-dissolution election to defend those obscene tax handouts? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKim, you have finished your question. Minister Wong. 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, first, Senator, we're going to give you another opportunity. We will reintroduce this bill, a version 2, and we will give the Senate another opportunity, just as we did on the HAFF, the housing affordability fund, which you also delayed. We will give you another opportunity to vote for it. But what I would say to you is your interjection about Mr Chandler-Mather really shows what you're all about, doesn't it? It's all about the politics. It's all about his profile. It's all about him building his brand. We're about building houses. You're about building your brand; we're about building houses. Do you know what's really fascinating? It's that this person, the member for Griffith, who's happy to stand on a stage with pictures of the Prime Minister— (Time expired) Economy 60 14:27 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Today we've seen further evidence that the Albanese Labor government's economic plan is working, with almost one million jobs created under Labor. This is in addition to record-high workforce participation and the gender pay gap being down to a record low. Inflation in Australia is moderating—in fact, it's halved from its peak in 2022—and our rates are still lower than in the US, even after today's rate cut. How has Labor's economic plan enabled the government to provide cost-of-living relief whilst putting downward pressure on inflation? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for her question. It's an important one about the Albanese government's economic plan and how today, in the labour force data, we saw that 47½ thousand jobs were added to the economy in August and the unemployment rate has held steady at 4.2 per cent. This is a good outcome. We want more people in jobs, earning more and keeping more of what they earn. There have been a record number of jobs created on our watch, more than in any other term of parliament in Australia's history. Participation rate remains high at 67.1 per cent and is at record high for women, showing that our economic plans around addressing gender inequality across the economy are also working. Our investments in early education and care, so that more women can choose extra hours if they want to, are being reflected in the participation rate. Almost 978,000 new jobs have been created under this government, and that is something that this entire chamber should celebrate because we know that having a job is so important to making sure families can keep ahead of budgets in their households. We're also seeing inflation moderate. Again, we inherited inflation with a six in front of it. It's coming down in welcome ways. We would like, of course, to see that continue down, and we'll have the monthly CPI figures out next week. We're also seeing wages growing—again, a big contrast between this government and those when they were in government. Remember the deliberate design feature to keep wages low. That is what the opposition did. We have got wages moving again, we're delivering surpluses, and we are making sure that the budget is in much better shape. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia That's great news, Minister. Thank you. Whether it's housing, super on paid parental leave, cost protections for workers or a future made in Australia, Labor is committed to a better future for all Australians. We have pursued these policies in the Senate this week because we know they will improve the lives of all Australians. Minister, why is Labor's policy agenda the right one for all Australians? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for that supplementary too and drawing attention to our plans on housing, which we have been debating here this week; super on PPL, which passed this chamber in a fantastic vote earlier today; cost protection for workers; and a future made in Australia. All of those are those key policies and key features of our economic plan. We've got the tax cuts rolling through. We've got cheaper child care. We've got cheaper medicines. We've got the Medicare urgent care clinics, which have been so successful. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive rate. We've got the fee-free TAFE places and the energy bill relief that's rolling out to households now. We've extended paid parental leave. And, importantly, for those who live on payments, we have managed to find room to increase support for jobseekers and single parents because we know that people on payments do it tough as well. This is part of our carefully calibrated economic plan, and it is working in the interests of all Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia This week in the Senate, the Albanese Labor government has been pushing back against the blockers. We want Australians to be homeowners. We want Australians to get super paid on their parental leave. We want to further improve the rights of Australian workers. We want a future made in Australia. What are the roadblocks that the government is facing in delivering our policy agenda? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The roadblocks are there and around there—just stop where Senator Faruqi is. They're the blockers. They're the ones that have voted to block a very sensible Help to Buy housing program that would get 40,000 people out of renting and into homeownership. That was the reform that the Senate voted to delay this week. It is a real shame. I think the thing about the Senate-only week is that people have been able to see the Senate taking part in that block. They've been seeing the very unhealthy alliance, the legislative hugging that's been going on, from the Greens, the National Party and the Liberal Party to block a sensible housing policy—Help to Buy—to get 40,000 people into homeownership. This Senate voted to delay it. Teach For Australia 61 14:33 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for Senator Watt, representing the Minister for Education. Teach For Australia is one of two programs under the High Achieving Teachers Program funded by the Australian government to place high-quality teachers in disadvantaged schools facing workforce shortages. An evaluation of the Teach For Australia program in 2017 found that participants became high-quality teachers and delivered the skills schools needed, and a majority stayed teaching at the schools for two years after their placement. Teach For Australia is currently funded in small blocks. I reckon a program like this would benefit from more certainty. Does the government support longer term funding periods for Teach for Australia and similar programs? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. I particularly want to thank you on behalf of my family, most of whom are teachers or have been teachers. Senator Hughes 273828 And yet you know nothing. Senator WATT 245759 Are you questioning something, Senator Hughes? I think we all understand the incredibly valuable role that teachers play in our community, educating younger people in school environments and preparing them for the future. I'm happy to seek some advice on the specific question about the Teach for Australia program and the government's intentions for that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, just cut the running dialogue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, you're not in a debate with me. I've asked you to be silent. That is what I expect. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 They don't like being over there, President, so I understand they're being a bit tetchy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Cash! I have a minister on her feet. Senator Wong 00AOU President, on a point of order: Senator Henderson has been unable to stop interjecting for most of question time. You asked her not to. The minister stood and she immediately started again. I really would ask her: could we at least have a few seconds between interjections? Senator Henderson ZN4 On the point of order, in my defence, Senator Watt actually interjected in the last— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, please resume your seat. That is not a point of order. I do remind senators, as you are all well aware, if you make an interjection, the minister is well within his or her rights to respond to it. If you don't want to be called out, keep silent. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, Senator Tyrrell, I will seek some further information for you from Minister Clare about the specific program you're referring to. But I might just quickly take the opportunity to give you some further information about the work the government is doing in relation to the teacher workforce generally. We acknowledge there is a teacher shortage in Australia, and it is 10 years in the making. Too few people have been becoming teachers and too many have been leaving. In December 2022, education ministers agreed to the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan, which sets out a clear pathway to address teacher workforce shortages. For the first time, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments are working together to tackle this issue. It's a novel concept, I understand, for people opposite—working together with state and territory governments—but, as a result of that, we have 27 actions in train across five priority areas: improving teacher supply, strengthening initial teacher education, keeping the teachers we have, elevating the profession and better understanding future teacher workforce needs. There's no doubt whatsoever that we need to invest in the teaching workforce. All research indicates that the best thing you can do for kids' education is invest in their teachers, and that's what we'll keep doing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary? 14:37 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania If this program is meeting the Australian government's objective to provide high-quality education in disadvantaged areas, would the Albanese government support long-term funding—say, five-year blocks—for programs like Teach for Australia to provide teachers with more support in their employment and reassure communities of their amazing teachers? Senator McKenzie 207825 That's a great question. Minister Clare's office should text you the answer. 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't need help, Senator McKenzie. I'm quite okay, thanks. I'm quite okay. I definitely don't need any colour-coded spreadsheets with advice to me, Senator McKenzie. I don't need that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I am going to remind you to address your comments to the chair. Senator WATT 245759 President, again, I've already said to Senator Tyrrell that, if I have any further information to provide about that specific program, I will do so. But, again, to give an indication of some of the things that we are doing, we've awarded the first round of Commonwealth Teaching Scholarships to around 1,000 first-year teacher education students across the country. Scholarship recipients receive up to $10,000 a year while they are studying and then commit to teach for a period of time after they graduate. Under the $30 million Workload Reduction Fund, we're piloting new approaches to take pressure off teachers and school leaders, such as employing more support staff to undertake administrative tasks. Minister Clare will soon be announcing the outcomes of the latest High Achieving Teachers Program grant round. Over the next three years, this program will support 1,500 people to become teachers through employment based pathways. I think that may actually be the program you're talking about under a different name. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary? 14:39 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The minister has pretty much answered all the questions I have. So, thank you, Minister Watt. I appreciate your time. I'm bowing out. Regional Australia: Workplace Relations 62 14:39 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. Many small businesses in regional Australia have been shocked at the impact of Labor's industrial relations agenda, especially measures like multi-employer bargaining and 'right to disconnect' laws, which were never revealed by the Labor Party prior to the election. At the National Press Club yesterday, Minister Watt was asked by David Crowe if Labor: … will put your IR agenda to voters or will there be some surprises after the election? In response, the minister said: Well, I think governments always take items to an election and then deliver extra things after they are elected. To reassure small businesses in regional Australia, will the minister rule out surprise and unwelcome Labor industrial relations reform after the election, or should they brace for more unwelcome surprises from Labor? Senator Wong 00AOU Point of order. I note it does have 'regional' in the question, but it clearly, in policy terms, relates to the bloke sitting next to her. Now, I know you're scared of asking him a question, but he is available. Senator Birmingham H6X President, on the point of order: indeed, I took a similar point of order on 12 September, when government senators had asked then Minister Watt, who was acting as the minister representing the minister for regional development, specific questions about tax cuts and energy relief—matters not at all relevant to his portfolio, but the questions were framed in their impact on regional Australians and regional development. This question was very clearly framed in relation to regional Australia and regional development, and I'd invite you to uphold the words that you said on 12 September and that you advise the chamber that, as the minister repping regional development, he can answer in that capacity the questions that were asked. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you very much, Senator Birmingham. I'm very pleased that you take an avid interest in the rulings I make from the chair. I will seek the advice of the Clerk. I give similar advice: I invite the minister to answer the question to the extent that it relates to regional Australia and that part of the portfolio you're representing. 14:42 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, President. Certainly, I listened to Senator Watt at the Press Club yesterday. It was a fantastic Press Club delivery by Senator Watt on all the things that we're doing here in the Albanese government right across Australia, particularly in regional Australia. We know that millions of small businesses are the engine room of our nation's economy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator McCARTHY 122087 and I would gladly invite Senator Watt, who would be able to tell you all about the small businesses in our economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for not answering the question about surprise announcements for regional Australians! Regional Australians, especially small businesses in the regions, are also being crippled by spiralling electricity bills under the Albanese Labor government. Regional households were even promised that their electricity bills would be $275 lower under Labor. Will regional Australians see that $275 price reduction in 2025, 2026 or anytime in the future? 14:43 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I just want to clarify: this is the electricity bill that the opposition voted against, giving support and relief in terms of the subsidies? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume to your seat. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKenzie 207825 I'm just seeking the opportunity to clarify for the minister what I was talking about. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, Senator McKenzie. You've asked your question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator Cash, I've called and called you. Come to order or leave the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ayres! Senator Colbeck, equally, I've called your name a number of times. If you can't stop yourself interjecting—and it is your responsibility, not mine—then please leave the chamber. Minister McCarthy. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Just confirming, this was the energy relief that the opposition said 'no' to in the Senate to try to relieve the cost-of-living pressure— Senator McKenzie 207825 Point of order under standing order 191, 'explanation', where, if what I've said has been misunderstood, I am able to be afforded the opportunity to explain—the $275 was never a piece of legislation before this. We didn't have the opportunity to back that promise— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, we're not getting into statements. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie—order across the chamber!—you were given the opportunity to make a point of order. I listened to your point of order. I've said in this chamber, over and over again, when you make the point of order you don't then make a political statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 I think we're very clear that the minister is using it as a rhetorical device, but I will continue to listen carefully to her answer. Minister McCarthy. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Thank you, Senator, for the question. There is nothing that the opposition won't seek to politicise. When they left office, the average wholesale energy price was 286 megawatts per hour. Just like we inherited a 6.1 per cent inflation rate, the coalition will not take responsibility for the messes that they left. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 Now we hear them, even though they voted against the opportunity for Australians to have cheaper energy across Australia, they voted against cheaper bills, and that is all they have to say. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? 14:46 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Regional Australians are being smashed by high inflation, high electricity bills, productivity-crushing industrial relations reforms and the growing rejection of major job-creating developments, including mines in regional Australia. Just how many regional Australians are losing their businesses or homes because of Labor's woeful economic management? 14:47 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I stood in the Senate here yesterday and spoke about the $4 billion that is going into regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. That is 270 houses per year, 1,200— Senator McKenzie 207825 How many people are losing their homes and businesses? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Minister, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, the running dialogue at full voice is incredibly disrespectful, to me in particular as I have called you to order over and over and over again. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Our focus is on regional and remote Australia, as it is for all Australians in the cities as well. Our government is for all Australians, including remote and regional Australia. Age Pension 64 14:48 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. ATO figures show that the median superannuation balance for males aged 60 to 64 is $211,000 and for women $158,000, below the pension asset threshold of $314,000. This means that over 50 per cent of people about to retire will still receive a full pension, the same percentage of retirees when superannuation began in 1992. Superannuation tax concessions cost the budget $50 billion a year plus $30 billion in fees, yet most of these concessions and fees go to the upper 30 per cent of income earners. The pension funds 70 per cent of retirees at a cost of $54 billion. Why does the Albanese Labor government believe that superannuation can provide a good retirement for low-income earners when it clearly isn't achieving that goal? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Rennick for the question. I hadn't expected that question from you, Senator Rennick. We are strong supporters of superannuation, but at the same time we recognise that the age pension is an important social safety net and that, at times, people will rely completely on the age pension or they will have a mix of age pension with some superannuation in their retirement years. And, as the superannuation system matures, we expect more people will benefit from higher incomes in retirement through the superannuation system. But we also acknowledge that the age pension is there as a social safety net. Obviously, we are big supporters of super, and increasing the superannuation threshold is part of that. We have some legislation in this chamber now to decrease some of the concessionality for high-balance super accounts—still highly concessional in the taxation system, but less concessional—and we would like that legislation progressed in the first instance. But we certainly strongly support the superannuation system. The concessions that are around it are around it for a reason. We accept also that the age pension will be an important social safety net for those on low incomes, even if they supplement it somewhat with their superannuation balance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, first supplementary? 14:50 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland On average, men will retire with approximately 35 per cent more superannuation than women, as many women choose to stay home for some of their career to raise their children. Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce superannuation tax concessions and instead lift the pension and cut tax on low-income earners so that they and stay-at-home parents can live a better life in retirement? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Rennick. I thank you for the question on women and super, and it is really important and I'm happy to have further discussions with you about what we can do to make it a fairer and better system for women. Obviously, the passage of the super on paid parental leave bill that passed this place this morning is an important step, as is increasing wages in those highly feminised industries like aged care and early education and care and for workers on the minimum wage because those wage increases will actually flow through and contribute to higher superannuation balances as well. But I'm open to further discussions. Indeed, I met this morning with HESTA, whose membership is 80 per cent women, about improvements that can be made for women's superannuation, because you're right; women on average retire with 25 per cent less super, and women who are older are more economically vulnerable. We are looking at ways to strengthen that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, second supplementary? 14:51 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Capitalism only occurs when people manage their own capital. This excludes politicians, corporate executives and superannuation funds, who manage other people's money. However, politicians and corporate boards are at least elected by taxpayers and shareholders. Do the boards of superannuation funds have to be elected by their members; if not, why not? Shouldn't members get a say in who manages their money? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The superannuation legislation is clear around the governance arrangements for superannuation funds, and they are accountable to their members and they must act in the best interest of their members. That is a requirement of the legislation. There are very tight laws and governance arrangements through APRA that are there precisely for that reason. Members of superannuation funds are not often the most engaged with what's happening with their accounts. We would like to see more engagement of people, of course, with their superannuation arrangements, but the reality is that, certainly for large periods of people's careers, they're not, and therefore the laws and regulations and oversight of that industry are really important. I think the balance between APRA, the superannuation legislation and all of the other accountability mechanisms ensure the best interests of members are paramount. First Nations Australians 65 14:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister McCarthy. Minister, you've stated that one of your priorities is to stop politicians using First Peoples as a political football. Your government said it is committed to truth-telling. If we want to talk about truth, let's talk about how over 98 per cent of First People in this country have been wiped out in less than 300 years. There have been over 500 documented massacres. And our children are still being removed and locked up at growing rates. Minister, do you acknowledge that, since colonisation, governments have implemented genocidal policies against First Peoples? 14:54 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the question. I think, as minister, it's probably my first question from you. What I will say is that the history of this— Senator Thorpe 280304 It won't be the last. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Well, the first at question time. You've had plenty in estimates; there's no doubt about that—and I'm sure there will be more to come. Certainly, the history of this country is fraught with policies that have impacted, very negatively, the lives of First Nations people, including the stolen generations, in terms of the high rates of removals from the 1800s right up to the 1970s. What this government has done is redress those issues in trying to work with the stolen generations reparations— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, on a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 Relevance: it was about genocidal policies against us. It wasn't about what her government is doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, there was a significant preamble to the last part of your question which the minister is entitled to address and is addressing. Senator Thorpe 280304 Well, people are watching! Senator McCARTHY 122087 I'm more than happy for people to watch. I think it's important that people should see what democracy is all about and how debates take place in this Senate—those that are sensible and those that are nonsensical. But I will say this: the policies of the past have impacted First Nations people. We are seeing that addressed in the redress, as I was saying to the Senate today, in terms of the stolen generations. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of families across Australia still traumatised by the policies of the day, by governments from way back in the 1800s through to the 1970s. I know that the parliament of Australia today is acutely aware of that. Was it the right thing to do? Senator Thorpe 280304 Point of order on relevance— The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being directly relevant to your question, Senator Thorpe. Senator McCARTHY 122087 The trauma that many First Nations families experienced throughout that history still occurs today in this country. The trauma that impacts our families results in the high rates of removals of our children from their families. It also results in the high rates of incarceration in our justice systems across the country. And that is why the national agreement on Closing the Gap was implemented. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:57 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The Bringing them home report concluded that the policies of the forcible removal of our children were genocidal in intent. Minister, do you agree with the finding of the Bringing them home report—that government actions in this country have constituted genocide? 14:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The Bringing them home report was a report that so many families, including my own family, gave evidence to. It was a report that took many years, took thousands of evidence. And what it did do— Senator Thorpe 280304 Relevance: it's about genocide. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, if I might explain— Senator Thorpe 280304 I don't want you to explain. I just want her to answer the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. To explain, you mentioned in the first part of your question, the Bringing them home report which the minister is entitled to confine her remarks to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me! You've raised the point of order. I've indicated to you there is no point of order. I'm going to invite the minister to continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 The Bringing them home report and the recommendations of the report were embraced by the Labor Party so much so that, in 2007, when Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister, one of the first things he did in the Australian parliament was to acknowledge the Bringing them home report, to answer the question of Senator Thorpe, to apologise— Senator Thorpe 280304 And what has that done? It's taken more kids out of our families than any— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Thorpe, come to order! Senator McCARTHY 122087 The Bringing them home report, which I encourage all senators to read, culminated in what happened when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd become Prime Minister—an acknowledgment of the historical horrors of the removal of First Nations people in this country. That continues today in terms of the redress for those families. I've written to hundreds and hundreds of families across this country in terms of what has happened to them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. The time— Senator Thorpe 280304 What about 23,000 without home or care under your watch? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, I'm trying to give you the respect you are entitled to as a senator in this place, but I would ask that you stop interjecting. I invite you to put your second supplementary. 14:59 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria As the new minister, you've said, 'Truth telling is important,' but you can't give a straight answer. When will you show some leadership and hold your own government to account for the ongoing slow and sophisticated eradication of our people, our children and our culture, or will you just continue to use the approved talking points that protect your colonial masters? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. Minister McCarthy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ciccone! Senator Thorpe is entitled to ask a question. You may not agree with it, but she is entitled to, like every senator in this place, and you will listen in respectful silence. 15:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I do think it's really unfortunate that Senator Thorpe does use the Senate as a place to cause further division for First Nations people in this country. I do believe that Senator Thorpe has a responsibility— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 Point of order: what was that? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, that's not a point of order. Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I will always use the Senate as an opportunity to bring about greater unity in this country and greater understanding, no matter how appalling our history has been, in terms of the high rates of removal— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 And I ask the senators opposite to show some respect about the high rates of removal of First Nations children— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. I have Senator Thorpe on her feet. Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 President, the point of order is on relevance to my question. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Thorpe. You asked the minister about leadership. The minister is talking directly about leadership. Please resume your seat. Minister McCarthy. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Thank you, President. I also thank Indigenous leaders and families across the country, especially in Victoria in terms of the push for treaty and the Yoorrook commission, and all of those working across the other states and jurisdictions in terms of the high rates of removal of First Nations people. I think it's important. We are doing the best that we can, and I do urge all senators—Senator Thorpe included—to remember that this is a place to use for the betterment of our country. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUSINESS 67 BUSINESS Rearrangement 67 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to consideration of legislation. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, 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 consideration of legislation to be moved and determined immediately. I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [15:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the suspension be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That a motion relating to consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. And I move: That the question be now put. 15:14 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [15:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:17 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the procedural motion be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move the motion as circulated: That: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 be put immediately; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm until consideration of the bill has concluded. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by the minister be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:21]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 71 BILLS Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 71

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

The Senate divided. [15:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) 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. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [15:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) 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. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 72 15:33): The PRESIDENT ( 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [15:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) 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. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 73 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Central Land Council 73 15:36 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I just have a statement of clarification. Yesterday Senator Nampijinpa Price asked a question about the Central Land Council full council meeting on 17 September 2024. In my answer I explained that I was aware of the meeting. I also explained I was not aware of any motion to remove the CLC chair prior to the meeting. Senator Price incorrectly asserted in the Senate that I was not aware of the outcome of the meeting by 2 pm on 18 September 2024. This does not reflect my response to her question during question time, and I encourage the senator to ensure she quotes me appropriately. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 73 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 73 15:38 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked by coalition senators today. There is one question on the minds of Western Australian families, and that question is this: what have they done to deserve the economic mismanagement of Anthony Albanese, the Labor Prime Minister, and Dr Jim Chalmers, the Labor Treasurer? Why has the Labor government let down Western Australian families when, just 2½ years ago, the WA Labor Party elected Labor Party members in Western Australia on the back of a promise? Labor's promise was that they would stand up for WA and for WA families. We know that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is getting desperate when it comes to Western Australia and the next federal election. Why do we know that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, supported by his WA federal Labor MPs, is getting desperate? That's because he's now trying to create a GST scare campaign in Western Australia when there doesn't need to be one at all. So I want to use this opportunity just to remind people about Labor's record when it comes to the GST. Despite Roger Cook and Prime Minister Albanese's efforts to confuse the GST debate, Western Australians have not forgotten that it was federal Labor that was the last to join the chorus of local Western Australian voices arguing for a fairer GST deal in Western Australia. In fact, it was the West Australian newspaper who first complained about the silence of federal Labor parliamentarians, in April 2017, noting: To date, WA Labor members in Canberra have done nothing about the GST other than grumble the system is a rip-off. At the same time, the Sunday Times newspaper in Western Australia reported that federal Labor representatives had 'let WA down', and that their submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry at the time contained no answers to fix the situation. A few months later, it fell to Roger Cook, now the Premier, who was then the Acting Deputy Premier, to implore his federal Labor MPs to take more notice and get real about the GST issue. And who can forget that Bill Shorten, then the Leader of the Labor Party, the opposition leader, turned his back on Western Australia in November of that same year, admitting that he and Labor would not change the GST carve-up or introduce a GST floor? Instead, he said that Labor would offer Western Australia just $1.6 billion in infrastructure funding, compared to the very generous GST deal that Western Australians now enjoy as a result of the coalition government. In January 2018, Labor's candidates in five seats said that they would defend Bill Shorten's opposition to the GST changes and instead support a very meagre—just $1.6 billion—infrastructure deal. Western Australian families are being let down by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers. WA households' disposable income has now fallen by more than eight per cent, mortgage rates are up, and the expectation for ordinary WA families is that interest rates will continue to rise. And, as we've heard, per capita GDP is in freefall in this country. So why is it that 2½ years ago Anthony Albanese and federal Labor MPs went to Western Australian electors and said, 'We will stand up for Western Australia', and, just 2½ years later, those same Western Australian families and households are now paying a very, very high price for Labor's poor economic management? Why is it that federal Labor have turned their backs on Western Australian voters? Well, soon we'll know what Western Australians think. When we go to the polls—perhaps in early December or perhaps in February or May next year—Western Australians are going to vote, and they're going to vote Anthony Albanese and all of those federal WA Labor MPs down, because they have failed them. They have broken the trust, and they've broken their promises. 15:43 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I am taking note of answers to those questions that were put by the opposition. In particular, I will start off with the question that was put by Senator McKenzie about the regional effect of industrial relations policy. I recall Senator McKenzie saying that the Nationals at one time represented regional communities, but what Senator McKenzie is actually saying is that she's opposed to minimum wage increases for some of the lowest paid workers in this country. What Senator McKenzie is failing to enlighten the rest of the Senate and the Australian community about is the fact that when there were increases to the minimum wage in 2022, 2023 and 2024—leading to people earning $110 extra a week, which has a particular effect in regional communities—the member for New England, Mr Barnaby Joyce, described it as window dressing. So here we've got questions being asked by those on the opposite side, who are saying the industrial relations policy that delivers better pay for communities in regional Australia is something that should be abandoned. Then we start going to same job, same pay. Some of the richest, most powerful and most influential—you only have to ask the Nationals—mining companies and other businesses in this country want to smash and slash same job, same pay. Workers in regional Australia are now finally, as a result of the legislation we brought forward, getting paid between $20,000 and $30,000 extra for doing exactly the same job that the person next to them is doing. They were getting paid less despite being under the same supervision and the same rosters and doing the same job. Senator McKenzie wants to bring all that back. Where there are well-paid jobs in regional Australia, those opposite want to drive them down, and, where there are low-paid jobs, they want to make sure they can only go lower. If you say $110 a week is window dressing, I think you need start asking somebody in your own community how much window dressing $110 a week is, and you need to start asking everybody across the Australian community about what the impact of a government led by Mr Dutton would be if it were, unfortunately, to be elected. Regional Australia would be smashed. These are the people opposed to a future made in Australia. You can name any policy. These are the people who are opposed to the support that was given by this Labor government on electricity. They want everyone to pay $230 extra a year. They want to have people's wages go lower. They want the people who are getting paid a fair wage to lose $20,000—hit after hit after hit. Why? Because miners and their ilk, some of the wealthiest organisations in this country, want to make sure they can put more in their pockets, so the Nationals want to make sure that the miners can put their hands in others' pockets, which would mean that regional Australia gets paid less. Let's start talking about some of the things those opposite have already let out in the industrial relations field and some of the impacts in the trucking industry. I remember that when legislation was passed here on road haulage, giving support on industrial relations policy to medium, small and large businesses, those opposite voted against it. Guess where a large number of jobs are in regional Australia: in the trucking industry, where, in particular, small and medium operators are operating. So those opposite want to smash them as well. They want businesses, including small businesses, smashed. Do you know who wins out of that? It's the big businesses at the top. Senator Reynolds 250216 Ask our sheep farmers who's being smashed. Senator SHELDON 168275 I'll take that, Senator Reynolds. What a foolish question to raise! If Senator Reynolds knew anything about the trucking industry, she would know that trucking businesses, companies and associations across this country support what the Albanese government did, but you, you, you and you opposed it, because you don't like truck drivers and trucking business getting a fair shake. They don't want fair competition. They don't want small business to have a fair shake. They want to make sure the big gorillas at the top keep lining their pockets and putting their hands in the pockets of small business. That's why they want to vote against low wages being increased. That's why they want to vote against rights for small businesses and other businesses in the supply chains of these big, big, big companies like miners. We know what they're up to. I know what Senator Reynolds is up to. Along with the others, she wants to make sure the mining industry keeps putting its hands in the pockets of hardworking Australians. 15:48 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Well, what a load of rubbish. Let's have a look at the facts about what those opposite are actually doing to Australians in general and to the Western Australians I represent. Western Australia is the economic powerhouse of our nation, but this government's ideological policies have declared nothing short of war on the west—on the cost of living for every single family in Western Australia and on our industries, particularly our mining sector. This inevitably will have a terrible impact on jobs in my state. Those opposite talk about rhetoric and how life is wonderful for Australians under them. Well, I'll tell you what: I am sure that not one of the people here in the gallery and the people listening all across Australia will stand up and say, 'We feel better off after 2½ years of Labor.' Let me tell you what those opposite have done. They actually inherited an economy with low unemployment and strong growth. Also, there was a strong financial recovery underway. And you inherited, among the G20 nations and probably most nations, the strongest recovering economy in the world post COVID. And what have you done? What have you squandered and what have you done to the Australian people? National account growth is down. Living standards are down. Productivity is down. The government has spent this term fighting everything but inflation. And what has this done for the Australian people? It has caused their cost of living to skyrocket. Mortgage interest rates have tripled under those opposite. Gas is up 33 per cent. Electricity is up 14 per cent, and that is after the subsidies that this government provided. Rents are up 16 per cent. Health costs are up 11 per cent. Education costs are up 11 per cent. Food—food for families—is up 12 per cent. Finance and insurance costs are up 17 per cent. Personal income tax is up 25 per cent. No matter what those opposite say—they try to say, 'People are much better off. Australians are much better off underneath us. Australian workers are much better off with us.' What a lie. It is simply not true. The facts, the data, speaks for itself. The Prime Minister's train wreck of a press conference this week demonstrates he still does not get it. He does not have an economic plan for this nation, and he doesn't have a plan to help struggling Australians. He certainly does not have a plan to help Western Australians and to ensure that the Western Australian mining sector can continue to grow—instead of putting the brakes on it, or declaring war on it, as he currently is doing. Mr Albanese's tone-deaf speech to the Minerals Council dinner in Canberra last week really demonstrated without question just how much he does not understand the mining sector in this nation. He talked about, with great platitudes, all of the amazing things those opposite are doing for the sector. The sad truth is not a single word was true. As the sector said very clearly, 'You are doing everything you can to destroy the sector, and that includes our critical minerals sector. You are not doing anything, despite the rhetoric, to help build new industries.' We need the new minerals sector. We need it for the environment. We need it for every single piece of new energy technology that we have today. We need a wide range of new minerals. Those opposite say, 'We're helping the sector.' No, you are not. Today, investors in the minerals sector have many more investment opportunities than here in Australia. And guess what? They're going elsewhere, to countries that don't have the same environmental standards and to countries that use slave labour. Those opposite know—it's your dirty little secret—that, if they go offshore, China and other nations go to countries where they use slave labour and have poor environmental standards. Shame on you all. 15:53 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I've said this before and I just have to say it again. I am constantly amazed that the opposition can come into this place at question time and other times and, without any hint of irony, complain about the cost of living and the economy. I've reminded them before where the current wave of inflation actually started. It started with them. It started with their nearly 10 years of absolutely no action on anything. In recent years, the peak of quarterly inflation was reached in March 2022. Now, let's think about who was in government in March 2022. That's right; it was those on the other side. They created this crisis. They had almost a decade of wasted opportunities and inaction when they were in government, and then they have the absolute gall to come in here and demand that we fix everything yesterday. Unlike those opposite, we are actually doing something about it. Let me tell you about just one example. After almost a decade of failure by those opposite to tackle the housing crisis, we are taking action by providing more social and affordable homes for Australians and helping more Australians own their own home. As for the coalition's policy on housing, they had this thought bubble the other day. I'm not quite sure who had it, but the thought bubble was about allowing people to access superannuation for housing. Saul Eslake, in a very recent report, has found that it would make homes more expensive, hinder the homeownership aspirations of young Australians, reduce retirement income and lead to significant long-term costs for the budget. I will quote Mr Eslake. He said, 'If super for housing was introduced, it would be the worst public policy decision in the last six decades.' In the last 60 years, it would be the worst public housing policy. You've got to stop and think, 'What do they really stand for on the other side?' We know that they don't want to support our housing policy and we know that they've got this strange alliance with the Greens and the Greens don't—well, I'm not sure where the Greens stand on our housing policy, to be honest, because I think they actually agree with it; they just don't want to show people that they agree with it. And that's why earlier this week we had that quite strange debacle where people were running all over the chamber and the Greens and the Liberal and National parties voted together to delay our housing policy. The Greens do not care a hoot about people living rough. They don't care that families are being broken up. I know this for an absolute fact. I've had people call my office. I've been and talked to people that were living in tents who then contacted me to say their kids had been taken into care, the mother had gone to a shelter and the father was couch-surfing. And what do the Greens do? They vote with the coalition to delay the implementation of our housing policy. They would rather put at risk virtually every aspect of a person's life, including a sense of safety and social support, not to mention life expectancy and overall health issues, by leaving people homeless so that they can campaign against us. That's what it's about. It's about them having something to mobilise on. That's why the Greens don't want to support our housing policy. Truly, if they have the courage of their convictions, why don't they come in and vote it down, not just vote to delay, the same as they did when we put up the HAFF legislation earlier? They're happy to leave people, including children, open to violence and victimisation, let alone the trauma of living rough. The Greens are the party that say they care. Give me a break. They would rather kids be traumatised by having to live in tents or having to be split up from their family and their parents than actually have the courage of their convictions to come in and vote our legislation down. They are happy to delay it. 'Oh, yes, we care about people, but we'll delay it until the end of November.' What an absolute disgrace. As for the coalition, we're just pretty used to them saying no to everything. That's why they're called the no-alition: because everybody knows that everything we put up they say no to. 15:58 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania People that say yes to bad ideas are idiots, if you ask me, and this government has a lot of bad ideas. The fact is that the Greens, the entire crossbench and the opposition think the government's legislation is some of the worst in the world. That's why we're voting no. And to listen to the last speaker talk about how their plan, which to date has built, you guessed it, zero houses, will get young people off the streets—it is a joke. This government has no answers for any problems anyone is facing. Today we asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. 'What are you going to do to save people's jobs that are at risk?' Senator DUNIAM 263418 Deputy President, could I ask you to— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 My apologies! Senator Bilyk, please allow Senator Duniam to continue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Duniam, please proceed. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Thank you, Deputy President. I know it's difficult when people are called out for their folly. That's what has happened here, and people get a bit sensitive. So let's go to what I was actually going to talk about. The last speaker spoke about 'doing something'. My question was around changing the laws of the land that generate bad decisions. I said to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water: you've got laws and you keep telling us in question time that you must obey the law in relation to how you assess a goldmine, for example, or how you assess the salmon industry. Those industries are under threat. A goldmine was knocked on the head. It went through full state and environmental approvals and was still knocked on the head by the minister for the environment because of a small group of Indigenous Australians who did not like that proposal. We've been through the details in this chamber many times. But the minister, in defending that decision, said, 'Well, the law is the law.' The minister, in defending the risk posed to the Tasmanian salmon industry, which employs over 5,000 people in regional communities, said, 'The law is the law, and we must apply the law.' Well, the law can be changed. The government is in charge of what comes onto the Senate Notice Paper, the order in which we debate legislation and the amendments that are put forward for this place to consider. The fact is that this government don't actually care about the workers they claim to care about. Otherwise, they'd be changing the laws relating to section 10 of the ATSIHP Act to protect those 800 workers who would get jobs out of the McPhillamys goldmine. They'd be changing the laws that have now put at risk the entire salmon industry in Tasmania, affecting 5,000 people. They would be changing the EPBC Act to actually protect those jobs. The fact that they are not doing that says that they don't think they need to because the decision is right. If you obey to the letter the laws that are deployed and reach the decision you did, that will of course knock on the head the McPhillamys goldmine and the 800 jobs that would go with it, as well as the billion dollars of economic activity associated with it and the hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties revenue that would go into places like the state of New South Wales to pay for schools and hospitals. All of that is gone as a result of this decision, because of the law that we must obey. Instead of responding to that in the way that you would think a party that claims to be the friend of the worker would, they say, 'The law is the law, and we have to apply it.' It was put to me by the minister representing the minister for the environment that the laws before the parliament now relating to the Nature Positive plan would somehow address this. They wouldn't. They'd make it worse because the same laws would be in effect when it comes to the decisions we've made here. The point is that this government talk a big game when it comes to addressing issues that face Australians, be it the cost of living, housing, job security, environmental protections or investor certainty, but nothing they have bowled up in the way of a legislative agenda will in any way address those issues. This is why the polls are trending in the direction that they are. It's because, frankly, Australians know a dodgy deal when they see one, and this is what they've got with this government. They cannot in any way trust what's being said. They can't take this government at their word in terms of what it promises to do. The fact that they're willing to stick by the laws which have killed off projects like McPhillamys goldmine and which will probably kill off the salmon industry in Tasmania says everything about this government and what they actually think about regional jobs. As I said in my second supplementary question today, this government is more interested in ensuring that inner-city seats where the Greens are snapping at their heels are protected than in protecting the hundreds and thousands of workers whose jobs in regional Australia are at risk. Question agreed to. Housing, Environment 77 16:04 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of Senator Wong's response to my question on housing and Senator McAllister's response to Senator Duniam's question on the environment. I'll start with the latter. The simple fact is that industrial salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania is directly causing the extinction of the Maugean skate, of which there are fewer than 120 individuals left. After surviving for countless millennia, it is now sliding into extinction, thanks to the failure of the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, to stand up to the kind of political rubbish we just heard from Senator Duniam. I want to be very clear to everyone listening: if you're buying Tasmanian farmed salmon, that is 'extinction salmon'. The Tasmanian aquaculture industry is forcing the Maugean skate into extinction, and they're doing it with no compunction whatsoever. They're doing it in their relentless pursuit of profit. This is not about jobs. It's about profit. So anyone who's buying Tasmanian farmed salmon, you are contributing to the extinction of a species in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. So I urge people to stop buying Tasmanian farmed salmon. Stop it. It's extinction salmon. Do not support, with your purchasing dollars, the extinction of the Maugean skate. We also had a very interesting response from Senator Wong to the questions I asked. I was very clear in the questions I asked Senator Wong, on behalf of all of my colleagues in the Greens, which were directly about the $176 billion over the next decade that will be handed out in tax concessions to property speculators under a business-as-usual scenario. That $176 billion of tax concessions, in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, means that a property speculator who might own one investment property—or five, 10, 20, 30 and, in some cases, 300, 400 and 500 investment properties—can use those tax concessions, that cash that they're basically being handed by either one of the establishment parties in this place, to outbid at an auction someone who's trying to buy their first home. Senator McKIM JKM That is, as Senator Barbara Pocock says, absolutely shameful. It's absolutely shameful. When asked why Labor wouldn't work constructively with the Greens to address that chronic unfairness, which is also putting massive upward pressure on house prices in Australia and pricing millions of renters out of the housing market, all we got from Senator Wong was a diatribe about Mr Chandler-Mather. Senator McKIM JKM I think that Senator Shoebridge is right. I don't think she likes Mr Chandler-Mather. I think he's living rent free in Labor's head, one of the few places you can get decent rental in this country— Mr Chandler-Mather living rent free in the Labor Party's head! So I put the question to Minister Wong as to whether her government are seriously so committed to handing over $176 billion over the next decade in tax concessions to property speculators that they would actually go to a double dissolution election to defend them, which is effectively what the Prime Minister has been out threatening over the last 48 hours. I also asked whether tax breaks for property speculators, which are some egregiously disadvantaged renters trying to get into the market, are so important that Labor would prefer to go to an election on that basis rather than work with the Greens to level the playing field for renters and take some of the heat out of the housing market in Australia, which would allow Australian renters, millions of whom aspire to own their own home one day, a decent crack at actually making that dream come true. And what did we get from Senator Wong? Crickets, nothing, a refusal to entertain. Labor's got to do better. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 78 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 78 16:09 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That Senator Brown be granted leave of absence for the period 18 September to 19 September 2024 inclusive, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 78 16:09 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Steele-John for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS 78 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 78 16:10 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 190. Leave granted. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 In the Senate a short time ago, Minister McCarthy stated: Yesterday Senator Nampijinpa Price asked a question about the Central Land Council full council meeting on 17 September 2024. In my answer I explained that I was aware of the meeting. I also explained I was not aware of any motion to remove the CLC chair prior to the meeting. Senator Price incorrectly asserted in the Senate that I was not aware of the outcome of the meeting by 2 pm on 18 September 2024. This does not reflect my response to her question during question time … Presumably, she was referring to my comments during the suspension motion yesterday, where I said: 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 was in response to the minister's answer during question time, and I quote from Hansard: 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. That is, 'No, I'm not aware,' as at 2.38 pm yesterday. The minister has misled the chamber and ought to come in and correct the record. COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 78 Report 78 16:12 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I present the interim report of the Economics References Committee on improving consumer experiences, choice and outcomes in Australia's retirement system, together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This has been a very interesting week here in the Senate. The government has chosen to seek to bring on a vote on the Help to Buy legislation. It has correctly identified that housing is the biggest issue, particularly for those under 40 in this country. But after 870 days since being announced, it seems very curious that, all of a sudden, the Help to Buy policy appears to be urgent. After the government have been in office for 2½ years, this is the only policy they have to aid first-home buyers. We read and we see that the various ministers are threatening early elections and double dissolutions. I think that really shows that the government has run out of ideas when it comes to housing. The good news is that the Australian people will have a smorgasbord of policies to choose from at the next election. They will have a genuine smorgasbord. They will have the policies from Labor. They've run out of ideas, but they've got a couple of things rattling around in the cupboard: Help to Buy, housing targets that have failed, a housing fund that builds no houses but spends lots of money, tax cuts for foreign fund managers. That's one option. You can go for the Greens. They've got the government-owned property developer. Or you can go for the Liberals, which is going to have a range of policies, one of which already includes being allowed to take $50,000 of your own money from superannuation for a deposit for a first home, as well as other policies that are yet to be announced. But what I want to do today is take up some time here in the Senate to let people know that we have concluded one of the reports from the retirement system review, which, on this occasion, has looked at the viability of allowing people to use their superannuation as a mortgage offset. This is not the policy of my party. This is just an idea that we have pulled apart during our committee process, and we now present that report for the Senate's consideration and for the consideration of the Australian people. The premise of this policy is to give people choice. I'll reference the comments in question time today from the government, when they referred to the coalition's policy on the super deposit as 'raiding your super'. It's very curious. How do you raid your own money? The answer is you can't raid your own money, because it's your money by definition. Having a mortgage offset policy is really based on the idea of giving people more choice and more agency, because we believe in giving people agency, we've always believed in choice and we think that, ultimately, if you give people more options then they can make better judgements for their own personal circumstances. So this idea is not about the deposit; this is about the mortgage. It's effectively a policy for people who already have a mortgage from a bank. The basis of it is that you can offset your mortgage by using your super account, and that then reduces the amount of interest you pay and you pay off your loan faster, so you own your house faster. That's the idea. Right now in Australia, according to the Bureau of Stats, 32 per cent of lump sums taken out of superannuation are used to pay off mortgages. So 32 per cent of the money that comes out of super is used to pay off mortgages. Many people would say, 'Well, what was the point of super?' If people are being forced to put all their money into a savings scheme for 40 years and then they're taking it out and paying off a mortgage, then what was the point? That is a very reasonable question to ask. Why would we want to have a position where we are forcing people to pay high interest to a bank whilst simultaneously forcing them to pay high fees to the super funds? We know that the Labor Party love superannuation because this is their greatest cash cow. Last year, the super funds gave unions and co $40 million, which in campaign parlance is very significant. These are pretty much the biggest campaign funders now in Australia, and so Labor of course don't want to canvass these issues. But I think it's a very reasonable question: why would we be forcing people to pay high-interest costs to a bank but also high fees to a super fund if they wanted to offset those factors? The Real Estate Institute did some interesting modelling for this purpose. They said that they found that a first-home-buyer couple aged 36 with a mortgage balance of $520,000 at eight per cent interest who were able to offset their mortgage with $170,000 of combined super could see their monthly repayment reduced from five grand to $3,300. That's a significant change. Now, it wouldn't change their overall repayment, but it would significantly reduce their interest costs, and therefore they would pay off more principal and pay off the loan much faster. An actuary called Jonathan Ng did some additional actuarial modelling which showed that, if you put aside $40,000 of superannuation into an offset account, you would save 3.6 years off the mortgage and $164,000. If you were older, in your 40s or 50s, or if you combined as a couple in your 30s, and you were able to offset $160,000, then you would be able to save $458,000 over the course of the loan and reduce the duration of the loan by 9.9 years. So, at the end of the day, if you look at the modelling here, the returns in some cases in super would be lower than the benefit of offsetting the mortgage. In other cases, the super funds might outperform that. But why wouldn't we give people the choice? If you're 45 or you're 55 and you've got a large mortgage, you've got a super balance and you want to offset your mortgage, why shouldn't you be able to do that? I think it's an entirely reasonable concept. If the data from the ABS is right—I'm sure that it is—and more and more people are going to be retiring with big mortgages and using their whole superannuation balance to pay off their mortgage, then what was the point of super in the first place? I stress again for the record that this is not a policy of my party, but is a policy that we thought was worth pulling apart and testing through the Senate inquiry, and the actuarial modelling speaks for itself. Clearly, in certain circumstances people would be better off if they chose to do this. But I again stress that this would be an option. We on this side are in favour of giving people more choices. On the other side of this parliament, the Labor Party is more focused than ever on restricting choices that are available to the Australian people. Yet, if you go back to the early nineties and you flick through some of the newspaper articles about the early stages of superannuation, Paul Keating, at various times, canvassed the idea of allowing people to use their super for a first home, because he recognised, at that stage, that the bedrock of a safe retirement is homeownership. That is why all the countries which have schemes comparable to our superannuation system, like Singapore and New Zealand and Canada, have arrangements for people to use their own money in their pension scheme for the purposes of a first home, because the key determinant of your success in retirement is not your super balance; it is your housing status. So this mortgage offset idea, I think, is a good idea for economic reasons but also for psychological reasons. Securing a home is a very important measure for most people, and I think that the recommendations that we've outlined in this report are very much worth the Senate's consideration in due course. I wanted to just touch, before I close, on some of the key recommendations that we made in relation to the design of this product, because I think it is important that we consider that it wouldn't be a free-for-all. We recommended that the product would have to be designed in legislation such that you would have to effectively withdraw the money from super and put it into a special product that would be issued by an authorised deposit-taking institution, which could be a bank or a building society, and the money would have to be held in that special account to offset the mortgage interest, and that's what it would be used for. It couldn't be used for any other purpose by the individual. It could only be used by the institution to offset the mortgage, and, after the mortgage was offset, the money could be returned to the superannuation fund. So—long story short—we think that giving people more choice is a good idea. We already have a policy which would allow people to use super for a deposit, because that recognises that it is people's own money. This is another idea that would allow people to use their own money to achieve their own financial goals faster, recognising that the data is trending in a very troubling direction. If 32 per cent of the money today that is coming out of super in lump sums is being used to pay off mortgages, then that raises the question: what was the point of super? If the point of super was to allow people to have money outside of the family home, or outside of other savings and investments, then it's not doing a very good job if most of it is being used to pay off a mortgage, and maybe it would be better if people weren't forced to pay, simultaneously, high fees to the super fund and high interest costs to a bank. So this is a good idea and worth consideration. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Before I give the call to Senator Rennick, I'll just go to Senator Shoebridge. BUSINESS 80 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 80 16:22 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Steele-John for yesterday. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 80 Report 80 16:23 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak to the motion to take note of this report as well, because I think Senator Bragg touched on a very important point there: that 32 per cent of people take out their amounts of superannuation as a lump sum when they retire, and that makes sense because figures from the ABS show that, today, 40 per cent of people retire with a mortgage. That is up from 10 per cent in 1992. I don't think that that is necessarily entirely the fault of superannuation, but it is partly to blame because, if you're having 12 per cent of your total income taken out of your wage, for many people—especially if you're earning below the median average earnings—that is 100 per cent, if not more, of your savings, because the median earnings in this country are something like $80,000 a year and you need $40,000 to $50,000 a year, if you're lucky, just to survive. So, if you've got $30,000 remaining, and you're trying to save for a house, and you've got to take out $8,000 to $10,000 of what's left, that suddenly becomes a large part of your entire disposable income. And heaven forbid you get a flat tyre or you've got to get braces for your children or something like that. You have got absolutely no flexibility in how you manage your income. With all due respect, the coalition has this idea that you're going to allow first home buyers to dip into their superannuation fund to be able to pay off a mortgage. I think you just should be able to let them choose in the first place whether or not they even want to put money into superannuation. Now, I'm happy—and I've discussed this tax policy today—to allow the first $25,000 in superannuation to be tax free, but after that we need to go back to marginal rates because, as I just pointed out in question time, $50 billion of tax concessions go to the wealthiest 30 per cent of people in this country while the lower 70 per cent of retirees only get $54 billion for the pension. That doesn't add up. Superannuation is actually a wealth distribution program from the poor to the rich. We know from the Intergenerational report that was released a few years ago that those superannuation tax concessions are actually expected to become greater than the pension in the next decade. So you have to ask yourself: who is this really helping? Of course, that was the nub of my last question in question time. Corporations have to hold an AGM. Politicians have to go to an election. I sometimes wonder if these things are worth it or not! But there is no mandatory election process for the members of superannuation funds to elect their board. They have absolutely no say in how their retirement funds are managed. That is for most; if you go to a self-managed super fund, you can. But most people in an industry fund have very little control over how their money is managed, so they just have to hope for the best and that they're going to get their money back when they retire at 65 or 67. As I point out to people, there is absolutely no democracy when it comes to superannuation. In 1997 New Zealand had a referendum on compulsory superannuation, and they voted against it 92 per cent to eight. Now, do you think that, if Paul Keating went to a referendum in 1992 and said, 'By 2025 I'm going it take 12 per cent of your income, I'm going to give it to someone you've never met and there's no guarantee you're going to get it back,' the Australian people would have voted for it? Absolutely not. But I shouldn't just criticise the Labor Party for this, because the Liberals were in on this as well. In 1996, when Howard and Costello took office, superannuation received three or four per cent of income. They had the chance then to kill superannuation stone cold dead, and they didn't, because the banks like the idea of superannuation as well. CBA took over Colonial Mutual, National Australia Bank took over National Mutual, Westpac took over Banker's Trust and ANZ did a joint venture with ING. I remember my eyes just about popped out of my head one year when I saw the return on equity of the CBA's wealth division, which included, of course, the old Colonial Mutual. It was a return on equity of 66 per cent for the risk of playing with other people's money. If you can get a double-digit return on equity in any small business, you're doing pretty well. But to think that a big bank like the CBA could get a return of 66 per cent on their equity—because they had so little equity in it, of course; they just charged fees to manage other people's money. I mean, you want to talk about socialism? This is socialism at its finest. It's not serving the purpose. Again, as I pointed out in question time, today we still have at least 50 per cent of retirees on a full pension, because the median balance for women aged 60 to 64 is $158,000. That is just on half of the asset pension threshold to start having your full pension reduced. So women are nowhere near having enough money in their superannuation to retire, and men aren't much better. Their median balance is $212,000, so they're not going to get there either. Now, I'll grant you that superannuation is only 32 years old and it's not fully matured, but here's the rub: heaven forbid when it is fully matured, because, once it's fully matured—it will be my age group, because I started paying superannuation when I first started work in 1991—somewhere around 2040, you're going to get the first generation of people with a full 40 years of superannuation starting to withdraw lump sum balances. As Senator Bragg pointed out, 32 per cent are currently doing that. If we continue to see house prices grow rapidly, this figure will continue to grow. The problem is that, when someone pulls out their 40 years of savings in a lump sum, you're going to need 40 other people coming and putting in their one year. So can you see how superannuation is actually a Ponzi scheme? If you go and look at the Australian superannuation fund association figures, they're predicting by 2050 that superannuation is going to have $10 trillion in it or represent about 200 per cent of GDP. I ask you: where exactly are they going to park this money? They won't be parking it all in Australia. They'll be parking it offshore. So a lot of this money you're paying you are not just paying into your super fund. That then gets sent to a bank account electronically offshore. I think it's the Queensland public servant super fund—they've had so many name changes that I forget the name of it now—that's the biggest shareholder in Heathrow Airport. Too bad they wouldn't actually build some infrastructure here. Super funds are very good at buying existing infrastructure, but they're very bad at building new infrastructure. If we're going to have this rapid population increase, we need to start building more infrastructure. The problem is the people that manage superannuation are white collar workers who go into their ivory palaces in the cities. These guys aren't tradies, engineers, surveyors and things like that; they're accountants, fund managers, wealth advisers and all of this stuff. They don't have the skillset to build the stuff that matters. So they're misallocating capital offshore. That then drives up the cost of living, because we're not building power stations, dams and ports. We're not building the infrastructure we need in this country. We have people who are matching capital but not actually building genuine new wealth. Then we've got this wealth redistribution of $50 billion of people's tax into the upper 30 per cent. A lot of these people, the upper 30 per cent, will take their ski holiday to Japan or go on a European vacation. There's nothing wrong with that. But where is the money going into infrastructure? It's not happening. Then to go back to Senator Bragg's point about the whole importance of owning your house when you retire, if you have a mortgage today and you're paying six or seven per cent, that means you need to earn 10 per cent pre tax. Most people will pay, on average, 30c in the dollar. So they need to earn 10c. They'll pay 3c tax and then there's a six per cent interest. Super funds brag about getting a seven or eight per cent return. It sounds pretty good, but they're including capital gains in that. When you're paying a mortgage of seven per cent or trying to save up and house prices are rising by seven per cent, you can't keep up. So we need to allow young people to be able to access their superannuation today. I say 'young people', but it's not just young people. It's people all the way through their working lives. We need to enable them to access their wages. They are their wages. Let them keep them and pay down their house. As I said the other day, it's not the chicken or the egg that comes first; it's the nest. You're going to mature and contribute a lot more to society when you've settled down in your own house. Debate adjourned. Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Perth Mint And Commonwealth Regulatory Compliance Select Committee 82 Government Response to Report 82 16:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present government responses to committee reports as listed at item 17 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to recommendations from the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee: Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 [Provisions] Report — February 2024 Overview On 28 March 2024, the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 (the Bill) received Royal Assent, following debate and agreement on a number of amendments in the Senate. On 2 April 2024, the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Act 2024 (the Amendment Act) was registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. The amendments to the Australian Research Council Act 2001 (ARC Act) made by the Amendment Act commenced on 1 July 2024. On 5 February 2024, the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee (the Committee) released its inquiry report on the Bill, including three dissenting recommendations by the Greens. This submission responds to those dissenting recommendations. Additional recommendations from Australian Greens Senators in Inquiry Report Recommendation 1: Remove the Minister's power to veto research funding for reasons related to 'international relations', and narrow the definition of 'designated research program', to reduce the risk of political interference. Amendments in relation to this recommendation were moved by Senator Mehreen Faruqi (sheet 2394; 2395) and Senator David Pocock (sheet 2423; 2424; 2476) in the Senate and voted on. Under the amended ARC Act, the Minister will have the power to not approve a grant, or to terminate funding to research grants, for reasons relevant to the security, defence or international relations of Australia. Use of the terms 'security, defence or international relations of Australia' ensures consistency with accepted definitions and references to those terms in other legislation, such as the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 and the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012. Noting this, the amendments proposed by Senator Faruqi to remove the reference to 'international relations' throughout the Bill (sheet 2394) were not agreed to by the Government when voted on in the Senate. The Minister will also retain powers to approve funding for nationally significant investments, defined as 'designated research programs'. Their role is nationally significant in supporting research capability and include the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centres of Excellence, the Industrial Transformation Training Centres, and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs. Noting the importance of these programs, the Government agreed to the amendments to the definition of 'designated research program' moved by Senator Pocock (sheet 2476) but did not agree to the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi (sheet 2395) or the other amendments proposed by Senator Pocock (sheet 2423; 2424). In relation to the amendments to the definition of designated research programs, Senator Anthony Chisholm responded in the Senate: 'It is important that the Minister be able to specify projects as designated research programs to help build Australia's research capacity, but it is also important that the power be protected as much as possible from potential misuse in the future. The revised definition proposed by Senator Pocock adds to the existing protections requiring that the relevant program be nationally significant and requiring that the minister of the day be satisfied that the program will help build research capability.' Senate Hansard, Monday 18 March 2024, p104 Recommendation 2: Significantly increase government funding for research and for the ARC, and improve job security for all researchers including those employed through ARC funding. The Government understands the need for an appropriate approach to research investment. ARC funding was highlighted in the Inquiry Report as well as in debate on the Bill. This included inaccurate suggestions that the creation of a new ARC Board would reduce ARC research funding. ARC Board costs will be met from existing resourcing within the ARC's current annual departmental budget, which was clearly stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. Research grants under the National Competitive Grants Program are funded through administered funding and will not be impacted by Board operational costs. The amended ARC Act replaces Special Appropriation arrangements for ARC's administered funding with Annual Appropriation arrangements, providing funding visibility for the sector. Through the amendments to the ARC Act, the Government has also provided flexibility for the ARC to utilise its existing research endowment account for the purposes of funding research grants under the National Competitive Grants Program. The Government recognises the important role the ARC plays in the broader public interest of supporting career pathways for Australian researchers. This important role has been elevated through the new object of the ARC Act which now makes clear that the ARC will be a national body to 'promote and conduct activities to shape and foster the Australian research landscape and community, including by supporting academic career pathways.' Amendments moved by Senator Mehreen Faruqi (sheet 2468; 2398) in the Senate resulted in a number of enhancements to reporting on the nature of the employment of researchers for research projects in the ARC Act. For example, in relation to funding agreements the ARC Act requires that an organisation in receipt of a grant: ' … gives the CEO a report, after the end of the final period to which the grant relates, detailing the nature of the employment of researchers employed by the organisation for the purposes of the research project concerned.' Additionally, the ARC's Annual Report must: ' … include information, in respect of each organisation receiving financial assistance under a funding agreement which ended or was terminated in that period, about the nature of the employment of researchers employed by the organisation for the purposes of a research project mentioned in the funding agreement.' The Government supported these amendments—to help support job security of our researchers—without imposing an impossible mandate for the ARC when it is not the direct employer of those researchers. In relation to the amendments, Senator Anthony Chisholm responded: 'We see our research community flourish, and part of that is improving the attractiveness of academic research roles. The reporting requirements in Senator Faruqi's amendment will help underline that, so it is something the government will support.' Senate Hansard, Monday 18 March 2024, p101 Recommendation 3: Ensure governance of research funding is democratic and representative. The amended ARC Act establishes an ARC Board as the accountable authority of the ARC from 1 July 2024. This was recommended by the independent Review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to strengthen the independence and integrity of the ARC. On 26 June 2024, the Hon Jason Clare MP announced the appointment of the new ARC Board: Professor Peter Shergold AC (Chair) Professor Susan Dodds FAHA (Deputy Chair) Distinguished Professor Maggie Walter Professor Cindy Shannon AM Professor Paul Wellings CBE Emeritus Professor Margaret Harding Mr Mark Stickells AM Ms Sally-Ann Williams FTSE. The selection of the appointments was open and merit based, consistent with best practice, and meets the ARC Act requirements regarding the appointment of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, and a regional, rural, and remote representative. As a decision-making body, the Board will approve research grants under the National Competitive Grants Program, with appropriately qualified members who have substantial experience or expertise in one or more fields of research, or in the management of research. The Board will also be supported by two key advisory committees to provide guidance and advice about ARC priorities and strategies—the ARC Advisory Committee with expertise across research, industry and governance; and a new ARC Indigenous Forum. Peer review through the ARC's College of Experts will be the driving principle in grant approvals aimed at expanding our nation's knowledge base. Peer review is the accepted world standard for achieving quality in research grant outcomes. To further strengthen the integrity of the ARC grant allocation process, under the amended ARC Act, funding rules will be disallowable legislative instruments, and open to the scrutiny of Parliament as a regular element of managing the ARC's funding. These measures will ensure governance of research is fair and representative, based on democratic scrutiny and the decisions and advice of trusted experts. Australian Government response to the Senate Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance report: The Perth Mint: Final report Introduction On 21 June 2024, the Senate Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance (the Committee) published a report on the corporate and regulatory compliance of Gold Corporation and its trading entity, The Pe1ih Mint, with Australia's anti- money laundering and counter terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime, as well as related Commonwealth legislation. The Committee was established by the Senate on 22 June 2023, and focussed on the events that led to the Australian Transaction Rep01is and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) ordering the appointment of an external auditor to Gold Corporation, the regulatory compliance of Gold Corporation with Commonwealth legislation, and other matters concerning the corporate and statutory governance of Gold Corporation. The report makes recommendations directed at Gold Corporation, which is a Western Australian government trading enterprise, the Western Australian Government, the Western Australian Parliament and the Australian Government. Where recommendations are directed at Gold Corporation or the Western Australian Government, the Government has noted these as the Commonwealth does not have responsibility for any response to these recommendations. The Australian Government thanks the Committee and acknowledges the concerns raised in the dissenting report. The Australian Government's response to the Committee's recommendations is detailed below. Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the Board of Gold Corporation (trading as The Perth Mint) publicly acknowledge that the failure to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 is the responsibility of the Board and, in particular, members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee. Government Respons e The Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that Gold Corporation publish a clear statement identifying the governance failures that ultimately led to breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, and that the public statement specifically reference: the events that lead to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing compliance failings identified in the 2020 Internal Audit Report dated August 2020; the extent to which the Gold Corporation Board informed the Western Australian Government of failures to comply with the Anti- Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006; and the extent to which the Assistant Under Treasurer, Mr Richard Watson, as a member of the Gold Corporation Board, informed the Western Australian Government of failings in Gold Corporation's compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter- Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Government Response The Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that Gold Corporation table before the Western Australian Parliament the 2020 Internal Audit Report dated August 2020. Government Response The Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that Gold Corporation table before the Western Australian Parliament a report every two months on its compliance with the Enforceable Undertaking, and that this reporting continues until one month after the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre formally releases Gold Corporation from the Enforceable Undertaking. Government Response The Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends the Parliament of Western Australia initiate its own inquiry into matters related to the decision by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre to impose an Enforceable Undertaking over Gold Corporation, post 30 April 2025. Government Response The Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 6 The committee recommends the Western Australian Government detail to the Western Australian Parliament the extent of the potential financial liability to the Western Australian taxpayer if Gold Corporation fails to meet its obligations under the Enforceable Undertaking. Government Response The Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) provide a private briefing every two months to the Senators of this committee on the progress being made by Gold Corporation to implement the recommendations of the Enforceable Undertaking. Should concerns be identified through these briefings, the committee to report to individual Senators who do not have statutory recommends a further public examination be conducted through a referral to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee for extended inquiry and report on matters related to the corporate and regulatory compliance of Gold Corporation with Commonwealth legislation, with particular reference to: current and historical compliance with Australian anti-money laundering regulatory requirements, specifically the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. l); events that led to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre ordering the appointment of an external auditor to Gold Corporation under subsection 162(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006; matters concerning the corporate and statutory governance of Gold Corporation; the potential financial liability to Western Australian taxpayers of failure to comply with the Enforceable Undertaking; and any other related matters. Government Response The Government does not agree to this recommendation. The Government notes there are existing mechanisms for the Parliament to obtain updates from AUSTRAC. Further, as the Select Committee concluded its inquiry on 21 June 2024, it would not be appropriate for AUSTRAC to report to individual Senators who do not have statutory responsibility for the agency. AUSTRAC, as an independent statutory authority, inquiry and report on matters related to the corporate and regulatory manages transparency in a way that maintains due process and operational integrity, especially while undertaking an ongoing investigation. When AUSTRAC enters enforceable undertakings, it publishes advice of the commencement and terms of those undertakings. AUSTRAC only redacts sensitive material it considers may compromise the reporting entities' AML/CTF systems and controls. AUSTRAC also announces on its website when it is satisfied that the requirements of the enforceable undertaking have been met. If the terms of the undertaking are not ultimately met, AUSTRAC will publicise what action it decides to take. Progress of AUSTRAC's various undertakings can be monitored at htms://www.austrac.gov.au/lists-enforcement-actions-taken. Response The Government notes this recommendation. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) conducts an inquiry into the adequacy of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre's oversight of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing compliance by medium to high- risk entities. Government Response The Government notes this recommendation. As an independent officer of the Parliament, the ANAO will provide a response to this recommendation directly to the Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance Recommendation 9 The committee recommends any continuance of the Senate's inquiry into matters related to the corporate and regulatory compliance of Gold Corporation and its trading entity The Perth Mint, through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, hears evidence from the following witnesses: the Hon Mr David Michael MLA, Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum; Ms Gaye McMath, Chair of Audit and Risk Management Committee (1 July 2016-30 June 2019); Mr John O'Connor, Chair of Audit and Risk Management Committee (1 July 2019-present); Mr Richard Watson, Assistant Under Treasurer, Western Australian Treasury (February 2019 present), Board Director ex-officio, and Audit and Risk Management Committee member (2018-present); Ms Kaylene Gulich, Audit and Risk Management Committee member (2016-2018); Mr Mark Puzey, Audit and Risk Management Committee member (2018- 2021); other members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee from 2021 onwards; and representatives of PwC, or any other external auditor, who participated or oversaw any audit work contracted by Gold Corporation in the period 2010 to 2021. Government Response The Government does not agree to this recommendation, noting the Select Committee concluded its inquiry on 21 June 2024. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that, consistent with the Enforceable Undertaking's acknowledgement that the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) may from 'time to time publicly refer to this Enforceable Undertaking', AUSTRAC issues a statement (or statements) of progress that detail: the tracking of activities regarding the completion of the Remediation Program; the remediation of customer data in accordance with the timeframes and standards detailed in the Customer Data Remediation work stream; the completion of any actions in the Customer Data Remediation workstream; advice of any deviations to the actions or timeframes set out in the Remediation Program requested by Gold Corporation; any permissions given by AUSTRAC for material deviations to the Remediation Program; any failure to meet reporting requirements required in the Enforceable Undertaking;—any breach of the Remediation Program advised to AUSTRAC; and any other matters relevant to informing the Western Australian community about the level of risk, or efforts to mitigate against risks, of money laundering and the financing of counterterrorism by Gold Corporation or its trading entity, The Perth Mint. Government Response The Government notes this recommendation. Consistent with the terms of the enforceable undertaking, AUSTRAC, as an independent statutory authority, may provide information where it will not adversely affect AUSTRAC's ongoing investigations. Decisions to provide information on enforceable undertakings are a matter for AUSTRAC. Economics References Committee 86 Report 86 16:33 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Economic References Committee, I present the final report of the Economic References Committee on inflation rate statistics, together with accompanying documents. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. 16:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I rise to take note of the Economic References Committee report into the Australian Bureau of Statistics production of inflation statistics. This inquiry was called on a Senate motion that One Nation introduced. I thank the committee for their time and I thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics for their honest, direct and professional answers. In an answer to my question in Senate estimates, the Reserve Bank governor advised that it uses many other indicators to get a clearer understanding of the cost of living affecting everyday Australians, not just the CPI. This was the comment that led to last week's inquiry. Many people assume the CPI is an accurate picture of the cost of living for everyday Australians. What we learned from the ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is the consumer price index is a macro economic indicator useful to the government, Reserve Bank and industry to show how much prices have changed. That's not the same as asking how much cost-of-living spending has increased for everyday Australians. That cost-of-living data is trapped using other indexes called selected living cost indexes. These are produced for subsets within the economy based on source of income. The largest group is employees, comprising 15 million current wage and salary earners. This is more than 70 per cent of the Australian adult population. This index shows the rate of inflation affecting the largest cohort of the adult population in Australia is actually 6.2 per cent. That feels much more accurate than the official CPI rate of 3.8 per cent. Even at 6.2 per cent, the figure is not entirely representative. The living cost index for most Australians does not include the insane increases in house prices, as Senator Rennick and I pointed out in questions. The ABS traps the increase only in building costs, not the increase in land cost. The average home price in Queensland in 2020 was $524,000. In 2024, it's now $815,000. Most of that inflation is in the land price. Unless home price inflation is included in the living cost index then Australians are quite honestly being misled—badly misled. The ABS is not misleading; it's producing the statistics the government asked it to produce. So I wonder who decided to use the CPI rate as the official picture of inflation in Australia, because it's wrong. Why don't the media report the living cost index showing 6.2 per cent inflation affecting most Australians, and that it doesn't represent costs including houses? All except one of these living cost indexes shows a higher rate than the 3.8 per cent CPI. Why is the media misleadingly reporting the lowest figure instead of the real figure covering most Australians? I have been using adult Australians here for a reason. This inquiry confirmed the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data for inflation affecting the cost of raising children. The latest data my office could find was from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which found it cost $340 a week to provide for two children, a girl aged six and a boy aged 10. That data was from 2018. We don't know what it is today. There's not time-series data, no inflation rate over time for children and that seems pretty poor. There are 5.7 million children under 18 here in Australia. It would be useful to know how much the cost of raising those children is increasing. As I travel around Queensland I hear so many parents saying how expensive life is becoming—the cost of living under Labor—and how expensive raising children is becoming. The failure to provide data to government on the outcome of government policies on the cost of raising children and an accurate figure for the cost of running a family is a massive failure, a failure which rests with the minister, not the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I call on the government to task the ABS with providing an accurate figure for inflation affecting families. It worries me that it is the figure of 3.8 per cent, not the much more accurate figure of 6.2 per cent, that's used for wage increases. According to the OECD's economic outlook report, real wages in Australia are now five per cent lower than they were in 2020. Remember, those house prices I mentioned, up from $524,000 to $818,000 in Queensland in four years? After adjusting for inflation, everyday Australians looking to buy their first home are trying to afford that mortgage on five per cent less income. No wonder homeownership seems an impossible dream for young wage and salary earners. Wages should reflect the real cost of living under Labor. Government spending and handouts reduce the inflation rate yet this money started in the hands of employees, who paid that to the government in tax, and the government gives it back to people in subsidies, less the government's cut for administration. Is this the much-touted Greens circular economy? I'll finish with an idea. Reduce the size of government. Let people keep more of their own money. If everyday Australians feel they're working harder and going backwards, it's because they are. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave is granted; debate adjourned. Human Rights Joint Committee 87 Report 87 16:40 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I rise to note the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report into compulsory income management, entry 4 on page 10 of today's Notice Paper. Its response requires more calling out of the Albanese government's inability to deal with the facts, its distortion of data and the devastation caused by Labor ideology. This joint committee report into compulsory income management is setting the scene to wreak further havoc on individuals, families and communities that rely on income management. It's about paving the way for welfare recipients with addiction to spend more money on gambling, alcohol and drugs rather than on essential other items, and it's about coercing money from those who do the right thing. And if the devastation proven by the 2022 removal of the cashless debit card in locations across Australia isn't enough evidence of the harm your policy does, what will convince you? You didn't improve lives; you made it worse for people who live there and for the people who relied on it for the stability the card provided. Nor, it seems, have you learnt from the Northern Territory experience in 2022, when you stood by while alcohol restrictions were removed. Crime, violence, emergency presentations and gambling went up while school attendance went down. The evidence is in. The facts, as outlined in the independent Adelaide university report on the impact of the removal of the cashless debit card, are this: the cashless debit card did make a difference for those who were on it and those families who relied on it; there was more money for food, less violence and more kids in the local school with the CDC; there was more money for school books and sport. How about that? The consistent theme is that women felt safer under the card because they were. Children experienced greater exposure to the perils of alcohol and substance misuse when you removed the CDC. On page 97, thanks to your actions, one participant talks about now having $900 a fortnight for drugs and alcohol. He's drinking it all, he says, and he knows it's killing him. The report tells us 90 per cent of people subject to income management in the Northern Territory were Indigenous and around 60 per cent were female. That means women get greater protection from the perils of humbugging, coercion and bullying because they were on the card. But I don't expect that happens to every one of you at night and every day of the year. Indigenous Australians make up 26 per cent of the total Northern Territory population, and 47 per cent are under the age of 25. Have you considered that important demographic fact and what you're aiming to do with this report? On page 23 you say that compulsory income management has been an 'expensive failure'. Yet you have failed to provide me with the answer to the question about what does it cost for the CDC now the numbers are so low? In Ceduna, in South Australia—where I come from—there are some 3,500 residents. There was once 1,000 people on the card; now there are 14. That's a township right now with 21 support services in a town of 3,500 people. And don't think for a minute that all of those 3,500 people are on income support. What nonsense! They're working. I asked what was the cost of this card under your watch. They said: 'Well, services are accessed by a wide range of income recipients and the broader community. It's not possible to estimate a reliable unit cost of such services.' You know the number. It is obviously eye watering. You just don't want anyone to know. So much for this government, elected on a promise of transparency. In this report, people who don't live or work in the areas impacted where income management exists make up all sorts of arguments against it. Why don't you ask people who live there, who talked of increased crime, increased alcohol consumption and increased antisocial behaviour? You need to look closer and accept the facts in the Adelaide University report. There's an obvious disconnect between the views expressed by many of the academic and civil society submitters to the inquiry and the firsthand evidence obtained from on-the-ground stakeholders and participants. A bit of honesty wouldn't go astray. Every business wrote to the minister and told them what happened. There's no just reason to ignore the evidence, to pretend the Adelaide University report doesn't exist, because the Albanese government doesn't like its overwhelming findings that it failed the most vulnerable people. Debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 88 DOCUMENTS Climate Change Authority 88 16:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move to take note of the Climate Change Authority's Sector Pathways Review, which is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It should be compulsory reading for every senator and every journalist intent on joining this migration of lemmings over the net zero cliff. Net zero is not some feel-good agenda; it's a fundamental destruction of our productive capacity, our businesses and our freedom to rebuild in the image of the bureaucrats, academics and carpetbaggers that produced this report. The report authors hide behind the term 'consultation' yet consulted within their own urban bubble and got the answers they wanted—yes to more money, yes to more power and yes to more self-importance. The climate change narrative has been constructed to work backwards from the goal detailed in this report—I've read it with my own eyes—a Communist control mechanism, a control mechanism that I've never seen so clearly explained as in this document, with such unfounded confidence, such hubris, based on scientific fraud, data tampering and cherry picking. Let's go through it. Firstly, replacing petrol and diesel powered vehicles, appliances and industrial equipment with electric versions—that's your car gone. The government will force you to buy an electric vehicle or have no vehicle at all. Gas heaters and hot water systems: gone. Gas cooking: gone. Gas barbecues: gone. Commercial kitchens: put over to electric, which will force many to close, as the cost is prohibitive. For families already struggling with the cost of living under Labor, these measures will mean losing their possessions without being able to afford a replacement. This will become reality once the circular economy arrives in full, requiring a much higher build standard and repairability and high levels of recycled components. That sounds great—just wait until we see the price tag. Appliances would have to be rented because most people won't be able to afford them. Remember the famous promise from the World Economic Forum's Klaus Schwab, 'You will own nothing and be happy'? Are you seeing it yet? Secondly, we will need to generate more wind and solar power than ever before. For Australians living outside the urban bubble, this will mean every mountain and hill will have a wind turbine on top and even more farmland will be covered in solar panels and fractured with transmission line corridors and access roads where none were previously needed. Every home will need a solar installation connected to a wall battery—$15,000 right there. Yet the power is not yours; it's theirs. To keep the grid on, your power company will take the charge out of your wall battery or your electric vehicle—yes, your electric vehicle. This is what the report means when it says 'grid integration'. It's sometimes called a virtual power plant. It's not virtual power; it's your power. Thirdly, the report accepts that, while some technologies, like solar and storage batteries, are now proven, many other necessary technologies are not. They have no clue what's coming. The decision to rely on unproven, speculative technology across much of their sector analysis—punctuated as it is with weasel words like 'could' and 'may'—will inevitably underperform. The report says: The authority has not attempted in this report to examine how, where or when such future breakthroughs could occur. It's hard to believe they're jeopardising the whole country on this. We are spending between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, destroying everything we have, on the promise of a better future based on breakthroughs that we know don't exist yet and are not even imagined. That's criminal malfeasance—and, given the strong flow of money from net zero carpetbaggers into the climate change nomenklatura, a stronger word may be appropriate. As the Age reported today, the Clean Energy Regulator: … has failed to manage conflicts of interest or properly investigate fraud … and … staff … concerns about its relationship with the companies it regulates. Under net zero cronyism, the suffering of everyday Australians and their employers has only just begun. The last thing abattoirs will slaughter is farming itself. The plan uses the discredited claim that 'livestock accounts for half of agricultural emissions'. This ignores the methane cycle. That's high school science. I know the disciples of the sky god of warming have rewritten the methane cycle and discredited those using it and advancing it, yet science can't be rewritten—only lied about, as this report does. The reason for this spurious war on cattle is clear in the report: reducing our emissions will 'require the conversion' of agricultural land to forested areas, and 'the supply of suitable land for reforestation is limited'. The farming sector must realise that the bad guys are coming to steal more of your rights to use the land you own. The people who will have the money to buy red meat and naturally grown produce after 2050 are the same people writing this elitist, antihuman garbage. The same people who gorge on filet mignon and champagne at Davos tell everyday Australians they will have to eat less. And you will have less, being forced into city high-rise homes and eating lab-grown meats and fast-cycle hydroponic greens with next to zero nutritional value. Based solidly on science and with every fibre of our being, One Nation opposes this agenda. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 89 DOCUMENTS Consideration 89 COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 89 Government Response to Report 89 16:53 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise today to discuss the 495th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the subsequent government response. I've had the privilege of being the deputy chair of this committee for this term of government, and I am in awe of what this committee does. It's not well known, but it is one of the most longstanding committees in this parliament and it performs a critically important role in holding government departments accountable to the parliament for how they operate, spend taxpayers' money and deliver the services they are mandated and paid to deliver on behalf of the Australian taxpayers. Also, very importantly, it promotes probity and transparency. This report is innocuously titled Report 495: inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration. This inquiry focused on Commonwealth government grants and the administration of the grants, with a view to strengthening the integrity of how government departments administer grants. Tens of thousands of grants that cost tens of billions of dollars every year are awarded across the Commonwealth, and I think it's very safe to observe, in layman's language, that there is a lot that needs to be done to improve both the administration and the transparency and integrity of the process. It's important from this parliament's perspective and also the perspective of Australian taxpayers that the grants frameworks themselves ensure best value for the nation and for the Australian taxpayers, who pay for these services. The report outlines several key concerns as well as recommendations to deal with them. Time doesn't allow for a detailed review of them all, but the key concerns were that there wasn't always a fair allocation of funding; the differences between merit based and non-competitive processes, in terms of how departments administered election commitments; merit assessments and the record keeping, or the lack of record keeping, by the bureaucracies of those processes; how exemptions from Commonwealth grant rules were used; and straight-out maladministration of grants programs. The report's recommendations emphasise the need for stronger accountability, transparency and fairness in government grant processes. Some of the key points were pretty basic, but it's a bit surprising that we had to remind the public sector that they had to ensure decision-makers follow the existing guidelines, that they had to actually define election commitments in grant programs and that they actually had to prioritise competitive and merit based processes. We also found that transparency must be upheld by documenting all stages of decision-making and providing ministers with the appropriate information on grants processes. Coalition members of the committee agreed with the recommendations of the report on how to reform grant administration, but we did express concern about the politically charged tone of the report. It was, unfortunately, somewhat abused, I believe, for political purposes about former government ministers. I would also note that the inquiry found no maladministration nor inappropriate behaviour by any minister despite the then chair's often public remarks about former ministers. While that was a bit of an unfortunate aspect to this report, I would emphasise again that, while urgent reforms are necessary, there were no findings of illegality by public officials or ministers from the previous government, as Labor alleged. However, secretaries who appeared before the committee did acknowledge that, with respect to their processes in supporting ministers of the day, ministers were let down on numerous occasions by faulty advice and just by a lack of information or incorrect advice. Sadly, I think that may well extend to ministers in this government. The committee welcomes the government's decision to adopt most of the recommendations on how to improve Commonwealth grants administration. I thank the numerous contributors to the inquiry but particularly the committee secretariat, who do an extraordinary job on behalf of this parliament, the public sector and all Australians. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 90 DOCUMENTS Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity 90 16:58 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table three treaties relating to the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity and move: That the Senate take note of the documents. The government is tabling for consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT, as a category 1 major treaty action, three treaties relating to the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, which I will henceforth refer to as IPEF: firstly, a clean economy agreement, secondly, a fair economy agreement and, thirdly, an overarching agreement on the IPEF. Broadly speaking, IPEF is a regional arrangement established to build cooperation and economic integration in the Indo-Pacific. The clean economy agreement identifies areas for increased cooperation among IPEF parties in the region's transition to net zero. The fair economy agreement would strengthen anticorruption, anti-money-laundering and taxation standards to promote transparency and good governance. The overarching agreement brings together the three pillars—supply chain, clean economy and fair economy agreements—under a single framework and establishes IPEF's governance arrangements. For the sake of clarity, there are a number of cooperative work programs under the IPEF clean economy agreement, one of which relates to small modular reactors. Australia is not participating in this work program. The Albanese government's position on nuclear energy is absolutely clear. Participation in these work programs is on an opt-in basis. Nuclear energy is not a viable option for Australia, because of the high costs, long deployment times and significant supply chain and workforce challenges. Renewable energy is by far the cheapest and most efficient way for Australia to reach net zero emissions. Question agreed to. Independent Review of National Natural Disaster Governance Arrangements, Services Australia, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Vocational Education and Training: International Students, International Students, Health Care: Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check 91 Order for the Production of Documents 91 17:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning national disaster governance arrangements and funding, Services Australia, Tamboran Resources, international students and the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check. COMMITTEES 91 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 91 Membership 91 17:01 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:01 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Education and Employment Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Hodgins-May to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator Faruqi Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee — Discharged—Senator Green Appointed— Senator Darmanin Participating member: Senator Green. Question agreed to. BILLS 91 BILLS Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 91

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

Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Assent 91 MOTIONS 91 MOTIONS Gambling Advertising 91 17:02 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Australians overwhelmingly support a full ban on gambling advertisements, (ii) Australians are denied access to information that would reveal the influence of the gambling industry on Commonwealth ministers and parliamentarians through: (A) secrecy around ministerial diaries, and (B) a complete lack of transparency around parliamentary passes provided to lobbyists; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) legislate a complete ban on gambling advertising, (ii) provide transparency around sponsored passes provided to lobbyists, and (iii) publish ministerial diaries. Thank you, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, for staying back late for this debate. Today I want to talk about lobbying. Right now, with the current debate on gambling advertising, we are getting a real-time look at how lobbying and unseen influence can change the trajectory of public policy. I heard the Prime Minister on the radio this morning talking about gambling advertising, and, to be frank, I was disappointed. Here's what he had to say: The experts say that the problem here with this debate, Patricia, is the problem isn't advertising. The problem is gambling. That's the problem. And when you look at what the fact is that, overwhelmingly, almost 70 per cent of problem gambling is about poker machines, an additional about 15 per cent is about lotteries and lottos and those things. I haven't seen a campaign about advertising in lotteries and Lotto, which is a far bigger problem than sports gambling. After that interview, I reached out to Professor Samantha Thomas at Deakin University to verify those figures. For the benefit of those who may not have met Professor Thomas, she is widely regarded as one of the country's foremost experts in gambling harm. She and her team looked for the figures the Prime Minister mentioned, and they couldn't find them. Unless those figures are some sort of back-of-the-napkin calculations, they don't appear to be publicly available. What they were able to send me was data from the government's own Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which shows that, of the people who gamble at least weekly on sports, 74 per cent are at risk of harm. Compare that to the people who gamble weekly on lotteries, where just 48 per cent are at risk of harm. The suggestion that lotteries are somehow more of a threat to public health than sports betting is weird. Frankly, it sounds like something that you would read in a submission from the wagering industry. Actually, it's exactly something you can read in their submission. In their evidence to the Murphy inquiry, Responsible Wagering Australia, the body representing the likes of Sportsbet, were very eager to point out that sports betting is just one form of gambling—as if the Lotto broadcast a million ads in a single year targeting children and young people! It's called deflection, and it's an old trick popularised by the tobacco industry: 'Don't look at us; look over there.' But this is, unfortunately, not the first time that the Prime Minister has parroted gambling industry talking points. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was caught out, again and again, saying that if we banned gambling ads then more people would be pushed towards the illegal offshore market. This is also untrue. For one, the illegal offshore gambling industry is illegal, and that's why we have given powers to the regulator to block offshore gambling sites. But also there's also just no evidence that it happens. Countries across the world that have banned gambling advertising report that they have not seen an increase in offshore gambling. The gambling industry is always keen to say it's happening in Norway, where they do not show gambling ads and haven't done so for a while. Well, here's what the Norwegian gambling operator had to say on Radio National: '94 per cent of all customers who place bets on sport do so at Norsk Tipping,' which is the state-owned gambling operator. This means that less than six per cent of gamblers place bets offshore. Where is the Prime Minister getting his lines from? Who is actually writing his talking points? Why is he telling us that banning gambling ads would lead to more people gambling illegally, when there's no evidence to support that? Why is he telling us that the problem is gambling generally, when everyone agrees that the problem is the gambling industry targeting young people through ads and normalising gambling? Why is he telling us that lotteries are a bigger problem than sports betting, when they manifestly are not? Why is he fighting so hard to defend the profits of bookmakers, when the vast majority of Australians, the vast majority of parents and even the government's hand-picked experts on domestic violence say gambling ads should be banned, just like tobacco ads were? All of these positions sound suspiciously similar to what we hear advanced by the gambling industry and the companies who profit from it. I know that I'm not alone in feeling concerned that the gambling industry has too much influence over the government. We're talking about an industry that has donated more than $11 million to political parties since the 1998-99 financial year—an industry that stands between Australians and sensible reform to protect us from gambling harm. But, frustratingly, outside of large donations, we don't know how the gambling industry is influencing the government. We don't know which industry lobbyists have access to members and senators. We don't even know who those lobbyists are. There are now more than 2,000 sponsored passes issued, giving access to all areas of this building. Many of these passes are issued to lobbyists, and we can only assume that a reasonable number of those lobbyists work for the gambling industry. So how many gambling lobbyists have access-all-areas passes? Which companies do they represent? Australians are prevented from knowing this information. And for what reason? What possible justification could there be for denying basic transparency on who has access to the people's house? Earlier this year, I referred an inquiry into lobbyists' passes to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. A primary reason that was given by the Department of Parliamentary Services was that disclosing the identities of lobbyists would contravene their privacy policy, which draws on the Privacy Act. During the inquiry, I requested any legal advice provided to DPS on disclosure of the names of lobbyists with sponsored passes. That advice, provided in confidence to the committee, makes it crystal clear just how easy it would be to provide Australians with transparency around details of lobbyists' passes. But when I put forward a motion to seek disclosure of this advice—legal advice to the Secretary of DPS—the major parties teamed up to prevent people from understanding how easy it could be to improve transparency around who can access this building. We're elected representatives, and I believe that Australians deserve to know who we are sponsoring in terms of access to Parliament House. Here are a few of the key details from the advice. The first thing to note—which is rather comical, given the excuse about the Privacy Act—is that the Privacy Act does not apply to DPS, so the department is free to publicise details of lobbyist passes. Despite this, there is a strong argument for the act and the Privacy Principles to be complied with, even if they don't strictly apply to DPS. Accepting this, there are three options for changes that would allow proper transparency to apply to lobbyist passes. First, DPS could change its privacy policy to allow transparency, so that details of lobbyist passes could be published freely. This would be an easy fix. Second, DPS could simply inform lobbyists applying for a pass that their name, the company or organisation they represent and the sponsoring parliamentarian will be disclosed. Third, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate could choose to disclose the information. Given how simple these changes are, the questions need to be asked: Why haven't we seen transparency? What is being hidden from the Australian public? Our communities expect better than this. I hear that all the time. They expect transparency around lobbying as a bare minimum. I absolutely accept that lobbying, conducted ethically and transparently, plays a genuine and important role in our democracy. Again, no-one is saying we should ban lobbyists. All we're saying is that there should be transparency about who is entering this building. Advocacy groups, businesses, NGOs and community representatives often work tirelessly to ensure that the voices of ordinary Australians are heard in this place. These groups provide crucial expertise. They advocate for social change and push for policies that serve the public interest. But when gambling lobbyists start to pour through the doors of Parliament House with all-access passes, Australians should know about it. When they're influencing government policy to allow the corrosive and often deadly advertising of their products to continue, Australians should know about it. But any undue influence they have is unknown and unchecked. Beyond additional transparency for lobbyist passes, significant reform of the lobbying rules is urgently needed. It is crucial that we know who lobbyists are meeting with, what issues they're discussing and what decisions they're influencing. If Sportsbet is meeting with the communications minister, Australians should know, because Australians deserve to know that their elected representatives are working in their best interests and not for the highest bidder or the one with the most influence. We need comprehensive reforms to strengthen lobbying regulations and close the existing loopholes. Further to transparency around lobbyist passes, three urgent changes are needed. First, we must expand the lobbyist register to include in-house lobbyists. All lobbyists, regardless of whether they work for a firm or are employed directly by a corporation, should be required to disclose their activities. Second, we need to introduce a cooling-off period of at least five years for politicians and senior public servants before they can engage in lobbying activities. This will help prevent conflicts of interest and limit the influence of former officials on government policy. Third, real-time disclosure of lobbying meetings, through publication of ministerial diaries, is essential. Again, Labor fought for this in opposition. Now that they're in government, they don't want to release diaries. Too often, those with wealth and power have direct unregulated access to decision-makers, while ordinary Australians are left on the sidelines. We've seen repeated instances of senior politicians leaving public office only to take up lucrative positions in industries that they once regulated and using that knowledge, clearly, to help their new employer. This revolving door between government and corporate interests creates serious conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest and undermines public confidence in the political process. Between 1998 and 2022, nearly 30 per cent of former federal politicians moved directly into roles with lobbying firms or corporations they had interacted with during their time in office. That's a sobering thought, and I think we should have some parameters about where they can move. This is not just a matter of perception; it's a structural issue that needs to be addressed. Australians have the right to know in a timely manner who is influencing government decisions. This includes regular updates on meetings between lobbyists and senior officials, minister and their staff. Surely, in this area, transparency should be the default, not the exception? At the heart of this issue is the need to restore public confidence in our democracy, because, when people believe that decisions are being made behind closed doors, trust in the entire system is eroded. We are facing some huge challenges as a country and globally, and we should be doing everything we can to build trust in institutions, to build trust in government. When we have these sorts of secret arrangements and we have the major parties constantly voting against efforts of the crossbench to make things more transparent, we're not doing that. We're actually eroding trust at a time when we should be doing everything that we can to continue to build that. We've seen startling examples globally of what happens when trust in our democratic systems is eroded. It's critical that we take steps to strengthen, rather than diminish, faith in our political system here in Australia. By improving lobbying transparency, we can help ensure that our political system works for everyone, not just those with deep pockets who have enough money and power to purchase influence. The integrity of our democracy depends on it. I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to take this seriously. 17:16 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak in favour of Senator Pocock's motion. I think that this is a fantastic motion. Gambling is a cancer in this country. Australia has the highest gambling losses of any country in the world. While I've got nothing against going to the race track on the odd Saturday and having a bit of a flutter, when you've got people who are addicted to poker machines, sports betting or the track that is not healthy. If I could make one amendment to Senator Pocock's motion, it's that lobbyists should also disclose not only who their clients are but how much they're being paid. I would love to know the sort of coin these lobbyists are on. I've heard some pretty big figures being thrown around. I can't verify it because it's all smoke and mirrors. They talk about the banality of evil. The fact is that we actually let these lobbyists in. When I say 'these lobbyists', I want to be careful. I know the isolated children's fund come down here. They're volunteers. They're good people. When I'm referring to 'lobbyists', I'm referring to paid lobbyists who basically have vested interests or are rent seekers seeking to milk the taxpayer and seeking to take advantage of vulnerable people when they milk the taxpayer. So I say to those good people who come here and fight for good causes that I'm not talking about you. I know that most of you guys are volunteers and are trying to get funding for cancer projects and things like that. That's all good. I'm talking about the big companies and things like that where they actually have an entire government relations department and they're constantly trying to manipulate laws or whatever to suit their agenda. I think that this is a fantastic motion. I notice Senator Allman-Payne across the chamber. She's also from Queensland. We're both from small towns: Chinchilla and Cardwell. We're old enough to remember that when we grew up in our in our home state we didn't have poker machines, but we had maternity wards and we had very good and much better essential services than we do today. When Wayne Goss brought in poker machines in 1990, that was the start of the rot. To his credit, the former Labor Premier admitted that it was the biggest mistake he made. Ironically enough, it was the unions and Labor who actually wanted those poker machines brought in. But I can tell you that there is nothing good about those filthy, stinking one-armed bandits, and the sooner that they are taken out of clubs and pubs the better. I'm not against having a few of them in a casino. If you want to bring in some high-roller foreigners and milk them dry, go for it. But don't destroy the lives of families. That's what gambling does. I've always been outspoken on this, even when I was in the Liberal Party. I've crossed the floor on this before. I've crossed the floor with the Greens on this issue. Gambling destroys lives and it destroys families. Families have lost everything because one particular person has been addicted to poker machines or some form of gambling. I can only think that online gambling is even more insidious, because you don't even have to leave your home to go to the pokies or whatever. It is the same for sports betting. Seriously, can we just not sit down and watch sport without having Sportsbet coming on at half time giving us these odds for who is going to score the first try or a 10-point head start or whatever? I just look at this and think, 'Is there no morality left in anything anymore?' I remember Alan Kohler on the ABC used to do the economics report. It must have been around the early 2000s when there was a sudden jump one quarter in the GDP and it was effectively because online gambling had been allowed to come on. Of course, economists being the economists that they are, don't actually distinguish between good spending and bad spending. They just add everything up and say, 'We've got a growing economy.' But that is how insidious gambling is in this country. We need to make it as hard as possible for people who are addicted to gambling to gamble. We do not need to be advertising it online for sport. A lot of us want to sit down with our children and watch the game on a Friday night. We don't want to see that on our televisions. And believe you me, it doesn't matter how you start—whether you start on sport or you start on a cockroach—some people get their losses and think that they can make it up. I can't tell you the percentage, but it might be one per cent or two per cent, but it makes a big difference to their lives. There are plenty other things to do. Go out and ride the pushbike or go for a swim or go for a run or go for a bushwalk. There are plenty of other things to do than get addicted to gambling. I commend Senator Pocock for pushing this issue and I commend him for the fact that he's calling out the lobbyists, the rent-seeking lobbyists—I'll define them from the good guys—who are basically pushing this. Shame on the Labor Party, who should actually pretend to care about the workers and the people on lower incomes. If Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, was serious about actually fighting for the workers and fighting for people on the margins, he would kill online gambling and advertising for gambling stone cold dead. 17:22 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales The government does not support this motion. The Albanese government takes seriously the responsibility to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from the harms of gambling. On the important issue of wagering advertising, the government has been clear and the status quo is untenable. The government's consultation process in response to the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling has been thorough, valuable and has raised additional considerations that we will continue to work through. The government is focused on three key outcomes: reducing the exposure of children to gambling ads, breaking the nexus of wagering and sport, and tackling and targeting the saturation of ads. Every Australian family wants to enjoy sport from the grassroots to the professional leagues without being bombarded by gambling ads. We want kids off screens and on the sporting field and we want to restore the tradition of sport to family time. Parents across Australia need to have their confidence restored so they can sit down with their kids to watch their favourite team without being inundated by sports betting promotions. It is important to get these reforms right because, as we've seen in the past, bad policy design leads to bad outcomes. In 2018, the coalition reforms saw a huge spike in gambling ads and we've seen significant growth since in online wagering ads. It's also important to consider the multiple channels over which advertising is delivered, not just television and radio but also digital platforms and social media where advertising can be targeted at vulnerable Australians. We have gathered the evidence about harms, we have assessed the impacts of various options and we are now consulting on the proposed model. As a responsible government, we are taking the time to consult and ensure what is proposed is effective and will not have detrimental or unintended consequences. We've been open about the consultation process and reject the Senator's assertions that our policies will be influenced by one particular group of stakeholders over another. There are no secrets here, and the government rejects the conflation the senator is drawing between matters of freedom of information and minister's diaries and the existence of lobbyists. The rules around lobbyists are clear in parliament. Any person who seeks to influence decisions on behalf of a third party must be registered with the lobbying code of conduct. Where a lobbyists fails to comply with their obligation, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department may remove them from the register. As for our comprehensive response to the Murphy inquiry report, the matter will be considered by cabinet, as is the normal process for government decision-making. This is a complex reform, and we're determined to get it right. I would attest that this has been a highly consultative process. Senator Pocock himself attended a briefing on the government's proposed model, along with many of his crossbench colleagues in August. As we work through the reforms, we've continued to deliver the most significant online wagering harm reduction initiatives of the past decade—banning the use of credit cards for online gambling; introducing new evidence based taglines in wagering advertising; strengthening the classification of gambling-like features in video games to better prevent children associating gambling features with recreation activities; establishing mandatory customer ID verification for online wagering; and launching the National Self-Exclusion Register, BetStop, for problem gamblers, of which more than 28,000 Australians have registered, with 40 per cent of those opting for self-imposed lifetime bans. The parliamentary inquiry chaired by the late Peta Murphy gathered a significant amount of valuable evidence including from public health experts and people with lived experience of gambling harm, resulting in 31 recommendations that the government will respond to in due course. 17:26 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'm conscious that there are a few minutes left. Thank you for the government's response. Being fairly new to all of this, I've been blown away at how loose the lobbying code is. When you talk to Australians about the fact that the government relations team from Qantas are not lobbyists—in fact, they get their sponsored passes from the infrastructure minister, who makes decisions about Qantas. They've had sponsored passes from her and from the previous infrastructure minister. When you talk about the government relations team from ANZ bank, everyone would think they're probably lobbyists. Wrong. They're in-house lobbyists. Just get a sponsored pass from a parliamentarian and away you go! The master grocers association sounds like a lobby group. Wrong. Sponsored passes and you're in! The Pharmacy Guild? Nope. Just get a sponsored pass and away you go! There are so many loopholes when it comes to lobbyists—firstly, in terms of the definition of a 'lobbyist', which, as I hear from Australians, is outrageous, and, secondly, in terms of this register. The worst punishment is a six-month holiday from lobbying; you can't lobby for six months. It's a total joke. Most people think that we'd be ahead of the US when it comes to lobbying. We're miles behind. In the UK and the US, there are civil, sometimes criminal, penalties for grievous contraventions of their lobbyist codes of conduct. Here, it is a six-month holiday. It's not good enough. As much as the government wants to say that everything is fine, Australians want more confidence in our system. I don't understand why the government that promised so much when it comes to transparency and this new dispensation are happy just to sit on their hands and not do anything and vote with the coalition against the crossbench. The crossbench are trying to push you on transparency—simple transparency measures that will improve our democracy and that will remove some of these perceived, and potentially real, conflicts of interest that Australians see. I thank the Senate for this opportunity. 17:29 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The question before us is that the motion that the question be put, moved by Senator Allman-Payne, be agreed to. Is a division required, noting that we won't be taking it at this point in time? Yes, okay. We will hold that division over to the next sitting period. ADJOURNMENT 96 ADJOURNMENT Early Childhood Education 96 17:30 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I want to speak about early childhood education this afternoon. We know that it is transformative and that all children should be able to access the transformative benefits that it provides. This week, the Productivity Commission handed down its final report on early childhood education and care, which considered how to build an affordable, accessible, inclusive, high-quality, universal early learning system that works for all Australians. The report included 56 recommendations and considered a range of matters around how to build an affordable, accessible system that includes high-quality care and is universal and inclusive. Lasting reform in the early childhood education system requires long-term commitment and investment, and I know this government is committed to charting the course in the great tradition that it has on things like Medicare and superannuation. The report confirms what we already know: that prioritising the workforce is critical in any of these reforms. It says that one of the first things that we need to do in order to build a bigger and better early education system is to build a bigger early education and care workforce. The report makes several additional findings and recommendations about workforce, and it's great to see that this government is already on the path to deliver some of these outcomes. This government has already acted to introduce the 15 per cent wage rise for early education and care workers because, if you want to attract the best possible early childhood educators to the job, you need to pay them what they're worth. If we want to retain these workers, we need to pay them what they're worth. The pay rise, in a sector where 95 per cent of the workforce are women, is a testament to the Albanese government's commitment to closing the gender pay gap and achieving economic security for Australian women. To make sure that the cost of this wage increase isn't passed on to parents, early childhood education and care services won't be able to increase their fees by more than 4.4 per cent over the next 12 months. The government has also commissioned the ACCC to provide greater insight into the factors driving fee increases, and its report will be considered alongside the Productivity Commission's broad review of the ECEC system. It's an important step in the government's reforms to the sector, and it builds on the successful cheaper childcare changes, which saw an average reduction of 11 per cent in out-of-pocket expenses for centre based day care, making childcare more affordable for around 1.2 million Australians. Improving access to and affordability of this care is also critical for supporting people, especially women, to continue working, to re-enter the workforce after a period of time out or to increase their hours of work should they choose to do so. I recently had the great pleasure of meeting with a number of early childhood educators at Goodstart in Flemington and Malvern Early Learning and Child Care Centre in Melbourne. In particular, I met with Chathuri, who is a United Workers Union delegate and an excellent leader and advocate in her workplace. She has not only put in the long hours every day in educating and caring for our children but worked incredibly hard with her colleagues to achieve the 15 per cent pay rise that has recently been committed to. But not only that; Chathuri has also really committed to educating herself further by seeking out postgraduate studies to deepen her knowledge and enhance the quality of early childhood education and care for the benefit of all children and families in her community. I think this is a really critical point because early childhood educators are not babysitters. They are not undertaking child care. They play a vital role in a pivotal time in a child's life, and this cannot be understated. Between the ages of three and five, one of the most formative developmental phases of a child's life takes place, and it is critical that we value their work as professional, educated work. To sum up, we believe all children should be able to access high-quality early childhood education, no matter where they live or their background, and a great place to begin that process is to make sure that the workers are properly remunerated for the professional work that they do. Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 97

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

17:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania The Albanese Labor government's latest attempt to legislate censorship under the guise of protecting us from misinformation is just as Orwellian and authoritarian as its first effort. What this government is doing is trading away the free speech of ordinary Australians, not to protect us as they claim but to protect themselves from criticism. The Albanese government's first attempt at a censorship bill was roundly criticised for restricting free speech and putting the power in the hands of bureaucrats and big tech to decide what is true and what is false. This second attempt may be even worse. Once again, it is based on the principle that government and the bureaucracy and big tech will decide for you what is true or false and what is right or wrong and tell you that your opinions are harmful and dangerous but only of course if your opinion is different to that of the government, because what the government says will, of course, be exempt from being considered misinformation. The Labor government can't even get their story straight about why they're doing this and who will be making censorship decisions if this bill passes. One minute, they're rightly pointing out that big tech companies are not to be trusted. The next minute, they're saying, 'Don't worry—it won't be us censoring individual posts; it'll be the big tech companies doing that.' They forget to tell you that those same big tech companies will, if this legislation passes, have government standing over their shoulder threatening them with massive fines if they don't censor what the government considers to be misinformation. In fact, in this version of the bill, if the government doesn't think social media companies are censoring enough of the content they don't like, the minister will be able to personally order investigations and even public hearings on any misinformation topic determined by the minister. We know governments put pressure on social media companies to censor content for their political advantage. We've seen it happen, and we've had it confirmed in Senate committee hearings in this parliament. We know that social media companies respond to such requests from government by censoring information that's claimed to be false and misleading but which turns out eventually to be accurate. And we know that this government is exactly the type of government which claims opposing views are dangerous and must be silenced. This is a government which, this very sitting fortnight, claimed it was too dangerous for a senator in this chamber to be allowed to introduce and debate a bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act. They claimed repeatedly that the logical concerns of Australians about their divisive Voice proposal were misinformation, only for a huge majority of Australians to say, 'No, we've looked at your proposal, and we agree that your proposal is dangerous, expensive and divisive.' This is a Labor Party which, in opposition, claimed it would reduce your power bills by hundreds of dollars and, in government, had its members circulate images of three-eyed fish in response to the coalition's proposal to lift the ban on nuclear energy. But they want to tell you, the average Australian, that it's your views and your opinions which are harmful and dangerous—even your views on the banking system or the health system. Let's be very clear. Everybody knows that people are regularly going to be wrong on the internet, just as they are regularly going to be wrong in parliament or in the pages of a newspaper. But 26 million Australians don't have the luxury of coming into this place, this parliament, to have their say. They don't have a regular newspaper column they can publish to express their opinions. What this legislation is saying to Australians is that there is one rule for the media and another rule for Australians who want to have their say on the platform that's available to them. The constant attacks on freedom of speech that come from this Labor government are a huge concern. The risk of people being allowed to speak freely, and maybe get their facts wrong from time to time, pales in comparison with the risks of government and big tech telling you what you can say and when you can say it. That is why sensible people have understood for centuries that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are fundamental to protecting the rights of the individual against the power of the state. The government's second attempt at its censorship bill does nothing to protect those rights. Indeed, it just undermines them even further. Albanese Government 97 17:40 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to remind everyone in this place and those listening that the Albanese Labor government has been and will continue to be a government of delivery—'delivery' because we are delivering for all Australians. This is in deep contrast to those opposite. Those opposite had 10 long years to deliver historic reforms, and they didn't. They fluffed around for 10 years, mostly in disarray and decay. We had Tony Abbott, we had Malcolm Turnbull, we had Scott Morrison, and now we have Mr Peter Dutton—all failed leaders, who don't understand the meaning of leadership. They jumped around from leader to leader. It was like the New South Wales Liberals' show, and that's all it was. They couldn't stop the infighting amongst themselves. They muddled through, and they failed to deliver any major reform. After all, isn't that what a government's role is? Isn't that why we're elected—to reform, and to improve the lives of our fellow Australians? But they forgot all about that. We, on this side, don't forget that, for the last 12 months of government by those opposite, we had a Prime Minister who was operating a secret government. He deliberately misled not only the Australian people but also his own colleagues, his party room and his cabinet, and he failed to share with them that he was holding five portfolios as the Prime Minister. He was dishonest, every single day that he held that office, for 12 months. He was a Prime Minister who was governing in deceit—deliberately deceptive, day in and day out. In the last almost 2½ years, we, as the Albanese government, have been delivering for the Australian people. We've delivered because we believe in representing aspiration for all Australians. We've delivered for middle-income and working Australians: tax cuts, energy bill relief, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, urgent care clinics, cheaper medicines, 60-day dispensing, wage increases for 2.6 million Australians, domestic violence leave, more generous paid parental leave and finally, here, today, we passed really important legislation for superannuation being paid on parental leave. And we haven't stopped there, colleagues, because we're bringing manufacturing back to this country, because we know that, when they were in government, they let it all go offshore. And their policy was to keep wages low. No wonder they vote against everything that we put forward for the Australian workers. We have been a government that is about building up our nation—not blocking it, like those opposite continue to do. We have invested more in housing, and we want to do so much more. Thus far, we've seen delivered 13,700 new social and affordable homes across Australia. But what did they do? They voted against that; they voted against the Australian Housing Future Fund. We had the Greens stalling on it, because that's what they do. And what have we seen this week? What have we seen in this chamber day in and day out, when we've been trying to pass legislation to help Australians buy a home, to assist some 40,000 Australians? That should be fundamentally what we all aspire to do—to own our own home. They didn't vote against the legislation; what they did was to keep voting so that we couldn't actually have a vote on the legislation. And they cuddled up nice and cozy with the Greens, who come in here and lecture us every day about how they're the only people in this chamber that really care about fellow Australians and helping those who are renting and young people. Yet, they are not doing anything to assist those young people. They are not doing anything at all. But tomorrow those who receive rental assistance will get an increase from the Labor government. Those who are on an age pension will get an increase tomorrow because we know that the cost of living is hurting Australians. We actually care. We actually believe in fairness. That's what the Labor government is delivering for all Australians. Tomorrow we'll see people who get care allowance— (Time expired) Liberal Party of Australia 98 17:45 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia It's always lovely to be able to come into this chamber and share great news with colleagues. This evening I rise to introduce three wonderful local Liberal federal candidates for the seats of Pearce, Hasluck and the brand new seat of Bullwinkel. Our three amazing candidates are from the communities. They understand their communities and they will be listening to their communities, not only working hard, when they're elected as part of the new government, to deal with cost-of-living pressures for their families but also fighting for the services and the supports their local communities need and for the issues that matter the most to their local communities. The first candidate is Jan Norberger, the candidate for Pearce. Essentially, for those who don't know, Pearce is the City of Wanneroo, which I understand is the fastest-growing city in Australia. It is in the very north of Perth. Jan first moved to Australia in 1982, and he's been living in the Perth northern suburbs ever since along with his wife and two young children. Jan has a longstanding history and commitment to the service of our nation. He spent six years in the Royal Australian Air Force and reached the rank of corporal. He was awarded the Officer Commanding Commendation. Knowing Jan as I do, I know exactly why he received that award. He has experience representing the people of his communities in the state parliament. In 2013 he was elected to represent his local community as a state member, where he not only talked about delivering for his community but secured critical funding for health services, sporting facilities and major infrastructure projects. His service as a state MP highlights his proven track record of delivering on the issues that matter the most to his community to make it the best place in Perth to live and to raise a family. He's also a proven leader. He's held various leadership roles, including building a local business as a respected provider of training in the health sector. Most importantly, he understands his community and is committed to fighting for issues for his local community. The second wonderful new candidate we have is our candidate for the seat of Hasluck, which has changed significantly in the latest redistribution. Our candidate is the wonderful David Goode, a great friend of mine. He has the hugest heart of anybody I know. He's a man with strong family values. He has years of community service and an accomplished career, which makes him the ideal person to represent the growing communities in Ellenbrook and Midland. He's been a small-business owner for 20 years, with nearly—I think he'd hate me saying this—50 years of experience in banking and finance. He understands the central role that small businesses play in our nation's economy and also in our local communities. He's served his community as a very active justice of the peace for over 20 years. He served as a lord mayor in a very large city and he's been a local councillor for many years. He has also demonstrated just how much he can fight for his local community. The final seat is the new seat of Bullwinkel, which I know and love the best of all of those communities because it's my home. It includes a large part of the Perth Hills. Our candidate there is Matt Moran, and he embodies the values of commitment and dedication to the community that I'm sure he will serve with after the next election. He has deep local roots. He was born in Kalamunda and raised in Boya, with family history in Mundaring and Toodyay. He understands the local issues and the very varied communities that are now in the seat of Bullwinkel. He's got an amazing experience of service in the Army. He's a Walkley Award winning journalist. He's had active military service in East Timor and Afghanistan, which has certainly shaped his commitment to duty, to our nation and also to local communities. Matt is absolutely committed to addressing the many, many local issues that we have right across the electorate, including, as late as yesterday, working with me to strongly oppose the North Stoneville development, which yesterday was approved by the federal Minister for the Environment and Water. What a complete disgrace. We will keep fighting— (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 17:50