DOCUMENTS

2024-10-09 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 9 October 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objections, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 1

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This Greens bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024, amends section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to prohibit a corporation with substantial market power from abusing that power by charging an excessive price for a good or for a service, otherwise known as price gouging. Any Australian who has ended up with a half-full supermarket trolley at the supermarket checkout knows what price gouging is, because Coles and Woolworths are engaged in price gouging. If you want some evidence of that practice and the fact that Coles and Woolworths are carrying it out, I simply refer people to the recent legal action launched by the ACCC against Coles and Woolworths for behaviour that clearly included price gouging. Just to be clear, this is what the ACCC is alleging Coles and Woolworths did. They took a product that was at a particular price, significantly raised its price, simply because they could, then dropped the price partially but not all the way back down to its original price, and then claimed that product was on a discount, when in fact it wasn't on a discount at all; its price had been inflated. The reason Coles and Woolworths can engage in price-gouging behaviour like that is because they can—because their market dominance is so significant. Taken together, they have over two-thirds of the market share in the Australian food and grocery sector, and that share is climbing. What they are doing is misusing their market dominance to price gouge shoppers. As an aside, they're also misusing their market power to do over their suppliers, many of whom are Australian farmers. This bill is based on recommendation 1.5 of the ACTU inquiry into price gouging, which was led by former chair of the ACCC Professor Allan Fels. It's also based on recommendation 2 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, established by the Greens. Both of those reports recommended amending section 46 of the competition act to make it illegal to charge excessive prices, and they recommended that that happen in terms similar to the provisions which are currently extant in the European Union. Under this bill the ACCC will be able to apply to the court for an order where it believes a corporation has abused its market power by price gouging. If a corporation is found to have illegally price gouged, the court can impose orders under section 76 of the competition act, which includes a maximum civil penalty of $50 million. I want to pause and say that, ultimately, when corporations behave badly, yes, there should be corporate fines levied. But we've got to get past that and start fining the people making the decisions: the CEOs of the big corporations. Corporate CEOs in Australia are making off like bandits. In the case of Coles and Woolworths, their CEOs are on multimillion-dollar salary and bonus packages, and it's about time the CEOs were hit where it hurts—in their wallets or in their bank accounts—when they engage in price gouging. We all remember what happened when the Greens negotiated with the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Jones, to include personal fines for dodgy bankers. The CEO of the Banking Association, former Queensland premier Anna Bligh, reached into the offices of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and Mr Jones was instructed to renege on the deal that he'd shaken hands on. He walked away from his promise to introduce personal fines for dodgy bankers. Again, this is because the corporate CEO class in this country don't want to be held accountable for their actions and don't want to have to pay fines when they fail to meet the responsibilities that almost every Australian would think that they should have. Under section 87B of the competition act the ACCC can also require enforceable undertakings by a corporation. The undertakings the ACCC can impose are sufficiently broad to allow the ACCC to require a corporation to lower the price of a product to the price it would be if it were sold in a competitive market. That can be done for a specified period of time, while guaranteeing supply of the product. What that means is, in effect, that corporations that engage in illegal price gouging are liable for a significant penalty and that the ACCC and the courts can intervene to lower the price of a product. That is what we need to see in this country: a mechanism to force corporations to lower the price of a particular product if they are price gouging and misusing their market power. To determine whether a price is excessive, the bill requires the court to consider the price of the product if the corporation did not have substantial market power. We've drafted this bill in such a way as to keep the definition of 'excessive price' deliberately broad to provide the courts with the discretion to determine whether price gouging has occurred based on the specific circumstances of each case. We obviously note that different industries will have different thresholds for what is considered an excessive price. However, in making that determination, the courts can consider whether the price is excessive relative to cost, whether the price is excessive relative to the economic value of the product provided, whether the price is excessive compared to a circumstance where there was greater competition in the market and also whether a corporation has used the cover of an unusual event that has led to a shortage of a good or service or excessive demand for a good or service to increase prices above what is required to cover an increase in input costs. We've introduced this bill to respond to the urgent need in Australia to rein in corporate price gouging. What we have seen since the Greens initiated the Senate inquiry into supermarket prices is the opposition actually coming some way towards a solution by announcing their policy of supporting divestiture powers in the supermarket sector. Because the Greens have driven this debate and because the opposition has shifted, albeit slightly, towards a position of being prepared to take on the big supermarket corporations, it is now just Labor standing hand in hand with Coles and Woolworths, defending their market dominance and defending their price gouging. We've all seen the photos of the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, in a Coles vest, standing with the CEO of Coles, who is receiving a multimillion-dollar salary and bonus packages that are in part funded by the price gouging of ordinary Australian shoppers. It is a shame on the Labor Party and a shame on the Prime Minister that he is prepared to engage in repeated photo ops with the CEO of Coles and, no doubt, similar meetings with the CEO of Woolworths while those big corporations are actually price gouging ordinary Australian shoppers. Everywhere you turn at the moment, prices are going through the roof, whether it's power, transport, rents, mortgages or food and groceries, and the common denominator amongst so many of those skyrocketing prices is corporate profiteering and corporate price gouging. It's about time we had more people in this parliament who are prepared to stand up to the big corporations, prepared to take them on and prepared to hold them to account. That's what the Greens are here to do. We want to see economy-wide divestiture powers that would help us not just bust up the supermarket duopoly but also put more competition into things like the airline sector in this country. We want to see price gouging made illegal because we want genuine cost-of-living relief for Australian shoppers. Since Labor came into power two short years ago, the price of food is up by over 10 per cent. Rents have gone up by 31 per cent. The average mortgage payment is up by over $1,600 a month. Power bills, insurance costs, medical bills, seeing your GP—it's all skyrocketing out of control. And, while those costs are going up, wages have not kept pace. The share of the national economy that is going to corporate profits has never been higher, and the share of the national economy that is going to wages has never been lower. Millions of Australians are getting smashed by an economy-wide crisis, and this government is doing no more than fiddling at the margins. That's not enough to provide genuine relief for the millions of Australians who need it. We need urgent intervention and urgent action. We need a government that is prepared to take on the big corporations and fight for the interests of ordinary Australians, rather than fighting for the interests of the big corporations and the corporate CEO class. All of this was made even worse last week when the Prime Minister came out with his grand announcement: taking on the amount of air in chip packets. Then he turned around and tried to describe that as addressing shrinkflation. I don't think Mr Albanese knows what shrinkflation is. I want to say to Mr Albanese: if you want to take on shrinkflation, adopt the Greens policy, which was also a recommendation of the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, of requiring the big supermarkets to notify, in plain, clear terms on the shelves, when the size of a product has decreased. That's what these corporations are doing; they're shrinking the product and keeping the price the same or, in some cases, even putting the price up. If Mr Albanese wanted to address shrinkflation, it would be a very easy thing to address. But, of course, that would require him to stand up to the big corporations, and that's what he's continually shown that he's not prepared to do. The dollars extracted by big corporate price gouging in this country flow to corporate CEO pay and salary packages. Recent analysis by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors shows that chief executives of Australia's largest corporations take home, on average, 50 times the pay of a typical worker. In the early 1990s, corporate CEOs earned about 17 times the salary of ordinary, typical workers. Now, they earn over 50 times the pay of a typical worker. Former Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci, who refused repeatedly to answer reasonable questions during a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, received $8.65 million in 2023, about 127 times the pay of a full-time Woolies shop floor worker. This is obscene. This is outrageous. This is grossly unfair. The rich are getting richer while ordinary Australians have to work harder and harder just to be able to afford the essentials of life. The big corporations are making off like bandits, booking obscene profits, their CEOs are making obscene bank, and millions of ordinary Australians are getting smashed in an economy-wide crisis. It is time for action. It's time that people in this place were prepared to stand up to big corporations, stand up to corporate CEOs, stop taking political donations in a system of institutionalised bribery and actually start standing up for ordinary Australians. It is just the Labor Party now who continues to stand with the big corporate interests of Coles and Woolworths, and, in doing so, they are absolutely abrogating their responsibility to ordinary Australian shoppers who are being price gouged to buggery. 09:17 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Raise your hand if you've ever been personally victimised by high supermarket prices. I'm pretty sure every single one of us has stood at the check-out, looked at the number on the screen, looked at our bags, looked back at the screen and wondered how on earth just a few things can cost that much. I've been there. I was a single mum living on Centrelink payments. I know what it's like to stand in the supermarket aisle weighing up two things that you really need but can only afford one, the way you look around to check no-one is watching you as you're putting something back on the shelf and the way you feel ashamed, guilty and embarrassed that you can't afford a few simple groceries to feed your family. That was 25 years ago. Today, people are feeling the pinch more than ever in our current cost-of-living crisis. Groceries are a cost you can't afford or avoid. You do everything you can to scrimp and save and try to find things cheaper, but, at the end of the day, you have to buy food, and you have to buy it from a store that's available to you. People in regional areas like Tassie are paying more for their groceries because of the lack of options. We don't have Aldi or Costco or any of those other stores the mainland has, and we're quite literally paying the price for it. During the Senate supermarket prices inquiry, we heard that, when a new grocery store opened in a town, prices at Woolies and Coles went down. Increase the players in the game, and the other stores will lower their prices to compare. That's why in my comments to the committee report I called on the federal government to work with states and territories to address competition issues, especially in regional areas like Tasmania. Since then, report after report has echoed these words. CHOICE surveys, the ACCC interim supermarket report—they all say that regional areas are paying the price for a lack of supermarket competition. It's pretty clear I'm on the money. Tassie needs more supermarket choices. But how do we encourage more competition? There are a lot of factors that go into why it's so hard for new supermarkets to compete with the big two, and cowboy behaviour from Woolies and Coles is a major part of that. We know that Woolies and Coles engage in practices like land banking to stop other grocery stores from entering the game. Land banking is when a company buys up land or space in a shopping centre just so no-one else can have it. They could have bought the prime development sites 10, 15 years ago, and they're still just sitting there empty. There are examples of this everywhere, even on Tassie's north-west coast. Burnie has a population of about 20,000 people. It has one Woolies and one Coles. A brand new Woolies is being built less than five minutes drive from the existing Woolies. I can't say for certain that this is land banking, but I can tell you that Burnie didn't really need another Woolies. Some people would say that private businesses have a right to buy the land they want, and I agree, but there is a line between buying a space as a genuine business decision and buying it just to stop someone else from having it. The ACCC could do something about allegations of land banking, but they don't have the power to investigate it. It's a point we keep coming back to over and over. If we really want to hold the major supermarkets to account, we have to give someone the power to do it. The ACCC is currently a lapdog with false teeth. They want to do more, but they're hamstrung by government legislation. Just a few weeks ago the ACCC announced that they're taking Woolies and Coles to court over their dodgy promotions. I think everybody in Australia said, 'About time.' But the investigation is only about misleading sales. The case has nothing to do with the actual prices that supermarkets are charging, because the ACCC doesn't have the power to do that. Pollies of every colour of have been taking the supermarkets to task for charging huge prices. The $6.50 for Tim Tams has really got them going. But nothing will change unless the government gives the ACCC more bite. That's why I support the intent of this bill by Senator McKim and his team. We can't keep talking about reining in cowboy behaviour by the two major supermarkets if no-one has the power to take them to task. Every single person that has been to a Woolies or Coles lately has noticed that prices are going up and up and up. The supermarkets say they're not charging excessive prices. They say their costs, for freight, fuel, wages and inflation, have gone up too. To be fair, some of those costs have gone up—but not by that much. If you knew that the prices were going up but that that money was going back to farmers and producers, you would probably feel a little bit better about it, but it's not. Producers are getting a measly few cents here and there and barely getting by. The supermarkets are ripping off customers and farmers and making record profits. Coles had a profit this year of $1.1 billion. Woolies had a profit of $1.7 billion. These are some of the highest profit margins in the world of supermarkets everywhere. It's pouring salt into the wound. Coles and Woolies say they're doing it tough, but they don't know what it's like to cut back to two meals a day because you can't afford three. They don't know what it's like to not have a price rise in a decade, like the farmers who supply them—farmers who are giving up family farms and having thoughts of self-harm because dealing with the major supermarkets is so bad. Businesses should make a reasonable profit for their shareholders, but at what point is it just taking advantage of struggling Australians? This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024, will give the ACCC a stick to take the supermarkets to task if their prices are excessive. It wouldn't see the ACCC taking Coles and Woolies to court every month over an item here or there. It would allow the ACCC to apply to the court if they thought Coles or Woolies were price gouging, similar to what they're doing with the dodgy promotions. But this bill doesn't just apply to the supermarkets. It would apply to any business with a turnover of over $10 million. We're talking about not only supermarkets but also airlines, insurance companies, retailers like Kmart or Bunnings—any business you can think of. The ACCC doesn't have the resources to monitor every single big business in Australia for price gouging. I think this bill should, at first, only apply to supermarkets. Let's test the waters to see that it works and that the powers can be used to get results for consumers. If it does, funding and resources to the ACCC can be expanded along with the scope of the bill. My other concern is how we define 'excessive'. What's an excessive price to one person could be different to another. Some people might think that $10 for grated cheese is too high. Other people might think, 'That's okay.' One thing we all agree on is that $6.50 for a packet of Tim Tams is way too high! Senator McKim says the definition of 'excessive price' in the bill is deliberately broad to allow for the courts to decide what is or isn't price gouging, but there has to be some kind of threshold for the ACCC to make a referral to the court in the first place. So who decides when something enters the price-gouging territory and how could that threshold change? If there was another year of high inflation like we saw in the past two years, would this change the threshold? There's too little information in this bill to figure out how can you tell if someone has been price gouging or not. We need to equip the ACCC with the tools they need to do the job and take the supermarkets to task. When you're heading into battle, you make sure you've got everything you know you're going to need and a few extras just in case. If the power to investigate price gouging is the 'just in case' the ACCC needs, let's give them that. But it needs to be done in a way that's actually going to deliver the results. If the bill is too broad or the idea of excessive prices is too vague, it's not going to help the people who really need it. Trust in supermarkets is down. People are feeling the pinch at the hip pocket every single time they go to the checkout. But that pain isn't equal. It's like comparing a scratch to a knife wound. People in regional areas and people in Tasmania are paying more for groceries because of a lack of competition. Changing that begins with looking at more powers around land, banking and price gouging. It begins with looking at the high freight costs stopping supermarkets from getting shops up in Tasmania. Living in a regional or remote location shouldn't automatically mean you sign up for higher grocery costs simply because of a lack of competition. Sure, you expect to pay a bit more and not have as much choice, because there are fewer people buying the food. It takes extra freight to get the goods to the supermarket. But less competition shouldn't mean prices are one-third more. Yes, I said one-third. That figure comes from a CHOICE survey showing the average basket of groceries costs $68 in Tasmanian Woolies but $50 in New South Wales, Queensland and here in the ACT. We don't deserve to be at the mercy of Woolies and Coles just because of where we live. 09:27 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The coalition shares the frustration of Senator McKim and others over Labor's inaction and incompetence in this critical policy area. The Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, and his assistant competition minister, Dr Leigh, have been missing in action, constantly exposed as being on the back foot, and Australians are paying a very high price as both suppliers to our supermarkets and consumers at the checkout. But that is where the common ground with Senator McKim's private senator's bill and the coalition ends, because we see this for what it is: an ideological and symbolic attack on big business in Australia. This bill has been designed, as Senator McKim's Senate inquiry was, to attract wide publicity and deliver a very narrow outcome. This issue is too important to fall victim to culture wars in this place. It is also an overreach which, in many cases, fails to stack up against the evidence. What is needed here is a comprehensive and well-planned package of reforms that will change the supermarket sector for the better in the years to come. That is not Senator McKim's bill, and that is why the coalition will not support it. The bill is modelled on recommendations of the Greens initiated Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices and the ACTU inquiry into price gouging. It would amend the Competition and Consumer Act so the ACCC could apply for a court order where it believes a corporation has abused its market power by price gouging. The court could impose orders under section 76 of the Competition Act, which includes a maximum civil penalty of $50 million. Senator McKim made significant claims when it comes to justifying his bill in both his second reading speech and the bill's explanatory memorandum, and they are claims worth putting to the test. Senator McKim said: Wherever you look, massive corporations … are profiteering from people's pain and making the cost-of-living crisis worse. He added: The share of income going to big corporations has never been higher … Senator McKim also said: Lack of competition allows corporations to take advantage of their dominant market power to hike prices above what would be required to meet increases in their input costs. And, most notably, he told the Senate: Banning price gouging should not be radical or controversial. But I think it's important to test those claims with what others say. What do others think of these claims? Do they support Senator McKim's view on what he refers to as 'price gouging' by Australian companies? The answer on almost every measure is no. Firstly, grocery prices have largely followed economic pressures, including inflation. In her 24 September media conference, reflecting on data published by the RBA earlier this year, the Governor of the RBA, Michele Bullock, said: … leave mining to one side—profit margins haven't expanded. What that was telling us was that as costs were going up, on average businesses were just passing on the costs but they weren't any more than passing on the costs. The interim report of the ACCC's supermarkets inquiry, which was also released last month, concluded: Grocery prices have significantly increased over the last 5 years, with price rises in all categories of grocery products. … … … This growth is largely in-line with inflation in other goods and services … It noted: Operating costs for suppliers and supermarkets have likely increased substantially between 2020 and 2023. Factors cited … as driving increasing operating costs in this period include rising interest rates, higher energy and transport costs, changing labour market conditions and legislation, and insurance costs. Secondly, Australian grocery prices have increased less than those in similar countries. Before the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, Ms Tanya Barden, gave evidence, saying: … while we have seen a significant uptake in food and grocery inflation in Australia, it is still below other markets around the world. Countries like the UK have incurred far higher rates of increasing food and grocery prices than we have in Australia. And, thirdly, supermarket profits are in line with comparable domestic and international corporations. The Australian Financial Review, in an article headlined 'Why it's a dangerous time to make a big profit in Australia', on 23 February this year, cited: Analysis from the Australian Shareholders' Association published on Friday, made the salient point that with annual sales of $63.4 billion last financial year, Woolies' $1.6 billion profit represented just 2.5 per cent of sales and a return on capital at the middle of the range for Australian firms. "Coles, Metcash, Wesfarmers, and JB HiFi had higher [return on capital], and Harvey Norman, Myer and Endeavour had lower ROC. Profit was not out of line with the size of the company," the analysis concluded. The interim report of ACCC's supermarkets inquiry found: When profitability is considered with reference to a company's return on capital, Coles and Woolworths do not appear significantly more profitable than international peers. It's the rising costs and inflation, issues that both sit at the feet of the Anthony Albanese Labor government, and its poor economic mismanagement and its disastrous energy and industrial relations platforms that are hurting Australian households. This may be the one thing that the coalition and Senator McKim can genuinely agree on. In the bill's explanatory memorandum, he correctly observes: Since the Labor Government came to power in 2022, the cost of essentials including rent, food, power bills and mortgage repayments has skyrocketed. Wages have not kept up, making it even harder for millions of people to make ends meet. The coalition could not have said it better itself. Labor is the real reason Australians are struggling to pay their grocery bills after 18 months of household recession. Inflation data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms inflation is still homegrown, still too high and still too sticky. Despite the Albanese government having had three budgets to get this under control, its policies have made matters worse for Australian households. In fact, the final budget outcome reveals Labor is taxing more and spending more than any government in Australia's history has. Labor has performed— Senator Farrell I0N What about the surplus? Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 We might have a debate about the surplus in a few months time, when we've seen the final budget— Senator Henderson ZN4 When we see the surplus crash into deficit after deficit. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 That's right, yes. You might speak too soon, Senator Farrell, but I'll hold you to account at another time for that interjection. But clearly Labor is failing on competition reform. Labor has performed just as miserably on competition reform as it has on other areas of economic matters. Had Labor given this reform the attention it desperately needs, Senator McKim's bill may never have needed to be written. The coalition has been calling for stronger competition laws in the supermarket sector since the election, but it has fallen on deaf ears. The allegations last month, by the ACCC, of anticompetitive behaviour by Coles and Woolworths were a reminder of the urgency of supermarket sector reform. How telling that Labor, in a panic, only released draft legislation to reform the food and grocery code on the very same day the ACCC announced it was taking this legal action—a full three months after Labor's own hand-picked reviewer had recommended it. Even now, this draft legislation is unlikely to be legislated before the next election, leaving Australian consumers exposed yet again. In contrast, what would the coalition do? The coalition will stand up for Australian small businesses, farmers, and consumers by delivering stronger penalties for anticompetitive behaviour in the supermarket and hardware sectors. So far we've announced a comprehensive package to target this, including, firstly, a supermarket commissioner, who will act as an impartial, confidential avenue for farmers and suppliers and provide this information to the ACCC; secondly, infringement notices up to $2 million for contraventions of the food and grocery code; and, finally, divestiture powers to address serious allegations of land banking, anticompetitive discounting and costs being unfairly passed on to suppliers in the supermarket sector, with appropriate safeguards in place and to be used as a last resort. It's a sensible, carefully designed divestiture proposal for supermarkets. In summary, the coalition will oppose this bill, because increasing competition is the most effective and reliable way of preventing price gouging in the long term. It is improved competition that will ensure lower prices, create greater employment opportunities and foster innovation. It will not be ideology, it will not be overreach and it will not be Senator McKim's bill, which, despite what it claims, is both radical and controversial. What we need is lasting, well-designed reform, and that is what the coalition will deliver. In the meantime, we can continue to pressure the Albanese government—which was exposed once again last month for going slow on competition reform—to take immediate action that struggling Australians need it to take now. 09:38 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria We know that Australians want to get a better deal at the supermarket check-out, and we know that Australians need to get a better deal at the supermarket check-out. We also know that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 is unfortunately not going to be the solution that Australians need right now today. The work to address supermarket prices is already underway, and what we're seeing in the chamber this morning is yet another attempt at a symbolic headline grab from the Australian Greens political party, while the Albanese Labor government gets on with the work of holding supermarkets to account and delivering a better deal at the check-out for Australians. We don't want to see families, pensioners and workers taken for a ride at the supermarket; no-one does. We don't want shoppers paying more than they need to when they head down to Coles or Woolworths to do their family shop every week, so we are delivering the reforms that are needed. We are delivering the changes that Australians need. We are delivering changes that will drive a fairer deal at the checkout. Businesses need to do the right thing by Australians and their consumers, and that includes our big supermarket chains. We need to have the proper scrutiny and the right frameworks in place to make sure our supermarkets are respecting Australians and respecting their customers. This is exactly what the Albanese Labor government has been focused on: making sure that supermarket chains do the right thing and ensuring that there is greater competition that will put downward pressure on prices. We're focused on offering more choices for Australians, who are dealing with cost-of-living challenges. Our government has provided the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission a $30 million boost to crack down on market conduct, including misleading and deceptive pricing practices from the supermarkets. This is a really significant boost to the work of the ACCC. We are also making the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. We are consulting on that right now to make sure that supermarkets do the right thing by everyone—their suppliers and their customers. The legislation to make the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory will be introduced by the end of the year. National competition policy is a really important agenda for our government, and that's why we're working with the states and territories to revitalise our competition policy, including issues surrounding planning and zoning. We know that land banking is a significant problem. It has the potential for Coles and Woolworths to be able to freeze out competition, and we know that supermarket competition is absolutely critical in bringing down prices. That's why we're working with the states and territories on competition policy, including taking on these zoning issues that can promote land banking and prevent competition. We're cracking down on shrinkflation. This is such a frustrating practice of the supermarket chains for customers to face, where they are basically charged the same for less. It's a really tricky practice. It's a frustrating practice, where customers—regular people—don't know whether they're getting value for money or whether they're getting ripped off. It has to stop. We have also banned unfair contract terms, and we've increased penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. Of course, it will be this government, the Albanese government, that delivers the most significant merger reform in Australia in almost 50 years. That is going to be critical to improving competition not just in our supermarket sector, as we're talking about today, but also across the economy. One of the really important measures that we've put in place is supporting the fantastic work of CHOICE in helping Australians compare the prices across our major supermarket chains. Their quarterly reports have shown that, for a similar basket of goods that people need to buy each week, Aldi is significantly cheaper than Coles and Woolworths today. That information is really important to help customers vote with their feet, find a better deal and promote competition in the supermarket chains. This is giving Australians accurate data on where to get the cheapest groceries. All of this work, together, is making a difference and will make a difference. It's making sure that supermarkets do the right thing by Australians, that they do the right thing by their consumers. If they don't, there are significant actions that can be taken against them, and we've seen that with action taken by the ACCC just recently. Our consumer regulator commenced proceedings against Coles and Woolworths for alleged breaches of the law, where they were putting the price of something up, just to discount it and slap a 'special' sticker on it weeks later. This is a practice that is, again, tricky and incredibly frustrating for consumers. It's important that the ACCC is taking this action against Coles and Woolworths for their alleged breaches. If wrongdoing is found, there are substantial fines, going into the tens of millions of dollars, and that's because this government increased those fines, increased the penalties available for the ACCC to pursue and for the courts to apply. We want to deter and we want to punish this kind of dodgy behaviour. Change is underway, and we're starting to see this change flow through to consumers. And that change will continue to flow through to consumers. Obviously, we all want to make sure that price gouging isn't happening, but what this bill does is it proposes pretty significant changes to competition policy in Australia. When we're doing that, we need to do more than manufacture a headline. What we actually need to do is review and consider the changes that are being proposed, and that is exactly what we think should happen with this bill. It needs to be consulted on, it needs to be considered and it is not ready to be passed in its current form. All the changes proposed in this bill need to be properly worked through to make sure that the bill will actually help consumers, who, at the end of the day, we're all here to protect, we're all here to assist in getting a better deal at the supermarket check-out. Unfortunately, this bill is not ready for debate. The work hasn't been done, and there needs to be proper process and proper scrutiny to properly debate this bill. It needs a proper looking into to better understand what the experience has been with these sorts of efforts, including the international experience. Until then, this measure can't be supported. In the meantime, this government will continue to hold the supermarkets to account. We'll continue to support and fund the important work of the ACCC. We'll provide the extra funding, as we have, to the ACCC to make sure that they can take on supermarket prices, and we'll continue to put the cost of living at No. 1, 2 and 3 on our agenda, because we know these pressures are real for people. Right now, across my home state of Victoria, the first instalment of our $300 energy bill relief is in place, and people are seeing it on their bills. We know that's making an important difference for people. As well, over the past couple of months, every single Australian taxpayer has started to see the results of our tax cuts in their pay packets, which gives them a bit of extra income to help deal with cost-of-living pressures. These measures, amongst so many other measures that we're putting in place, all help, while we're putting downward pressure on inflation, inflation which is now, of course, half the level that it was when we took office just over two years ago. We on this side of the chamber absolutely want to see the supermarkets held to account. We support the ACCC in doing just that. We've given them extra penalties to pursue. We've given them extra funding. We support the important work of the ACCC. This bill, as it stands, requires more discussion. It requires more review for the measures it seeks to introduce. In the meantime, we'll keep working with the ACCC, we'll keep promoting competition, including in the supermarket sector, and we'll continue to provide the cost-of-living support that Australians need today and into the future. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 March 2025". 09:49 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. The Albanese Labor government believes every Australian deserves a fair deal on their weekly shop when going to the supermarket. It's appalling how big corporations have been allowed to take advantage of everyday Australians by jacking up and manipulating prices to trick people into believing they're getting a better deal than they really are. I can remember being part of the national price watch organisation and going out on a monthly basis checking prices. I found it extraordinary at that time that it depended on which suburb you lived in as to the differences in the stores of the two major chains. They were always blaming coming to Tasmania; it was all about freight and transport. The reality is all the groceries go into the one central point, and then they're transported out. To be frank with you, it would be no more than four kilometres between Newstead and Mowbray, so the changes in those areas—one is more affluent, and the other one is more working class. The working-class supermarket was the most expensive. That was the reality in the 1990s and early 2000s. What we've been doing since we've come into government is listening to the Australian community. We know that people are struggling right now and that everyday Australians are dreading the weekly trip to the supermarket. This is why the Albanese Labor government is cracking down on these dodgy corporations that have been steadily raising their prices for years, unlike the Liberals who, over their decade of incompetence and neglect when they were in government, did absolutely nothing to prevent it or force these changes to happen. What we've seen in the contributions that have been made here this morning is the good Liberal senator from WA putting all of this at the foot of the Labor government—that it's all our fault. The prices are rising, and the cost of living is going up. Yet they were in government, and the cost of living during that time was going up. They're talking about wages and cost. Their policy was, intentionally, to keep Australian low-income earners' wages lower. That was their policy. What we have done since we've been in government is address the neglect by those on the other side, because they did nothing to prevent the foreseeable outcomes of prices rising or respond to the flashing neon signs that were warning us about the rise in the costs of living. They did nothing, as I said, which is why we had to clean up, yet again, another mess that they left behind after a decade of neglect. We know that the Greens political party are the experts that come into this chamber and grandstand on any issue that they believe will make good social media or that they can get good media grabs from. That's what they do. The Greens political party MPs and senators are really like a group of children, throwing tantrums because they can't always get their own way. Let's talk about the housing policy—the bleating through the media and in this chamber about not addressing social and affordable housing in this country. Yet, this government has invested more in housing than any government in the last 100 years. But, when the Greens have the opportunity to vote for legislation to bring about change that's going to help house 40,000 Australian families, what do they do? They team up with the Liberals to prevent a vote on that very legislation. They didn't have the guts to vote it down, but they also have no foresight to support good legislation. They need to be called out. But I digress. I really should stick to the issue of groceries and what's happening and affecting everyday Australians, but I can't help it. They make my blood boil, they really do, because they're such hypocrites. I want to talk about the improvements that the Labor government has made to help Australians deal with the cost of living. I don't want to be someone who comes into this chamber and whinges about things without being part of a government that makes changes and addresses the concerns that are affecting my fellow Australians. Like I said before, the Liberals want to blame Labor for everything, including interest rates, low wages and inflation. It's almost like they think we designed this. We didn't. What we're doing is taking good policies and bringing good legislation into this place to address those very issues. Today, we're tackling issues at the forefront of this deception of shrinkflation. Shrinkflation is a tactic these organisations use to deceive customers slowly over time in an attempt to go undetected where they slowly increase the price of a product and blame the price rise on inflation while simultaneously decreasing the size and amount of the useable product. This use of manipulation and blatant deception is unacceptable in our country, and we, as a government, are not going to stand by and allow that to happen any longer. We're a government of action. Our government is dedicated to ensuring that every Australian knows that what they're paying for at the check-out is a fair price and that there is no deception attached to that. Our government plans to implement laws that will both force these organisations to display clearer unit pricing and fine companies severely for not abiding by these laws. The way we'll go about this is through amending the Unit Pricing Code to ensure that corporations are providing the information needed for Australians to make an informed decision and to get the best deals possible. I don't know whether you've found this, but when I go grocery shopping and they have a little tag that says, 'This is a deal,' or that it's reduced I always check underneath to make sure. It is amazing how many times you will find that, when there's a great deal, the price is the same. It's just a con to get you to actually believe that they're doing something to help you. So the issue is: buyers beware. As I've said, through the measures we will be putting into legislation, we will be strengthening this code to protect Australians from that greed currently infecting supermarkets and the view they have of the world that, as a duopoly, they as major organisations have the right to do what they want. Well, we're going to take them head-on. We are currently focusing on improving the visibility and readiness of price tags to allow for shoppers an easy time comparing prices. For much the same reason we're looking at ways to address the major inconsistency when it comes to the units of measurement used across various supermarkets. Both of these underhanded tactics are meant to make it more difficult for consumers to determine the best deals. As we all know, everyone is so busy. People want to go into the supermarket, grab their groceries and know with confidence that they're not being ripped off when they get to the check-out. The Albanese Labor government is already investing $30 million into the ACCC to further crack down on supermarkets and their deceptive practices. So we're investing in the ACCC, who will also take action and monitor what is happening in the supermarkets. This money is a great investment and will go a long way in supporting Australians to take the pressure off the cost of living and allow for rates to decrease at a much faster rate in terms of pricing. There has to be real justification for increasing the prices at the supermarket. Another thing this government is doing is following the recommendations it's received from Dr Craig Emerson in his review. The review has allowed the Albanese Labor government to commence accurate and meaningful consultation for a new mandatory food and grocery code. We have further enforced competition and consumer laws by banning unfair contract terms as well as increased the penalties for breaching the said laws. Our government is working hard on delivering substantial progress on the most significant merger reforms in this country for over five decades. Due to our efficient communications with states and the fact that we are willing to work with state governments and our ability to make things happen, we're working with them across this issue, as we are with so many others, to revitalise the national competition policy, which includes both planning and zoning for supermarkets. On top of all of this amazing work and our plans to address these deceptive practices from these major corporations, we have also supported CHOICE to release their second price-monitoring report. This report will, once again, give the Australian people extremely accurate data on where they can get the best deals, in order to put even more pressure on the supermarkets. The Albanese Labor government has chosen to fund this because we know Australians are doing it tough and because we care. We know how hard it is to manage your personal budget. These corporations have been warned. We are prepared to work with them. We will do it diligently, though we will do it with Australian consumers at the forefront of our concerns. We will work with them so that Australians know that any increase in their grocery prices are based on legitimate reasons and we will ensure that we end this deceptive practice of raising the price while reducing the size of the product. Groceries are a massive factor in the cost of living in Australia right now, and, by working to address these issues, our government will help every single hardworking Aussie. Labor has a long legacy of being for the people. Unlike the previous government, we are acting in the areas that we believe count the most and have the greatest impact on Australian consumers. We have given tax cuts, we have given energy bill relief and we have supplied cheaper medicines. Just as a reminder to anyone that's listening to this, those tax cuts we gave were given to all Australian workers. Under the Liberals' proposal, there were low-income workers who were not going to get a tax cut at all. So we've have done that. They voted against our increase to the tax cuts. They voted against cheaper medicines. Every single piece of legislation that we've brought in, including energy bill assistance for Australians and small businesses, the previous government did nothing towards when they were in government. They had 22 failed policies, and now we know they've gone for the mushroom cloud effect, led by Mr Dutton. The big difference is that we are addressing the issues. We have listened to the Australian people. We know their genuine concerns about what's happening out in the supermarkets. Like Senator Tyrrell and Senator Urquhart, I come from Tasmania. We don't have the same opportunities for Aldi, because Aldi has chosen not to come to Tasmania. Why? Because they obviously won't make enough money. That's the only reason they won't come, but Tasmanians are calling out for that competition. So, today, my call to Aldi is: 'Come down, and you will be surprised how well supported you are.' The difference with this legislation—even though the intent may very well be a good one, which is unusual for the Greens—is that it needs so much work. Coming into this chamber and introducing legislation should not be based on a child's tantrum approach of: 'Let's get some publicity. Let's try and con the Australian people before a federal election.' That's what they're doing. On one hand, they're saying they're talking for Australian consumers; on the other hand, the Greens in Tasmania are rallying outside retailers who sell legitimately clean salmon from Tasmania. That's what these people are doing. They are such hypocrites. They want to close down retailers who sell Tasmanian salmon, which is the best salmon in the world—we export internationally. We have a clean, green environment in which they are grown. But what do the Greens do? Again, it's all about politics, not about achievement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Thank you, Senator Polley. I was going to call Senator Green, who I have next on the list. An honourable senator: I think Senator Pocock was first. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Order! Senator Pocock. 10:04 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the question be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I will just get some advice. Order. Can you just take your seat. Senator Green, you're next. 10:05 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thanks very much, Acting Deputy President— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator GREEN 259819 If you don't want me to speak— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM On a point of order. Firstly, for your information—I'm not sure what you have in front of you—the speaking list does actually have Senator Pocock next, not Senator Green. I've got a copy of that on my desk in front of me. Secondly, I would make the point that this is a Greens bill. The government has had two speakers, but the Greens have only had one speaker. What's going on here is Labor is so scared of the supermarket corporations it's trying to stop this bill from coming to a vote. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Order. I was looking at the wrong speakers list. I have two versions here. I did go to Senator Green because I thought she was next, but I have an updated speakers list here. I'm going to give the call now to Senator Pocock. My apologies, Senator Green. 10:06 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the question be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Sorry, I thought you wanted to speak. Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ That is my speech. I move that the question be put. Senator Green 259819 Acting Deputy President, can I seek some clarity. I was on my feet. You gave me the call. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 That's right. Senator Green 259819 So, even though I was on the speaking list, I'm not getting an opportunity to speak? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 No. I'm sorry; I had the wrong list here. I had gone to Senator Pocock because Senator McKim said Senator Pocock wanted to make a contribution. Now it seems that she doesn't want to make a contribution, so I am now going to give you the call so you can make a contribution, and then we'll go to Senator Pocock. Senator McKim, I'll take your point of order. Senator McKim JKM Acting Deputy President, the situation is very clear. You gave Senator Pocock the call—actually twice now—and Senator Pocock has twice, after you gave her the call, moved that the question now be put. That is the clearly the question before the chair: that the question now be put. Under the standing orders that is required to be put without debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I'll seek some more advice, Senator McKim. I've just walked into this debate, so you have to be generous here, if you can. I've taken advice from the clerk. The position is that I had given the call to Senator Pocock. She has moved that the question be put. The question is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [10:12]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bragg)

41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. 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. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 18 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:17 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Walsh be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:17]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bragg)

18 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 41 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. 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. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:20 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The time for debate has expired. BUSINESS 12 BUSINESS Rearrangement 12 10:20 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, No. 7, contingent on the chair declaring that the time allocated for consideration of the bill has expired, which you have just done, Acting Deputy President, I seek to move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill—specifically that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading vote on this bill. I also seek to move that the motion be put without amendment or debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I will take some advice on that. Senator McKim, the advice is that you cannot use that provision under standing order 142 as you would have to move to suspend standing orders. Senator McKIM JKM I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading vote on this bill being held. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The question before the Senate now is that standing orders be suspended. 10:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I rise to briefly contribute on the motion before the chamber. It is an ordinary feature of the program in this place that time is allocated for debate for private senators' bills, and that's appropriate. There are many matters that senators wish to bring before this chamber, and indeed I have on many occasions brought a bill before this chamber and sought to have it debated, and I have appreciated senators entertaining the ideas that I have put here. But Senator McKim is now asserting that, because his matter did not come to a conclusion, time should be extended. There is no real rationale for this. There are plenty of opportunities on the program for the Greens political party to re-list this matter. I understand that, on this occasion, they are seeking to make a political point. That's also a thing that's common in this chamber. But let's be very clear: the consequence of the Greens extending private senators' time is to frustrate the capacity for the government to move to government business. The matter before the chamber in government business is the Future Made in Australia Bill. I can't think of anything more consequential for this chamber to be considering for the future of industry, manufacturing, green industries and the transformation of the Australian economy than the bill that is listed next. But, consistent with all of their actions in this place, it's all about the politics. The Greens political party would prefer to make a political point than to actually allow us to debate something of consequence, something that goes to the heart of what they say is the most important issue confronting Australians, which is climate change and the transformation of our economy. Their preference is always a stunt. They would rather have a meme. They'd rather have a set of signs. They'd rather have a photo-op. They'd rather whiteboard their strategy, their walk-out or their TikTok video. All of those things matter more than debating legislation that will actually make a difference to the decarbonisation of the Australian economy and the future of Australian workers and the industries and regions that they claim to care about but never actually do anything about. Whenever they have the opportunity when other people seek to do something constructive, their position is to obstruct it, to block it and to say no. In that they join the coalition, who also seek to say no when constructive ideas are brought before this parliament. We have a problem, don't we? The parliament is predicated on the idea that negotiations, conversations and debate will occur in good faith. You can't have a debate in good faith when the negotiating parties are always seeking to block and never in fact to build or do anything constructive of any kind. Again, we see that today. So we do not support the extension of time. There are plenty of opportunities for private senators' matters to be brought before this chamber. They should be brought before the chamber, but that should be done at the time that's allotted. That has clearly expired, and the games that are being played this morning do nothing to assist the work of this chamber and the work that we are actually tasked with doing on behalf of the Australian people. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I just want to get clarification from Senator McKim as to what exactly the motion is he has before the Senate. 10:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The motion that I have put is that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading vote on the bill being put. 10:27 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The only reason the Greens are seeking to suspend standing orders to bring on the second reading vote of this bill, a bill that was introduced by the Australian Greens, a bill that will deal with the cost-of-living crisis Australians are feeling right now at the supermarket, week in and week out, is that the government have desperately tried all morning to stop this bill from coming to a vote. They are embarrassed that they haven't got a solution before the parliament to deal with the very real issues that Australians are dealing with right now. The Senate does a lot of good work, and today is an opportunity for the Senate to do some good work for real people feeling the struggle right now rather than having these crazy, active delaying tactics of this government to stop this bill from having a vote, which is what's happened this morning. They have spent all the time trying to drag this out. They've stacked the speakers' list. They've tried to stop this bill coming to a vote because they don't want the Senate to pass a piece of legislation, a law, that would come down like a ton of bricks on the big supermarkets. The government do not have the guts to do it themselves, so the Senate needs to do it for them. That is what this bill is about. I thank Senator Tyrrell for listing this bill today, a Greens bill. This shows that there is cooperation across the chamber. That's because people in this place, including members of the government, I might say, know that people are struggling at the supermarkets, week in and week out, and we could do something today to help. That's why we need this extension of time—not to delay this bill any further but to simply put it to a vote. That vote will mean that every member of this place, every senator, will be counted. Are you going to be on the side of the big supermarkets or on the side of the people? That is the vote that the Labor government is desperate to avoid today, and that's why they don't want this suspension. I say bring it on! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading being put on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024.

The Senate divided. [10:34]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

43 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 14 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 14

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024

Second Reading 14 10:39 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. [10:42]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 29 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 15

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

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

Second Reading 15 10:45 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The criteria in the national interest framework will help Treasury focus on sectors where Australia is strong and where investment is key to keeping the economy secure and growing, ensuring that projects supported by the Future Made in Australia program benefit the Australian people, not just the companies involved. This is achieved through community benefit principles which decision-makers must consider when deciding how and when to provide support. Including the community benefit principles in this bill embeds into law that every Australian is part of this transition to clean energy. It embeds into law that no-one is to be left behind and that the benefits are to be shared by all. New industry means new jobs. Two of these community benefit principles focus on jobs. It's so important that we ensure that these are Australian jobs. These are core principles of the Albanese Labor government—making sure that jobs are secure and fairly paid. We want to make sure that all Australians from all walks of life have a crack at the jobs in these new industries. The workforce across the renewable sector is anticipated to rise from 26,000 to 85,000 workers by 2030 and to 194,000 workers by 2050. In my home state of Victoria we can look to the town of Portland on Gunditjmara country, where the Southern Ocean offshore wind zone has been declared. Some 1,470 will be created to build this project, with 870 ongoing jobs—jobs for engineers, jobs for operators, jobs for riggers, jobs for divers and jobs for administrators to keep it running. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that these are Australian jobs by building skills and investing in training right here. We want our workforce to be renowned worldwide for excellence and expertise. We've also committed $70 million to establish the Clean Energy Skills National Centre of Excellence in Western Australia—more jobs for West Australians. This week we also announced a new TAFE centre of excellence in Queensland that will deliver innovative, clean energy training to Queenslanders—more jobs for Queenslanders. I know how important jobs are for Queenslanders. My colleague Senator Chisholm is a passionate advocate for jobs for Queenslanders. We talk about jobs often. We want to make sure that these jobs are available to everyone in the community. Historically, there have been challenges with diversifying the job market in the energy sector. The Future Made in Australia program and the net zero energy transition gives us all an opportunity to rewrite that story. We want women bringing their minds and hearts to this sector, and so we have committed $55.6 million to the Building Women's Careers Program to expand support for women's training in clean energy. This means more jobs for women. We have heard there is more to be done to bring First Nations people into this workforce, and we are committed to doing what it takes to build opportunities to support First Nations people to take up the education and training required to be part of this new world. To clarify how important it is to the Albanese Labor government that these programs benefit First Nations communities, we propose adding a new community benefit principle of supporting First Nations communities and traditional owners to participate in, and share in the benefits of, the transition to net zero—more jobs for mobs. Through the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry on First Nations' economic prosperity, we've heard from businesses and communities at the cutting edge of entrepreneurship. They've told us they're looking at renewable energy for their future. In Gippsland this is happening in real time. The Gippsland offshore wind zone falls on Gunaikurnai country. The Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation know that clean energy is the future. Troy, Daniel and the team are doing incredible work. They understand the impact that climate change has had on their country through fire, flood and extreme weather. They know that the transition to renewable energy is important and will reduce the effects of climate change. They can also see the enormous opportunity for their people in being at the forefront of building cleaner, cheap energy stations on their land. And so they are organising and preparing themselves for negotiations with developers. They are doing this knowing their negotiation position is strengthened by the fact that government is looking for projects with meaningful engagement with First Nations people and communities and delivering genuine ongoing benefits for mob. This means we're talking about truly pivoting to economic opportunities for First Nations communities through these arrangements. We are talking about truly transforming the economic future of a generation of First Nations Australians. We know this is possible because we can learn from Canada, where First Nations people have been involved in the renewable energy sector for the past 20 years. Canada had mandated project ownership targets where projects are built on First Nations lands. In this context, First Nations led initiatives have fostered 200 medium to large renewable energy projects and have helped generate $1.5 billion in Indigenous and employment contracts. We are getting started with a similar approach in Australia. Through the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry into economic prosperity for First Nations Australians, we have heard about the East Kimberley Clean Energy Project, which will construct the largest solar farm in Australia—900 megawatts—and a 50,000 tonne hydrogen facility. These are really significant and mind-boggling numbers. And you know what? It's created jobs there too. But it doesn't take a clean-energy scientist to understand that these projects are groundbreaking and arrangements with traditional owners as equal partners are truly transformational, positioning First Nations people in the driver's seat of harnessing the community benefits from the clean-energy transition. To quote Minister Bowen, who is doing such fantastic work in this space: 'Indigenous participation should be the norm, not the exception.' That is exactly what this government wants to achieve, and I, for one, am very excited about that future—a future of cheaper, cleaner energy for all Australians; a future with more jobs for all Australians; a future where failing coal stations don't lead to higher energy bills; a future where my kids have the option of learning from world renowned clean energy researchers at our universities or from highly skilled technicians in our TAFE systems; a future where we build and make our clean-energy gear right here in Australia and the quality means that our products are shipped around the world; a future where regional communities are thriving not only with jobs on renewable energy farms but with jobs in schools, hospitality and businesses that spring up to serve those projects; and a future where First Nations people and communities are a central part of the clean energy industry, where they have negotiated steady, sustainable revenue streams and are no longer defined by a deficit narrative but rather recognised for their contribution, their skills and their knowledge. Let's move forward towards a future made in Australia. 10:54 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia The coalition opposes Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 because it prioritises and in fact is all about pre-election spin and it is not about real benefits for families, workers and industry here in Australia. It is so transparently about spin and pre-election pork-barrelling. They have made no secret of that in this bill. It provides no vision for or a pathway to our future national prosperity. It is a plan for yet more governance and regulation by those opposite and it is not about opening new pathways to business investment. Economist after economist have criticised this policy. It's important to remember that Australia has a proud and strong manufacturing industry, which the coalition has always supported. But that support requires strong economic management that gets back on track by getting the basics right: affordable and reliable energy for business, less regulation—a lot less regulation!—and an incentive based taxation system. Everything that this government is now doing is the opposite of what is needed for our manufacturing sector to thrive for the rest of this century. It is a fact that Australia is now being seen as a sovereign risk because of the policies of those opposite, particularly on energy, industrial relations and tax. They are all making Australia a less attractive place to do business. It is not as if international capital has only one destination: Australia. It has many, many other destinations that are lower cost and far more reliable in terms of stability, in terms of not being a sovereign risk. At last month's Minerals Council dinner the Prime Minister claimed the sector has never had it so good. Talk about a tin ear and being in denial about the real challenges that face Australian manufacturing! In fact, in just over 2½ years, Labor has done so much damage to Australia. As I said, we are now actually being seen and talked about as a sovereign risk for investors. Those of us on this side of the chamber know that today's investors have more choices than ever before. With the so-called nature positive legislation, militant unions are back on Pilbara worksites, and China is dominating the global critical mineral and new energy technology markets. There is nothing certain about our future in either of those sectors. In fact, we are going backwards. This bill, along with other industry-destroying Labor legislation, including the so-called nature positive legislation, yet again demonstrates that this government has absolutely no appreciation of the realities of the shared challenges we and other democracies now face. Our industry policies should not, and must not, be dealt with as ideological toys for the Labor Party and the trade union movement. We have to deal with industry policy through a national security lens. This is something that we on this side of the chamber understand and something that this Labor government clearly has not a clue about. But our international adversaries certainly do understand the strategic use and weaponisation of industry policy. Of those in this nation, including those in this chamber, if you ask if war is inevitable, you are asking the wrong question. I believe we are already at war, and the real question is: how do we grapple with this in terms of not only our national security legislation but our industry policy? They have to be indivisible. Yet, those opposite still do not understand this, and that is very clear with this bill. The real question that needs to be asked in this place and in our nation is: how can we restore the rules based order without resorting to kinetic warfare? But we are not the only democratic nation that is blind to the threats that now confront us, not only in the traditional sense of kinetic warfare but also in that which we don't generally see—that is, non-kinetic warfare. And it is blindness that is being exploited ruthlessly against us, including in industry policy that is engaged by our adversaries. Australia and our like-minded allies are fighting our adversaries—four in particular—in this cold and non-kinetic war, which we are slowly realising does include the extraction and processing of critical minerals and rare earths. Yet this policy does nothing to actually assist those industries. We're fighting a non-kinetic war in the cyber space daily. There is overwhelming foreign interference by more than one nation in our nation, but we are also fighting it in supply-chain domains, for the minerals, for the components and for the new energy technologies that are essential to modern life and to modern defence forces. Although I am clear-eyed about these threats, I am also an optimist. But, when I have a look at this legislation, I am not nearly as optimistic that those opposite actually understand the challenges that we are facing. Kinetic war in our region is not inevitable but it is certainly possible. When you have industry policies like this that pay no heed or no attention to anything beyond the government's success at the next election, I do start to despair. To deal with the non-kinetic and possible kinetic threats that we and our allies face today, deterrence has to be so much more than simply hard military power. It must include industrial policy, not just our own industrial policies but also those that we share and collaborate on with our like-minded allies. Almost five years ago, when I was the Minister for Defence, I gave a keynote speech to the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. I started this speech with the observation that the rules based order, the world that we'd lived in since the end of World War II, was no more and was not coming back. Since that speech five years ago, the threat China pose has significantly increased, not just because of the threat that they themselves present but also in large part because of their axis of convenience, which others refer to as the new axis of evil, with Russia, Iran and North Korea. The brutal reality is that today we have a four-nation axis of dictatorship and authoritarianism that has a single shared enemy, a common shared enemy, and that, of course, is us. This axis is, again, systematically and quite ruthlessly extending its sphere of influence. These four regimes have nuclear capabilities. They exert brutal domestic control and, ultimately, they have a shared hatred for democratic values. They are courting BRICS members and many other Global South nations to join their alliance, their axis, or at least to hedge their bets. And hedging their bets is what many of these nations are now doing. These four nations are also adept and prolific at weaponising social media, radicalising our citizens to their cause and destabilising our democracy and many other democracies from within. They are cooperating in ways that we had not previously thought possible. But they have clearly come to understand the benefits of a shared industrial and military material alliance to achieving what each could not achieve on their own. They're doing this to support each other. They do this to be in a position to strategically deny us the goods we need to keep our economy, society and defence forces going. They are manipulating markets in critical minerals and monopolising offtake and the processing of ore. They are dominating the production of new energy technologies. And the stark and most brutal fact is that they can now deny us all categories of processed critical minerals, rare earths and vital manufacturing components, which we need for our own industrial bases and for the support of those of our allies. As we know, their non-kinetic war against us and like-minded nations has now moved to the kinetic—into fields of war. This was done first of all, of course, by Russia in Ukraine and by Iran, with the support of their three terrorist proxies, in Israel, in the Levant and in the Red Sea. In both theatres of war, they are testing new military capabilities and their battlefield tactics. They are also testing and assessing our ability and our will to collaborate and defend democracy globally. China has a vice-like grip on the South China Sea and is well-advanced in its preparations to cross the Taiwan Strait. North Korea are providing their nuclear and long-range strike capabilities and ballistic missiles to Russia, and they're gazing very longingly over the demilitarised zone. But, most importantly, where this bill fails—it falls down in many ways; but, to me, this is the most significant way—is their access is rapidly expanding, and they are integrating their industrial bases, not only to deny us but to quickly and efficiently rearm and resupply those four nations. They are also looking very, very carefully at what we are not doing to strengthen our own sovereign industrial base, and it is very clear, through this bill, through the nature positive bill and through everything else this government is doing, we are not developing and supporting our sovereign industrial bases as we should be. So what do we have to do here in Australia? We have to deter and push back on the manipulation and the bombing of global markets, particularly the commodity markets. To do that, we and our allies must increase our production and our sharing of material and war stocks. But, to do that, we have to be resilient in our manufacturing and supply chains, and we are simply not. This pork-barrelling bill will do nothing in that sense. We must act in ways that clearly demonstrate that we understand that our mineral resources are not only an economic asset but also a national security asset for ourselves and our allies—something that China clearly understands and has been working, for many years, towards taking that control away from us. With the price of iron ore fluctuating and the price of lithium and several other commodities also wildly fluctuating, we have to stop picking winners, unlike what this pork-barrelling bill does. We have to develop commodity-by-commodity plans and support, with the help of our allies, the extraction and the processing here in Australia. But, again, this bill does not do that. We need the vision and the plans on how to diversify and find new ways of developing industrial growth here, with the support of our allies. We can find inspiration on that from how Sir Charles Court, Sir David Brand, Lang Hancock and Sir Robert Menzies worked together with a common vision to create an iron ore industry in Australia. They had a shared vision and a plan on how to work together to build roads, rail, port and new towns in record time. They did all of that work, over thousands of kilometres, in two years. Today's leaders must embrace the same entrepreneurial spirit to secure our economic future and also to secure our nation's security. This is not a future we can secure on our own. Not only will this terrible bill not do that but it will not progress anything. Taken in conjunction with the nature positive bill and the industrial relations laws that those opposite have passed, this actually makes our nation less safe. This isn't a traditional conflict we're facing. We are currently losing the cold war being conducted in the global mining commodity markets, which, as I've said, have such far-reaching implications. China is now deliberately systematically undercutting the nickel market, which is having a grave impact on Australia's domestic industry. But, again, what is this government doing? Nothing. For all of these reasons and many more, I do not support this bad bill. (Time expired) 11:09 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak on the government's planned investment in the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, which is effectively nothing but a pork-barrelling exercise whereby you rob money from Peter and give it to Paul. Effectively, the idea that you can give subsidies to somehow encourage industry in this country is a flawed assumption. If you want to actually get a long-term sustainable industry and manufacturing going in this country, you need to lower taxes and regulation and you need to level the playing field. I have touched on this many times. The People First Party is the only party that actually has a taxation plan and a soon-to-be monetary policy capital markets plan on how to get Australia moving again. If you really want to get Australia moving again, the first thing you need to do is lower income taxes. Our income taxes in this country are way too high both on a comparative basis to other countries across the world and as a percentage of tax collected in the budget. It's the actual people that get out of bed and put their nose to the grindstone who are the ones that actually make the goods and services in this country. There is no point taxing them at a very high income tax rate if you are only going to then clip the ticket through more bureaucracy and more departments to hand back, say, 70 per cent or 80 per cent of that as some subsidies picking winners. That is just not going to work. The best way to lower income taxes is to actually lower the amount of bureaucracy in this country. Yet again, two weeks ago, I moved a motion that we ask the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to look at the duplication of roles and responsibilities of bureaucratic departments in this country. That's because the amount of regulation in this country is killing business. If it is not high taxes, it is high regulation. Here's the beauty: if you cut the bureaucracy, you can cut regulation and you can cut taxes. This is my policy, or the People First policy, whereby we intend to cut the level of bureaucracy in Canberra. We think the level of bureaucracy is way too high in Canberra. We do not need two environment departments. We don't need two education departments in this country. We don't need two health departments in this country. Constant blame-shifting and a vertical fiscal imbalance is only sending this country broke and making it harder for businesses and hardworking Australians to keep their heads above water. I suggest that we do that rather than having all these handouts. I might add, if you actually read through what a lot of this is, there is $134 million to prioritise approvals for renewable energy, working with the states and territories through the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council to accelerate electricity grid connection and $20 million to improve engagement with communities impacted by the energy transition. There are lots of these little rats and mice, with millions of dollars here and millions of dollars there. All up, it is going to add up to about $22.7 billion. To put that into context, for 14 million Australian workers $1,500 of their income tax is going to be spent on this bill alone. If you want to actually get the country moving again, I suggest you cut the income tax by $1,500 and let the Australian people keep their hard-earned dollars. That is how you would actually get the country moving again. Yet again, there are no real sustainable solutions in any of this. Another thing we need to look at is why did we get rid of stamp duty on share trading when we introduced the GST and not payroll tax? All we have done is encourage foreign speculators to come in here and buy up a percentage of Australian shares and assets and not have to pay stamp duty. That is not fair to Australian businesses, Australian householders and Australian farmers, who all have to pay stamp duty on their real assets. We have allowed the stock market, of which 50 per cent is high-frequency foreign traders, to come in here and manipulate prices and scalp prices. Why not—and this is one of our policies—bring back stamp duty on share trading and abolish payroll tax? This is a tax on speculation, and then that tax would help remove a tax on productivity. Payroll tax would be the dumbest tax in this country and the dumbest form of regulation. You are taxing employers to basically employ people. Not only that but they then have to comply with the six different states as to the different thresholds and different rules as to the definition of 'contractor' and who is a full-time employee and who isn't. These laws are ridiculous. Yet again, I will emphasise this: forget the pork-barrelling and let's get serious about reducing regulation. Another thing is that I will contradict the statement by Senator Reynolds that we need to attract foreign capital. We do not need to attract foreign capital into this country. The words of our national anthem are 'wealth for toil'. We have this thing called equity. There are two types of capital: debt and equity. Our forefathers built the equity in this country. Equity is title. As a sovereign country, we have title over all the natural resources in this country; we do not need to go out and tap financial markets for foreign debt or have foreigners come in here and buy our infrastructure. That is fundamentally flawed. If you want to tap the wealth in this country—our untapped wealth—you need to create an infrastructure bank. If I was to come in here today and say I was going to put forward a private senator's bill to stop private companies from issuing new shares—let's say BHP wanted to issue new shares to start a new iron ore, coal or nickel mine—people would think that was ridiculous. And it is ridiculous, mind you, yet governments will not issue new shares to build infrastructure. People often come back at me that I don't understand anything about finance and say, 'That's MMT.' No, modern monetary theory is where you issue credit without actually securing it against an asset. This policy that I'm suggesting is to have an infrastructure bank that will only issue infrastructure bonds against seven sovereign assets: dams, power stations, roads, rail, ports, airports and telecommunications. That is how you go about unlocking the wealth of this country, whilst actually retaining title over that wealth. The continual verbal diarrhoea I hear from many politicians in this country saying that we have to rely on foreign capital needs to stop. When Paul Keating lifted the capital controls in 1985, we saw Australia flooded with foreign debt. We saw foreign debt rise amongst the four major banks from $8 billion to $800 billion. All that did was to double house prices relative to income, which meant two parents had to go to work, which meant, of course, that children had to go into child care. We've now got a whole childcare industry which is sucking 200,000 people out of other industries in order to prop up the banks, because Australia's household debt relative to income is 120 per cent. We've got one of the highest household debt levels in the world because Paul Keating lifted capital controls. We've now got a massive immigration Ponzi scheme. I heard from a real estate agent this morning who said that, basically, immigrants are being used to buy houses. Australians are having to sell their houses because they can't meet the mortgage and they're going back into the rental market. Rather than getting more Australians into housing, our lax capital controls are actually causing Australians to now end up as renters. That is not a country we want to see. If we want to encourage productivity in this country, we need to start building infrastructure and we need to internally fund that infrastructure. If you build more dams, more power stations, better roads and more ports, not only will you supply essential services to the Australian people but you will actually push down the cost of doing business—and that is the true way to make us compete on manufacturing. If we build more power stations—for example, out near my home town of Chinchilla, where there are 400 million tonnes of coal sitting just below the surface—we can provide cheaper energy. I know that strategy works because I grew up in a state that used to run on the back of about 10 coal-fired power stations that provided cheap and reliable energy. Indeed, Queensland in the late eighties had the cheapest energy in the world as a result of the power stations that were built across the state. That is the way. With cheap energy, removing payroll tax, having lower income tax and having fewer regulations, businesses can be more competitive. They can't compete, at the moment, when we've got a government that inserts itself into every little thing in not just business but peoples' personal lives—that is increasing the size of bureaucracy. We are now hitting combined GDP spending across three levels of government of almost 40 per cent. It was 36 per cent when I first came into this chamber, back in 2019. The combined government spending in this country, as a percentage of GDP, is higher than that of China—and China's considered a communist country. Well, if China is considered a communist country, what do you call Australia with that level of government spending? Think about it; it's not right. The last piece of this puzzle is that we need to level the playing field for Australian business. Australian businesses cannot compete against foreign business in this country, because foreign businesses can send their profits offshore—and I've spoken about this many times—and use the withholding tax rates that are favoured to send capital offshore. This is what drives me mad when I hear politicians talk about how we've got to attract foreign capital. Whilst they're saying that, the reality is that our domestic earnings that should be retained here in Australia to build up our equity is being sent offshore. We're allowing the likes of Facebook and Pfizer—and I've quoted Pfizer in this chamber before—who, in 2022, had an operating profit ratio of just seven per cent here in Australia against a worldwide operating profit ratio of 35 per cent. Why? Because they sent a billion dollars of their earnings offshore back to Ireland, of all places. Why did they do that? Because the withholding tax on royalties in this country is 10 per cent; Ireland has a company tax rate of 12½ per cent. Ten plus 12½ is 22½. If you subtract the 30 per cent tax deduction that they pay here, you've got a 7½ per cent tax arbitrage. Put that across a billion dollars worth of earnings sent offshore and voila! For the sake of a couple of accounting journals and setting up a few subsidiaries here and there, you've just saved yourself $75 million. This stuff goes on across a heap of multinational companies. This won't stop unless we lift the rate of withholding tax on profits sent offshore. I notice here that there's $15.7 million to strengthen scrutiny of high-risk foreign investment proposals. If you want to spend $15 million, I suggest you spend it on rewriting our tax treaties so we stop giving our profits away to foreign countries for nothing. That's what we are doing. We have title over the assets in this country. We have title over the wealth. That's what a sovereign country is, and yet we let the profits go offshore for next to nothing. We tax it very little. I can assure you that Australian businesses, when they have to pay 30 cents on the dollar, can't compete against foreign multinationals who can get away with lowering their true company tax here in Australia down to one or two cents because they're allowed to shift most of their profits offshore. The rorts have to stop. This is nothing but doublespeak here. Ultimately, you've had to collect the money you're paying out in this program, which is $22 billion, out of the pockets of hardworking Australians. The idea that you can rob Peter to pay Paul doesn't work. What I would suggest is that you get serious about making some genuine structural improvements to the way our economy is run, put sovereignty in front of bowing down to foreign interests, put Australians and active, actual income in front of passive income, reduce the red tape and get serious about cutting down the bureaucracy in this country. 11:22 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. As my coalition colleagues have made clear, we're opposing these bills, and we encourage all those in the chamber to do the same. I say that because these are bills that will not or rather cannot deliver for Australians and Australian business. These are two of those pieces of proposed legislation that sound worse and worse the more we learn about them. We in the coalition are rightly proud of the national manufacturing sector. The coalition has championed it for decades and continues to do so. Unfortunately, when you look beneath the spin and slogans, this legislation provides no such support. That is because manufacturing requires far more than superficiality. It begins with sound economic management, which includes less regulation, more flexible workplaces, affordable and reliable energy and an incentive based tax system. Instead, these bills take a page straight out of the Labor Party economic playbook, and its priorities are, as usual, all wrong. It's empty words instead of substance; bigger government instead of business investment; pork-barrelling instead of a strong economy; and, worst of all, greater inflation at precisely the time when Labor should be doing everything in its power to tackle it, leaving Australian business and households to deal with the financial consequences. It has already been said in this chamber, but it deserves to be said again: the Future Made in Australia legislation is not about securing our future; it is about securing Labor's political interests. It is handing out taxpayer money to favoured sectors without the transparency that Australians rightly expect. This legislation opens the way for the Albanese government to funnel public funds through Export Finance Australia and ARENA, transforming them into political weapons instead of drivers of economic progress. Let's explore the changes to ARENA, for example. Established as a research and development agency, Labor previously opposed expanding ARENA's scope to include reasonable, net zero related R&D expenditure that included carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen. Labor has since changed its tune. This legislation now expands ARENA's remit to include deployment, manufacturing and commercialisation, all of which are very removed from ARENA's original purpose. The reality is that this is nothing more than a plaything for the minister for climate change, the Hon. Chris Bowen, who will have the power to roll out billions of dollars without parliamentary oversight. Indeed, it gives the climate change minister the power to increase ARENA's funding, free from scrutiny, with up to $3.9 billion able to be spent with a single stroke of Minister Bowen's pen. These bills also task the Treasurer and the Treasury with deciding whether a sector of the Australian economy deserves investment or not. They will consider the investment against a very narrow set of criteria. We heard in evidence during Senate estimates that key investments for Australia's energy future and sovereign capability, from carbon capture and storage to gas and nuclear, will not be eligible. On one level, it's hard to take it seriously, especially given that it's overseen by Dr Jim Chalmers, a Treasurer who has never worked in business and has made it abundantly clear he does not understand it. But we must take it seriously because its implications for Australia's economic future and the wellbeing of Australians are significant. The bill's community benefit principles are also a major concern, given the bill will entrench union involvement in the workplace and replicate many of the same social procurement policies that have enabled the CFMEU's conduct across Australia. It's no surprise that the Business Council of Australia has warned that this procurement policy risks encouraging unacceptable behaviour and backs businesses that will never be able to operate competitively. It's also worth noting that Labor's own investments thus far don't meet the standards established by the legislation. Examples of this include the billion dollars for solar panel manufacturers that the Productivity Commission doesn't believe are viable; the half a billion dollars for an American quantum computing company, which bypassed the national interest framework and other sector assessments; and the Solar Sunshot program, which the Treasury secretary refuses to back. Fortescue is also scaling back its green hydrogen plans despite the promise of tax credits for just existing. This is not an enviable track record, and, like the bills, it does not come from a good place, or a well-informed one. It explains the views of the productivity commissioner, Danielle Wood, who has warned of the cost to the taxpayer. She has said: "If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources … " She went on to say: "We risk creating a class of business that is reliant on government subsidies … " One of Ms Wood's predecessors, Gary Banks, has gone further in describing the policy as 'a fool's errand' that risks propping up 'political favourites'. It's worth considering why Australian manufacturing and industry are in their current position, a position characterised by dilemma. Labor's energy, industrial relations and taxation policies make Australia a less and less attractive place for business investment every day. About 19,000 businesses have gone under since Labor took office, which is the highest number on record. The news today, of course, speaks of more small businesses collapsing. Productivity is down, and businesses are struggling just to keep their doors open and staff employed, let alone to flourish and grow. In addition to failing to mitigate these problems, this bill makes a bad situation worse by fuelling inflation rather than tackling it. It's well and truly on the record that the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, has termed inflation in Australia 'homegrown' and 'sticky'. And it's taking its toll. Prices have risen by 10 per cent, and for working households the cost of living has jumped by nearly 20 per cent. Taxes are up, and real wages are down, as are household savings, which have fallen 10 per cent. A household with a $750,000 mortgage is now $35,000 worse off. There have been 13 interest rate rises under Labor as the RBA is forced to do the government's heavy lifting rather than the government doing its own heavy lifting. Since taking office, Albanese government has pushed ahead with $315 billion in new spending, seemingly blind to its effects on Australian households and, soon, the whole economy. This is not the sound economic management Australians and our manufacturing sector expect and deserve. That is where the coalition comes in with a clear, back-to-basics economic plan to get the national economy on track. We will cut inflationary spending, prioritising reasonable spending that will deliver real benefits to households and businesses. We will cut Labor's tangle of red tape, removing the regulatory roadblocks that are blocking innovation and entrepreneurialism. We will make it easier for business to grow and create jobs. We will deliver a fairer, lower and simpler tax system so people can keep more of what they earn. We will ensure access to cheaper and more reliable energy. That's how you build a strong and resilient economy. That's how you boost productivity, tackle inflation and genuinely meet the needs of Australians. You don't do it with slogans. You don't do it with handouts guided by political priorities. That is what these bills do and it's why Future Made in Australia is not the answer to Australia's economic challenges. 11:31 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak today to the Future Made in Australia bills, The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. Now, the titles sound really good, and it's notable because this would be the first time in over 30 years that we might see the government take a more active role in investing in public infrastructure. We welcome government investment and government ownership in the positive infrastructure to build the society that we need in a climate crisis and to build the infrastructure that our community wants to see investment in. It's pretty clear that we can't rely on the private market to do that, or we wouldn't be in the pickle that we're in and we might not be in the climate crisis that we're in. I reflect also on the level of privatisation that we've seen in the last few decades to indicate clearly that the private market is not acting in the interests of the community; they're clearly acting in the interests of their own profit margins. We are thrilled that there's the notion that we might become a country that builds stuff again. We have taken to successive elections pro-manufacturing policies. We would love to see some serious public investment in clean, green, positive infrastructure that provides for the community and that protects the planet at the same time. We would love to see that, but we're just a little bit not sure that that's what this bill will actually deliver. That's because there are no guardrails in this bill about what public money can't be used for. There's nothing in this bill that says: 'Well, you can't use this money to open a new coalmine. You can't use this money to open a new coal seam gas well in some of our best food-producing land. You can't use this money to build more weapons components to export to make the world's conflicts worse.' There's nothing in this bill that says that, and that is extremely concerning. One might hope that that's an oversight that the government will be happy to fix when the Greens move amendments to rule out those sorts of things, but I've been here for a little while now and I'm afraid I don't think it is an oversight. In its current form, this Future Made in Australia Bill could very well be a future for the coal, oil and gas industries past 2050, long after when we should have transitioned off fossil fuels and onto 100 per cent clean renewable energy that is job rich and will help us tackle the climate crisis. I also add that not only does this bill not rule out giving public money to the fossil fuel sector; but we already have $11 billion of public money that goes to the fossil fuel sector in this nation's budget. That is a, sadly, bipartisan commitment multiple successive governments of different colours have all backed in, giving approximately $11 billion of public money to the coal, oil and gas industries, to the private sector, to the fossil fuel companies that are creating the climate crisis that is causing the bushfires, the floods and the biodiversity devastation that we are all suffering from. So don't you think they're already getting enough public money? Why do you need a bill that doesn't rule out giving them even more? We'd like you to see you abolish those fossil fuel subsidies and give that money back to the public in the form of services that will help them—help their lives be easier and help them get access to schools, hospitals and clean energy on their rooftops. But that doesn't seem to be the direction that this government is heading in. In fact, already in this term of government, since they came to office they've approved 28 new coal and gas projects. So, on top of continuing the $11 billion of subsidies with public money to the fossil fuel sector, this government has approved 28 new coal and gas projects. We had an election. We changed the government. There were a whole lot of reasons for that, but one of those reasons was that the last government was not taking the climate crisis seriously. It wasn't keeping people safe and it wasn't protecting nature from the climate crisis. It wasn't generating all of those tens of thousands of jobs that we know clean energy can provide, particularly in my home state of Queensland. When people voted to change the government, I believe they voted for a policy change. So it's remarkable that we have seen this government, who said they'd be good on the climate, hand out approvals like confetti—28 new coal and gas projects in a climate crisis and $11 billion of fossil fuel subsidies to help companies open those new coal and gas mines to make the world's carbon pollution worse and to make all of our lives and that of the biodiversity we share this world with harder. Now we have a bill that's ostensibly meant to be about manufacturing, something the Greens strongly support, but doesn't have any restrictions on using this new proposed fund for yet more fossil fuel infrastructure. It beggars belief that the government didn't think about this and decide that if they want to be pro manufacturing it's got to be good, clean, green, pro-community investment and infrastructure that they support. Yet here we are. It's very telling that in the Senate inquiry into these bills we heard from Chevron and Japanese gas giant INPEX that they're already angling for more public money. In fact, in their submissions to the inquiry on these two bills, they had glowing praise for a related policy that we believe is inextricably linked to this Future Made in Australia Bill package—the Future Gas Strategy. INPEX and Chevron were saying how fabulous they thought the Future Gas Strategy was and how crucial the stable supply of gas for export was to a future made in Australia. So, of course, they supported these bills. When fossil fuel companies are praising this Labor government's Future Made in Australia Bill's passage then it's pretty clear who's going benefit from it. It's pretty easy to see through that spin. The government has made clear its intentions to pursue its Future Gas Strategy, which envisages a role for gas in our domestic and export economy long after 2050, when all of the science says we need to be off fossil fuels. We know that gas is just as dirty as coal when it comes to fossil fuel pollution because of all of the associated scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, particularly to liquify it for export and all of the ambient fugitive emissions that occur in that process. So we have a Future Gas Strategy from this government which says: 'Sure, we're going to keep gas in the economy, in the system and in our biosphere after 2050.' And we've got new coal projects being approved by the so-called environment minister that would be open past 2070. Not only that but we have a resources minister under this government that has opened up 46,758 square kilometres of ocean to new gas fields. I thought we voted for a change of government, and it is getting increasingly harder to tell the difference between the two large parties on the stuff that matters, like not burning the place down. A future made in Australia cannot be a future for coal, oil and gas and, under these bills, there are no limitations on what would be funded by Treasury or Export Finance Australia. As long as it's deemed necessary to advance our economic security and resilience, it can get funding. This could also mean manufacturing weapons to send into occupied territories and war zones. It could mean that, because it doesn't rule that out. That would be entirely unacceptable during a genocide, and many members of the community have raised their concerns about this particular ambiguity with me. It could mean not only funding weapons components but that the Treasury or Export Finance Australia could, for example, finance the building of import LNG regasification terminals in developing countries so that they could get hooked on Australian gas and those gas companies could once again rake in the profits, pay very little—or no—tax in Australia, cook the planet and laugh all the way to the bank. It could mean kickstarting a petrochemical industry domestically that locks in dependency on new gas fields for decades to come. Those examples were the ones that were aired in the hearings of the inquiry into these bills, and the conclusion was, As to petrochemicals, there's nothing in that legislation that would preclude the minister from tasking Treasury to do that work. Sticking with petrochemicals for the moment, the Albanese government has already committed $1½ billion of taxpayer money to prop up the Middle Arm gas and petrochemical precinct and US gas company Tamboran through the coalition and the Labor Party voting together to protect the Beetaloo cooperative drilling program. The Greens tried to remove public funding for that. They voted together to continue to shovel public money into the pockets of a US gas company. They've got exclusive rights to build a 6.6 million tonne gas export terminal at that site in the Northern Territory. They don't have First Nations consent for that, of course, but then we don't have laws to require that either. That's yet another thing the Greens are trying to rectify, yet again without support from either big party. The Northern Territory government has also promoted that site as a petrochemicals hub, in keeping with the gas-fired recovery report to the federal government that intends to turn the region into 'a gas based manufacturing industry for northern Australia'. Since that submission, the Northern Territory government has submitted its stage 2 business case to Infrastructure Australia, seeking total federal funding of $3.6 billion. All of those developments taken together make the gas processing and petrochemical hub at Middle Arm a prime candidate for further taxpayer support through the Future Made in Australia legislation, because nothing in these bills rules that out. Certainly, all of the gas giants—and, it sounds like, the Northern Territory government—are already seeing this as the next slush fund that they can raid to pollute the place even more. Public funding to expand the gas industry is unfathomable in a climate crisis. That's why we are calling on this government to redirect that existing $1½ billion to possibly $3.6 billion federal subsidy for Middle Arm to support clean industries, and it's why we'll be moving amendments to this package of bills to restrict funding streams to prevent public money from this fund going to coal, oil, gas and associated infrastructure that would lock-in long-term dependency on fossil fuels. It's not the first time we've moved amendments to say public money shouldn't be spent on fossil fuels. When the NAIF legislation went through this place, probably a decade ago now—it might have been a bit before that—we moved similar amendments. Did we get support for that at the time? No, we didn't. Surely, in the passing 10 years the weight of climate science has not missed anyone in this chamber, and, surely, you might now consider not allocating public funds to fossil fuel projects from this new slush fund that you're proposing. That's what our amendments will seek to do. Not only that; please can you stop approving new coal and gas projects. The $41.4 billion to be spent by the government on fuel tax credits would also grow substantially above that amount under a future made in Australia. This is because mining companies operating in a remote area will be paid 50.6c for every litre of diesel burned in a generator. This fossil fuel subsidy massively discourages capital investment in off-grid solar, wind or hybrid energy sources to power a mine. That's why we're also calling on the government to end the fuel tax credit scheme for mining projects. This would remove the financial incentive to burn subsidised diesel instead of those companies having to makes investment in off-grid renewable energy systems. Adding value and jobs by processing minerals in Australia would also create additional emissions and gas demand unless plans are put in place before this law passes to prevent the need to open new gas fields. If gas demand is expected to increase then, to make sure that that increased demand doesn't necessitate new gas fields being opened, we need to make sure that there's large-scale electrification of homes, of businesses, of industry and within our LNG terminals. There's a lot of fantastic information here that unfortunately, having squandered my time, I cannot share. But the nub of this is, of course, that we are very pro government investment in manufacturing. What we are not for is government investment in new coal, oil and gas. There has been a massive oversight with this bill, if I can be so generous to this government. There is a massive hole in it that would allow public dollars to be tipped in to burning the planet even more. Many of those companies don't even pay tax in this jurisdiction, and they're making life harder for all of us and the species we share this world with. I also want to flag, as I did before, that there are serious First Nations concerns about the ongoing sidelining of free, prior and informed consent and what happens on country. That's the case with the Middle Arm development, and we urge the Albanese government to finally redress this. In its current form, these bills could just be a slush fund for coal, oil and gas, and we can't stand for that. (Time expired) 11:46 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise today to speak against the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, which is yet another attempt by the Albanese Labor government to force through their agenda on net zero but which will do very little to support manufacturing businesses in this country. As we saw here in this chamber recently, the Labor government will stop at nothing in its pursuit of its ideological agenda to reach net zero. This government, along with the Greens, rammed through the net zero bills without consultation and without debate. Under Labor it is becoming increasingly common for these matters, many of which are controversial, to be pushed through by guillotine, without giving coalition senators the opportunity to debate them and to put on record our opposition or otherwise. This undermines the very reason we're in the Senate—to review and strengthen legislation, not to push through bills into law at the whim of Labor and their allies the Greens. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is of the same nature, so I am grateful, perhaps fortunate, that I am actually able to share my views and the reasons why I will not be supporting it. If you took this bill at face value, you would think that it is about manufacturing, that it is about making things in Australia again. While, yes, technically this is true, it's only about making certain things. This bill is solely about setting up an ideological economy, which they have dubbed the 'global net zero economy', and giving authoritative powers to the Treasurer, the same Treasurer who has overseen an economy that has delivered stubbornly high home-grown inflation, a higher cost of living and of course a higher cost of doing business. These higher costs have forced many businesses, including those who this bill purports to support, to pass on those costs to consumers. Since the Albanese Labor government came to office, we have witnessed the most significant growth in insolvencies nationally across all industries: construction, hospitality, manufacturing—you name it. They're all hurting, with around 19,000 businesses having entered insolvency since Labor took office. They are hurting from the increased costs of their energy bills, the red tape that locks them out of key export markets and the legislative requirements that change their working conditions so that they can no longer communicate with their staff the way they used to. Businesses are the engine room of our economy, and they are no strangers to finding innovative solutions to the problems we face as a nation. As my colleague in the House, the member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce MP, put it: It's government's responsibility to put into place the policy settings that are necessary to achieve the step away from this energy dependence and let businesses do what they know best. It's not government's job to pick winners. It's not government's job to invest taxpayer money or to prop up uncompetitive businesses in the hope that sometime in the future they might be able to hold their own on the international commodity market. I could not agree more with my colleague. Instead of supporting the innovation we see so often in the manufacturing sector, what this bill does is establish a national interest framework as the means of identifying sectors as potential candidates for public investment under the Future Made in Australia. Notably, though, there's only a passing mention of the new front door for clean-energy financing, and I understand that to be the role of the Net Zero Economy Authority, whose establishing legislation, as I alluded to earlier, was rammed through the Senate on the last day of the August sitting fortnight. It does, however, expand the function of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, to enable it to administer support to industries under the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund and other programs. This is duplication and will create unnecessary confusion for the sector. The omnibus bill commits over $6.1 billion to ARENA between the 2025 and the 2039 financial years, with a potential for further funding of up to $3.9 billion annually. This could potentially support large-scale renewable energy projects with limited parliamentary oversight, especially during election years. This is particularly concerning considering that many of our regional communities, including some in my home state of Tasmania, are feeling they're being left behind and forced to accept large-scale renewable energy projects in their towns without consultation and social licence. It is also the typical top-down approach which we see so often from Labor. This bill does not incentivise manufacturing businesses, nor does it create the economic conditions in which they can thrive. Instead it gives the power to the Treasurer to pick the winners. It will use taxpayer funds to allow businesses whom they deem to be aligned with their net zero goals to be subsidised, but only if they manufacture things like solar panels and wind turbine blades. But, in a blatant demonstration of Labor's agenda, Treasury has confirmed that gas, blue hydrogen, carbon capture and nuclear will not be considered under the National Interest Framework despite all aligning with net zero. My home state of Tasmania punches considerably above its weight when it comes to advanced manufacturing and entrepreneurial spirit. There are companies like the Elphinstone Group, who successfully bid and won a tender to be part of the multibillion-dollar Land 400 phase 3 program to supply infantry fighting vehicles for the Australian Army; and Haywards, a steel fabrication business at Westbury which has helped to supply steel products for infrastructure projects in Tasmania, like the Launceston General Hospital helipad airbridge. Tasmania has a vibrant history of entrepreneurial pursuit, and it has always done things differently when supported to do so by policymakers and economic conditions. An example is Sea Forest, at Triabunna, an internationally recognised company which has developed a special type of seaweed called Asparagopsis, which can be fed to cattle to reduce methane emissions. The seaweed reacts with enzymes in the stomachs of livestock and stops the production of methane. Since their launch, Sea Forest have reduced methane emissions to the equivalent of taking 10 million cars off the road. With their product, they are feeding 40,000 head of cattle in Tasmania and around the country. Sea Forest recently signed an agreement with a UK based supermarket to provides its products and is seeking to upgrade its plant, at Swansea in Tasmania, recently receiving $4 million from the Tasmanian Liberal government to develop a trial to investigate the large-scale viability of its products. This is an innovative solution developed by the private sector, and these types of solutions are the ones we will need in our transition to net zero. Unfortunately, this bill places more weight on the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines than on innovative solutions like those of Sea Forest. The Bills Digest states the purpose of the bill: Future Made in Australia links challenges of climate change and national economic capability to reindustrialisation, predominantly using Australia's world-significant clean energy and critical minerals to increase onshore secondary processing of these metals and the manufacture of products and components required for decarbonisation and greater sovereignty. What this will do is create a two-speed economy, where those in the manufacturing of wind turbines, batteries and solar panels will be able to receive funding at the expense of those like Sea Forest. In the end, that will create an environment that stifles innovation at the expense of manufacturing goods and lead us down a one-size-fits-all path in our pursuit of net zero. Once again, Labor wants to put all its eggs in the wind and solar basket, and this bill has become a vehicle to allow corporate companies to take advantage of that and receive taxpayer funded subsidies at the expense of innovative solutions inspired by the private sector. Why should some manufacturers receive government funding to support the production of goods and others who produce innovative solutions not receive the same support? This is disappointing and demoralising for those not eligible for assistance and will no doubt result in further insolvencies in the future at the hands of this tunnel-vision government. We cannot rely solely on wind and solar to get us to net zero. We also cannot rely on wind and solar manufacturing to help us get there. Manufacturing has historically played an important role in Australia's economy, and it can again, but this bill is not the way to do it. If you take this bill at face value, Future Made in Australia sounds like a suite of measures to bring manufacturing back to this country. And if you were to listen to the Prime Minister, that is what you would think it was all about. Indeed, if you look at the 'Build it Here' petition on Labor's website, you see that it talks about Australia's weak industrial capacity and mentions the exit of the car-manufacturing business from Australia. You would be inclined to think that this bill purported to support all manufacturers, not just the select few deemed worthy of investment. This bill's focus on a global net zero economy narrows its focus so much that it could conflict with the traditional powerhouses of our economy like agriculture, tourism and resources. These three industries are incredibly important to my home state of Tasmania, which is yet another reason why I cannot support this bill. Several weeks ago, we heard the news that Saputo Dairy had made the decision to close the King Island Dairy, one of our state's most historic factories, which has manufactured award-winning cheeses and other products for over 120 years. Tasmania has many award-winning food products—in fact, a lot of our manufacturing is of food—but this bill does not support them. It also doesn't support advanced manufacturers like Definium Technologies, which is based in Launceston. Definium manufactures dozens of internet-of-things devices, including Ethernet devices and satellites. These items are being produced at scale in my home state of Tasmania and shipped across the world. From supporting mining accommodation in outback Australia to creating fuel injection systems for taxis in Las Vegas, they solve real-world problems with technology. In fact, the Definium Technologies were also commissioned during the height of the pandemic to produce an integral component for ventilators for Victorians suffering from COVID-19. These are all valuable manufacturing businesses that produce important products for our economy. But will any of these organisations be supported by Future Made in Australia? No. They won't be, because they are not the types of manufacturing this government wants to support. They are not part of the global net zero economy. Like many pieces of legislation brought to the Senate by the Albanese Labor government, the devil is always in the detail. This bill does not support broader manufacturing businesses and does not, as they claim, put Australia back on the path to being an industrial manufacturer. Rather, it sets an agenda to allow taxpayer funds to be used to subsidise companies that manufacture products used in the transition to net zero. Manufacturing businesses in Australia are hurting right now. But this government wants to support manufacturers in an economic industry that doesn't really even exist here in Australia. As my colleague Dan Tehan, the member for Wannon, said in his second reading speech: Does this bill make our manufacturing businesses more competitive? Does it help them address the cost-of-doing-business crisis? Does it mean that the cost-of-living crisis will be addressed because the cost of doing business will be addressed? Obviously, the answer to all those questions is no, which is why I am joining with my coalition colleagues in opposing this bill. 11:59 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Like my coalition colleagues, it gives me great pleasure and a little concern to be standing here in the Australian Senate with a bill before parliament which sounds fantastic: the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. It's a bit like all the mirage of promises made and broken by the Anthony Albanese Labor government to the Australian people over the last 2½ years. A future made in Australia—well, who wouldn't want to vote for that? It sounds fantastic. We all want a sustainable, prosperous and safe future made in Australia. Everybody in this parliament wants to see successful, prosperous manufacturing businesses. Manufacturing businesses provide us with so many well-paying jobs here at home, but also, post COVID, we know the risk to our sovereignty when we're not manufacturing products that we need here onshore. We become subject to the whims of international factors, such as global pandemics, where we saw the just-in-time global supply chain grind to a halt. We could not get critical products that we needed to run our economy—things like AdBlue, which is used by our trucking industry to keep their diesel fuel trucks on the road. For anybody that's listening to this speech, every single thing you buy, in every single shop, arrives to you and that place of purchase on the back of a truck. When we couldn't get AdBlue during COVID, that was a significant problem. Getting medicines where they were needed, getting food—forget toilet paper, you wouldn't have the basics if we didn't have AdBlue. So that required a change in thinking about how we support the manufacturing of products that are so critical to our survival here onshore, as over many decades we've seen manufacturers move offshore. When I talk to manufacturers in rural and regional communities, those that are seeking to add value to our primary products and the like, the No. 1 cost input for them is the price of energy. The price of energy is why manufacturing jobs are going offshore and small to medium manufacturing enterprises are just closing down. This government, through both its energy policies, its pursuit of 100 per cent renewables, its demonisation of the gas industry, which is going to be critical for a net zero by 2050 approach, and its derision of the coalition's plan for net zero emissions nuclear to be part of our future energy supply, shows that it doesn't actually have a plan to keep manufacturing onshore. You can have bills before the Australian parliament as much as you like about supporting manufacturing, but, if you have other ministers putting in policies that specifically make it impossible to run a profitable manufacturing business because you've driven up the price of electricity so much, then it's all for nought. It's all for nothing. Once again, it is a mirage of this Labor government going out there with great fanfare and saying one thing and then the policy reality being the complete opposite. Even today we see in an article by Geoff Chambers in the Australian that we've had 6,600 firms going insolvent in the last six months. We don't even know how many people are employed by these 6,600 firms that have gone insolvent in the last six months. Those unemployment figures have not yet had the opportunity to reach the public sphere, but it does point to the malaise within our economy. We know inflation has been too high for too long under Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers's lack of an economic plan. It's been higher for longer than it needs to be in comparison to every single nation around the globe that we like to compare ourselves to. That means, in suburbs, in every capital city and in regional capitals, homeowners are struggling with high mortgage payments. We've seen electricity prices go up in excess of 15 per cent. We've seen food and grocery prices going up in excess of 11 per cent. Insurance has gone up. Every single thing that people are having to purchase and every single thing businesses are having to purchase have gone up because Labor has been unable to get inflation under control. That is now coming home to roost with the fact that we now have 6,600 firms that became insolvent in the last six months, yet Labor seems to think that government can become a manufacturer. I want to turn to one appalling decision. There are so many that this government has actually announced under the Future Made in Australia policy. One is the Solar Sunshot program that may have been announced by the Prime Minister with much fanfare and may have been promoted by the minister but which the Treasury secretary—Jim Chalmers's own secretary—has refused to back. The main proponent of the policy, who stood alongside the Prime Minister as he announced the initiative called the Solar Sunshot program, has actually cut their staff and replaced their CEO. The biggest booster of green hydrogen, Fortescue—remember Twiggy Forrest, that old billionaire, a great champion of green hydrogen—has been backing away from that commitment at a rate of knots. When I talk about a mirage, this bill is emblematic of the way this government approaches serious policymaking and support for jobs and prosperity in our country—and it's not working. I want to briefly touch on one of Ed Husic's specials: the risky PsiQuantum deal. Australian scientists and Australian researchers literally lead the world in quantum computing research. We've got groups right throughout our university sector that have been collaborating on this research for a very long time. I would like to pay tribute to one in particular: Michelle Simmons, who was Australian of the Year and is a fantastic physicist who's leading the work at UNSW and is actually years ahead of other nations' work in quantum computing. So we've got Australian PhD students and Australian researchers at Australian universities leading the world in quantum computing, and who does this government choose to back under the Future Made in Australia policy? I'll tell you who they choose to back: a group out of the US, because Minister Husic likes a bit of basketball, a bit of NBL, as we know. He rates himself in that. He went on a holiday over to the US, had a bit of a chat to people in Silicon Valley and then decided to hand them a billion dollars of taxpayer funds for a future made in Australia, for a handful of jobs that are apparently going to be located in Brisbane, instead of backing our own scientists. We will be voting against this bill. The announcements made around this bill show that this government doesn't really back a future made in Australia. Once again, it is the Prime Minister and his ministers backing their mates, whether they're Twiggy Forrest or Ed's mates in the US. It's definitely not the thousands and thousands of small- to medium-sized enterprises in this country that want to keep manufacturing and want to keep tens of thousands of Australians employed in regional capitals and in suburbs right around this country. Again, this is a mirage. It is a mirage from a government that is bereft of a conscience and bereft of the courage to back the men and women who want to build something in this country, whether it's our researchers in quantum computing or in advanced manufacturing, and would rather back their corporate mates, be they US quantum computing specialists, Twiggy Forrest or, indeed, failed solar-panel producers who are already sacking CEOs before the money has even left the door. It's emblematic of the disarray of the government, their lack of moral compass and their lack of courage to develop policies that will effect real and sustainable change for what we all want, which is a future made in Australia. 12:10 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I rise to speak about Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Like my colleague Senator Waters, who spoke before me, I had significant hope that this bill would be an investment in manufacturing in this country, an overdue, positive investment into manufacturing, but, as it stands, this bill would potentially be an environmental disaster. We're in a climate emergency right now. At a time when we should be rapidly phasing out of fossil fuels, this government, via this bill, could potentially be propping them up with even more public money. Right across the country, we are seeing an increasingly unstable climate. We're seeing more unseasonable heat and damaging winds. We're seeing more people displaced by extreme weather events, such as floodings and bushfires. My state of Victoria has recently been hit by devastating weather events, including intense bushfires in Mallacoota, storms akin to minicyclones in parts of Gippsland and droughts in the south-west, where farmers are seeing the lowest rainfalls on record. While communities across Australia are bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change, the Albanese government is taking millions in donations from fossil fuel billionaires and corporations, choosing profits over our precious environment. As we all know, the biggest cause of global warming is the mining, transporting and burning of fossil fuels—that is, coal, oil and gas. Scientists agree that the phasing out of fossil fuels is the No. 1 task to halt our planet from cooking and that there can be no new coal or gas projects if we are to avoid environmental collapse, yet, instead of embracing a clean future, Labor has approved 28 new coal and gas projects. Instead of using this bill as an opportunity to lean into Australia's massive potential as a renewable energy superpower and to transition our economy to one that is clean and green, Labor potentially presents us with a future for more publicly funded coal and gas projects. This is a government with complete disregard for our young people, for species that are careening towards extinction and for communities, including First Nations people, right across our country that are grappling with the lived reality of increased climate impacts every single day. Labor must wake up to the reality of the climate crisis and wake up to the reality that the government is responsible for its climate inaction. As Jo Dodds, President of Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, a movement that grew from the ashes of climate fuelled bushfires, puts it: Any government that knows what we have been through and continues to suggest that there's no need for urgent action should be held directly responsible for the next fire. It is their job to ensure the safety of our communities, their job to represent OUR interests against those of the fossil fuel industries that are driving the majority of the climate destruction. Any government which does not prioritise the people, our homes and livelihoods, our food production and livestock, any government that ignores our security from the biggest threat our communities will ever face, should be held accountable. The Future Made in Australia policy—let's be very clear—will not, in its current form, help to tackle the climate crisis, because, simply, it opens the doors for more coal, oil and gas. The Albanese government has made clear its intention to pursue its Future Gas Strategy, which includes a role for gas in our domestic and export economies. New coal projects have been approved by the environment minister beyond 2070, and the resources minister has opened up 46,758 square kilometres of ocean to new gas fields. From the Browse project, on Scott Reef, and the Beetaloo carbon bomb, in the Northern Territory, to the drilling off the Victorian coast, our environment and climate are under threat from Labor. Less than 24 hours after communities right across western Victoria celebrated their hard fought win in their campaign to stop the monster TGS seismic-blasting project in the Otway Basin, Labor approved two new gas production licences in the very same region. The Albanese government has committed $1.5 billion to develop common-use infrastructure at Middle Arm. US gas company Tamboran, which previously received public funding as a consequence of the coalition and Labor Party voting together to protect the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program, has exclusive rights to build a 6.6-million-tonne gas export terminal at the site. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator, I am required to interrupt you; my apologies. We shall now proceed to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS BHP: Brazil Mining Disaster 28 12:15 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales For nine years, BHP and their joint venture partners Vale have carried out an underhand campaign to deny justice and fairness to hundreds of thousands of people. On 5 November 2015, a tailings dam at BHP Samarco Mariana mining complex in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais burst, and that dam released a 40-metre-high tidal wave of toxic mud flow that travelled for 17 days until it reached the Atlantic Ocean. It obliterated and destroyed downstream villages. It killed 19 people, made hundreds of thousands of people homeless and destroyed the livelihoods of many more. It polluted almost 700 kilometre of waterways, not to mention the surrounding villages and agricultural land. It was the worst environmental disaster in Brazilian history, and one of the worst in world history. Thanks to court documents, we know that BHP knew in advance that the dam was not structurally sound. In fact, BHP were warned about problems with the dam shortly after it began operating in 2008. Board minutes from 2009 show BHP representatives on the joint venture were 'worried about the efficacy of the proposed solution to fix seepages at the dam'. Another report in 2011 and yet another report in 2013 warned BHP that the dam needed to be urgently improved and that emergency sirens and plans needed to be put in place downstream. This was never done. As a direct consequence of BHP's negligence, the residents of the communities surrounding the dam have seen their lives, livelihoods and communities destroyed. After all that, you'd think that BHP would show some contrition. You might think that BHP would respond in good faith and support the people in these communities: the indigenous Krenak people, whose traditional lands had been annihilated, and the quilombola communities—quilombolas are the descendants of African slaves who resisted and survived slavery—which were destroyed. But, instead, BHP has spent nine years trying to undermine and prevent justice. They've taken the James Hardie approach of fighting survivors for as long as possible, hoping they can outlast them. Today I met with a delegation of community leaders for the second time. Tiali Monique, from the quilombola community, and Michael Krenak, from the indigenous Krenak community, have come all the way from Brazil to share their stories with parliamentarians. They told me how BHP has spent years pressuring people to sign waivers. These waivers give people tiny sums of money in exchange for the destruction of their homes and the loss of their livelihoods. The BHP strategy is to get people to sign away their rights to just compensation for the destruction of their homes and the loss of their livelihoods in exchange for tiny sums of money. For example, people who worked as fishermen and relied on the river for sustenance and work were compensated with one year's earnings, yet it has been nine years since the disaster and, because of the pollution, they still cannot obtain fishing permits or return to their jobs, and it may take yet another 10 to 15 years or beyond before they can resume their work. They've received compensation for just one year's earnings. BHP has been applying particular pressure to locals who work in the mining industry. Many of these communities rely on the mining industry for jobs, especially since BHP destroyed their fishing and agriculture industries by polluting their rivers and lands. Local workers have been told that, if they join the campaign for fair compensation, their jobs will be terminated. I've also been informed that BHP is engaging in a divide-and-conquer strategy, stoking division and trying to turn communities against each other. Later this month, the fight for compensation goes to trial in England. It has taken nine years, and it may take many years more. BHP could come to the table tomorrow and negotiate in good faith. Instead, they are taking the James Hardie approach of trying to bleed their victims dry. This is not about shutting down the mining industry, and this is not just about the money. It's about forcing BHP to actually give a damn about the people whose lives have been destroyed. It's about forcing BHP to change the way they operate to ensure they work together with communities, not against them. Let's not recklessly destroy their lands and communities. It's about mining while being respectful of the environment and respectful of local communities. It's not too much to ask for, is it? Sadly, this case is part of the BHP playbook. We saw it in their dealings in Papua New Guinea around the Ok Tedi mine. We saw it in their dealings in the Cerrejon mine in Colombia, where BHP's operations caused severe air and water pollution to Indigenous communities. The situation got so bad that the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment called on BHP and their joint venture partners to halt mining there in 2020. The fact is that BHP are quickly developing a reputation as one of the worst corporate actors in this country. Their actions are damaging Australia's reputation around the world. Like many others, I call on BHP to come to the table with the communities destroyed by their negligence in Brazil. I call on BHP to immediately stop their campaign to circumvent justice by pressuring individuals and communities to sign shoddy waivers. And I call on BHP to urgently negotiate a fair outcome in good faith. That disgraceful attitude of BHP is taken not only towards communities in Brazil but echoes their increasingly big-ruler approach to their workers in Australia. BHP are contesting 13 applications in the Fair Work Commission brought by the Mining and Energy Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. Those applications seek to end BHP's use of the labour hire loophole to rip off mining workers up and down the east coast. BHP set up an internal labour hire subsidiary, BHP Operations Services, to undercut the agreement their workforce had previously negotiated with them in good faith. BHP Operations Services pays up to 40 per cent less than workers of BHP. Brodie Allen, a BHP mine worker in Central Queensland told us: I've been coalmining and in the industry for seven years. I've been labour hire the entire time, so I go in and do the same job as everybody else, but I'm paid $40,000 less a year to do the exact same thing. BHP's disgraceful approach has been ripping off workers to the tune of millions of dollars since it was established in 2018. The Albanese government closed that loophole earlier this year, and the Liberals and Nationals voted to keep it open. The local member up there in the Queensland coalfields, Colin Boyce, voted against it because he said it would 'add additional cost to businesses'. That's the Liberals and Nationals' approach—let businesses cut wages and conditions as low as possible to boost their profit margins. Rather than accept that the loophole has been closed and pay their workers what they are fairly owed, BHP are fighting this tooth and nail at the commission, just like they are fighting communities in Brazil. Whenever BHP have an opportunity to do the right thing, they choose to do the greedy thing instead. For the richest company in Australia, a company that recorded a $20 billion profit this year, it's a disgrace. Finally, I want to congratulate BHP workers in the Pilbara and their representatives at the Western Mine Workers Alliance. After years of BHP refusing to bargain fairly with their workers in the Pilbara, the Albanese government passed new laws, making it easier for workers to get their bosses back to the bargaining table. And that is exactly what they have chosen to do. Tania Constable from the Minerals Council seems to think working Australians shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain. In fact, Ms Constable called this a move of 'grave concern'. If BHP's $20 billion profit isn't enough to pay their workers and communities in Brazil fairly, I've got an idea for how they can find some savings: stop sending millions of dollars to the Minerals Council and do your dirty work for yourself. Queensland: Community Events 30 12:25 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland On a lighter note, I'd like to congratulate the Kenyan community in Queensland for putting on a fabulous football tournament on the weekend of 28 to 29 September. Teams representing the Kenyan diaspora across the whole of Australia came to my home state of Queensland, to Brisbane, to participate in this tournament. I congratulate the team from Adelaide, who were the actual victors in the tournament. I also give my heartfelt congratulations to the Brisbane Kenya Stars, who were the runners-up. I had the opportunity to watch some of the matches, which were just outstanding. I'd like to place on the record my particular thanks to the High Commissioner for Kenya, the Hon. Dr Wilson Kogo. His Excellency spent most of the weekend in Brisbane at the football tournament, which I thought it was outstanding, as he made deep connections with the Kenyan diaspora in my home state of Queensland. I congratulate the Kenyans In Queensland management committee under the leadership of Antony Kamau. Congratulations; you did a wonderful job. I also congratulate the Brisbane Kenya Stars management—Ken Cheptyony, Abel Samoei, Jackson Gitau and Prince Kimutai—as well as the community sponsors and supporters: Mkulima Young, Blackstorm Engineers, Umoja Entertainment, Fredo African Cuisines and the Berur community. Thank you to Dolly Njeru, the events coordinator for Kenyans In Queensland, for providing me with all of the details of the fabulous, wonderful volunteers who brought this very, very successful event together. We are very proud of our Kenyan Queensland community. They make an outstanding contribution to Queensland. Thank you for everything that you do. On Monday, I was privileged to attend the Red Cross Lifeblood Springwood Donor Centre, where my dear friends of the Majha Youth Club, the Australian Pakistani National Association and the Logan Punjabi Community Sports Club organised for their members to give blood on a public holiday. Is there anything more community minded than giving blood, especially, on this occasion, on a public holiday? There were dozens of community members who came to give blood. The senior representative of the Red Cross there told me how important it is that people give blood on a public holiday, because many of the usual donors don't give blood over long weekends. It's very, very important. As one of the donors said on the day, 'If my heart is pumping, I should give blood so another person's heart can pump.' It's as simple as that. There were fathers and sons giving blood together, husbands and wives giving blood. It was just outstanding. From my perspective, it just represents the extraordinary generosity and community spirit of these communities in my home state of Queensland. It's an inspiration for all Australians and it represents the very, very best of Australian values. I was very pleased to attend a Daffodil Day morning tea in Queensland with my dear friends from the Iranian Society of Queensland. Our Iranian diaspora in this country is going through a very difficult time, given the events that are occurring in Iran. It was wonderful to see this community, under the leadership of the president, Mojgan Adel, come together to raise funds for the Cancer Council by putting on this Daffodil Day morning tea. There was wonderful food, wonderful Persian desserts, great entertainment and a wonderful sense of community at this event in Brisbane. I would like to thank all of the organisers, all of the donors and everyone who spoke on the day. It was a tremendous event. I would like to say something about what the daffodil symbolises in Iran. I think this is particularly important, especially given the debate we had yesterday in relation to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and also the recent, what I consider vile, statements of the current Iranian Ambassador to Australia. This is what the daffodil symbolises in Iran in Persian culture: 'In our culture the daffodil symbolises rebirth and new beginnings. It's one of the first flowers to bloom at the end of winter, announcing the beginning of spring and signifying the end of the cold, dark days.' As I was making my contribution in the debate yesterday in relation to the comments made by the Iranian ambassador, which were inflammatory and totally inappropriate for a diplomatic representative to make in this country; and, as I've made repeatedly in this place, that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be declared a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation, I was also thinking about how the Iranian diaspora came together in Brisbane on that Sunday morning and put together that morning tea to raise funds for the community. I just want to say to all of the members of the Iranian community in Queensland, but also across Australia, that for as long as I'm in this place you have my 100 per cent support. As I said to you at the morning tea, I will consider any attack by the Iranian regime on any of the members of the Iranian diaspora in Australia an attack upon me personally. An attack on them is an attack on me as their representative in this place, and they have my 100 per cent support. Thank you so much for raising those much-needed funds for the Cancer Council, and thank you for sharing your wonderful culture with the people of Brisbane. I was very honoured to attend a football and volleyball tournament convened by the Brisbane Youth Sports Club and held in Logan, one of the most multicultural areas in my home state of Queensland. A big shout-out to their mayor, Jon Raven, who I see repeatedly at many events as I'm travelling around Queensland attending multicultural events. Congratulations to him and his team in terms of their multicultural spirit. The Brisbane Youth Sports Club soccer and volleyball tournament honoured the memory of Mr S Sodhi Singh Kharbarh. Mr S Sodhi Singh Kharbarh was a loving member of the Indian and Sikh communities in Brisbane. He was planning to open an Indian soccer club in Brisbane and to organise the Australian Sikh Games, before he passed away last year due to a long-term illness. Approximately 2,000 people attended this tournament in his honour. I would like to place on the Hansard record the wonderful community contribution Mr S Sodhi Singh Kharbarh has made to this country, to the people of Queensland. I would like to give my deep respects to his family, including Mr Sodhi Singh's wife, who was actually assisting in the provision of the food to the thousands of attendees at the sporting tournament. Thanks to all of the organisers and volunteers, including those providing the delicious food, and all of the participants. I would like to give my heartfelt congratulations to my friends in the Nigerian community in Queensland, who hosted a very successful Nigerian Independence Day celebration. The theme for the event was 'unity in diversity', and it showcased the wonderful Nigerian culture, food, music, fashion and dancing, and, above all, how the Queensland Nigerian community of professionals, skilled workers, families, entrepreneurs and students are positively contributing to our wonderful country. Congratulations to the Nigerian Community Association in Queensland, including the wonderful president, Abayomi Showunmi, and all the organisers, sponsors and members for their commitment and contribution to the community. One of the highlights of the occasion was a wonderful rendition of the Australian anthem by Ebony Okonkwo, who is the school captain designate for St Margaret's, one of the leading high schools in my home state of Queensland. She gave a beautiful rendition of the Australian anthem, which to me represented everything we needed to know about our Queensland Nigerian community—the way in which they are making such a positive contribution to our society and the talent and blessing they bring to our country. Nothing would make me happier than to see someone like Ebony sit in this place as a senator for Queensland sometime in the future. She is an amazing talent. Congratulations to you Ebony, congratulations to your family and congratulations to our wonderful Nigerian diaspora for everything you do for our community and for our beautiful country. Early Childhood Education, Youth Voice in Parliament Week 31 12:35 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Today, I'd like to speak about the slated closure of two community owned and loved high-quality childcare centres: Windsor Community Children's Centre and Gardiner Preschool. These centres are in the city of Stonnington in Victoria, which is projected to have a shortfall of 600-plus childcare places in 2030—and that is without taking Windsor's and Gardiner's closures into account. Both centres are crucial to the lives of local families. They aren't just buildings; they're pillars of support for parents and children alike, having served their communities for decades. Yet, they risk being shut down, as landowners plan to sell the properties, and these centres simply cannot afford to move. This is another stark example of the gap between Labor's rhetoric and its actions. Labor talks a big game when it comes to early childhood education, but when it matters most it fails to protect not-for-profit centres in areas with high demand for these services. In fact, they've done nothing to help Windsor community centre, which has been around for 27 years, and Gardiner preschool, an incredible 80 years. These centres have given children a safe, nurturing space to learn and grow. They provide an equal start in life and a lifeline for parents who depend on affordable, high-quality education and care. But the closure of these centres is not just an inconvenience; it's a devastating blow to working families, particularly those already struggling to make ends meet. Parents will be left scrambling for alternatives in a city where demand for early childhood education is already sky-high. Worse still, children will be uprooted from their familiar environments and trusted educators, affecting their development and sense of stability. Labor love to talk about expanding access to early childhood education, but when it comes to real action they're nowhere to be found. The local council has indicated interest in buying the land, but it can't afford it. In Windsor's case the Victoria government could easily intervene and stop this sale by maintaining the land zoning for public use. Instead, Labor is sitting idly by, allowing these essential centres to be sold off to the highest bidder. These closures are wholly incompatible with the Albanese government's talk of universal child care. How can they claim to care about children and their families when they are allowing this to happen under their watch? It's profit over people and yet another example of Labor's broken promises. The Greens believe that child care should be free, accessible and high-quality. These centres should be built for families, not corporate profits. Community controlled centres like Windsor and Gardiner provide care that is tailored to local needs, ensuring our children get the best start in life. That's why we're demanding that the Labor government act now. They must ensure that these centres remain in the local community. We cannot let profit dictate the future of our children's education. Labor must step up, protect these community led centres and tell their Victorian colleagues to stop the rezoning of Windsor Community Children's Centre's land. Parents, community members and those who care about the future of our children's education must stand together. We must voice our opposition to these closures and join the families and educators of Windsor Community Children's Centre and Gardiner Preschool in their fight. We must tell the local Labor representatives in Macnamara and Chisholm that these closures are unacceptable. We must use our vote at the next federal election to hold Labor accountable for their inaction. This fight isn't just about two childcare centres; it's about Labor's broader failure to protect community services. They talk about supporting families and working for Australia, but their actions, or lack thereof, speak louder than their words. The Greens will continue to fight for these centres and for the protection of not-for-profit community-driven services that are vital to our society, because we are committed to putting families and communities, not corporate profits, first. It's with great pleasure that, as a Greens senator for Victoria, I have the opportunity to share speeches from two bright young Victorians, as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament initiative. The first speech is from 17-year-old Ella who lives in the electorate of Indi, in north-west Victoria. These are her words: In 10 years, I want my community to be able to afford the cost of living and the insane prices for basic necessities. Over years, the prices of things including food and rent have increased so majorly that it has become a struggle just to pay for our basic needs. In my town of Wangaratta you come across so many homeless people that are living in tents, in parks or house-hopping because the price of living is ridiculous. It breaks your heart to see people having to live day by day without any food and shelter. Each year, the price of food, rent and taxes go up, while our wages stay the same, leaving us with less and less money. This topic is important to me because I have seen how it affects families struggling just to pay their rent, let alone food for their kids. To achieve the goal of lowering the cost of living, Parliament should use our tax in a useful and effective way and build public housing or lower tax prices and the cost of basic necessities, especially food. On the path we are headed, prices of rent, food and day to day items in 10 years will be unachievable to afford. If you consider my ideas, I hope the future of my community will be more liveable and possibly reduce the amount of homelessness in my town. I hope you think about what I have to say. Thank you. The second speech is from a very young person who lives in my home electorate of Macnamara, in the inner-south of Melbourne: Hello, My name is Yuvraj and I am 11 years old. I live in Port Melbourne, the Macnamara electorate. I would like to address the issue of gender inequality. Imagine a scenario where your brother or sister is favoured by your parents and they get more toys, more attention. It wouldn't feel fair, would it? This is similar to what many women in Australia experience today. On average, for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 20 cents less for the same work. This is gender inequality. But it doesn't stop at paychecks. It shows up in stereotypes too, like the idea that "Boys can't cook" or "Girls can't play sports." These outdated beliefs limit opportunities for everyone, and it doesn't belong in a modern society like ours. It is the government's job to stop these unfair practices but they don't. Is that the future we want? Would you feel proud to live in a country where half the population is held back by inequality? In ten years, I want to live in an Australia that has moved beyond these old ideas. An Australia that sets an example for the rest of the world, where gender equality isn't just a goal, but a reality. Small steps like ensuring equal pay for equal work can make a big difference. Remember, without raindrops there are no oceans, and without steps, there can be no stairs. Let us take these steps together and finish gender inequality from Australia. And I think there's a very proud mum watching on as well. They were two terrific speeches written by two future leaders of our country, Ella and Yuvraj. I give a big thankyou to all of the young people across the country who took part in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament initiative. What's clear from reading the numerous submissions is that the cost of living, gender inequality, climate change and housing are the key issues being felt by young people right across the country. They are also the issues upon which Labor continues to opt for incrementalism instead of the ambition that our young people expect and deserve. The Greens will continue to push the government to show urgently needed leadership on the issues that matter most to young people. We will continue to campaign to lower the age for you to vote and to have more of a say in the future that you will inherit. Thank you, Ella, Yuvraj and every other person who is watching this speech. Your leadership inspires me, and I'm proud to have brought your voices to our parliament today. Housing 33 12:43 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania When Labor came to government at the last election, we inherited a housing crisis the likes of which Australia had not seen before. Not only were Australians on a modest income finding it increasingly difficult to afford their own home, but, also, many Australians were struggling to pay rent. The crisis was brought about, in part, by almost a decade of neglect from a government which washed its hands of action on housing affordability. It takes time to make up for a decade of neglect, but on this side we're getting on with the job. Our $32 billion Homes for Australia plan includes initiatives aimed at making it easier for Australians to build, rent or buy a house. Contrast our decisive actions with the neglect of the previous government. It's worth noting that the first disbursement from our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will facilitate the construction of more than 13,000 social and affordable homes, more than the opposition delivered after almost a decade in government. Sadly, building these houses has been delayed because the legislation to enable the Housing Australia Future Fund was held up for months in the Senate by the opposition and the Greens. Now they are up to the same old tricks, blocking and delaying our build-to-rent and Help to Buy schemes. These schemes are not on their own a silver bullet to help solve the housing affordability crisis, but they are part of an overall package and they will make life easier for many Australians trying to rent or buy their own home. The coalition's alternative, having Australians raid their superannuation to buy a home, has been roundly rejected by experts and affordable housing advocates. A report by independent economist Saul Eslake found that Mr Dutton's 'super for homes' policy would make homes more expensive, hinder the home ownership aspirations of young Australians, reduce retirement incomes and lead to a significant long-term cost to the budget. Most voters I speak to are unsurprised by the coalition's stance. A decade of inaction in government showed that those opposite never cared about Australians trying to afford to rent or buy a home. But many former Greens voters have told me they are shocked and disgusted by the party they once supported and will never vote Green again. They can't believe that the Greens would stand in the way of helping more low- and middle-income Australians own their own home or that they would block and delay measures to build more social and affordable homes. What these voters find especially outrageous is that the Greens' actions are not aimed at helping renters and prospective homeowners but at mobilising supporters and winning Labor seats. We know this because the Greens housing spokesperson, Mr Chandler-Mather, revealed it in an article in February last year. The Greens say they want to negotiate, but they have not put forward a single amendment or suggestion as to how we can improve the Help to Buy Bill. Instead, they are insisting that we adopt policies of theirs that are unrelated to the bill. One of their misguided policies they want us to consider is rent caps, a policy which, as I've already reminded them in previous speeches in this place, has been tried and has failed in other jurisdictions around the world and which even affordable housing advocates say will make the situation worse for struggling renters. A recent Essential poll published in the Guardian shows that not only are the Greens out of touch with mainstream Australia but also they are out of touch with their own supporters. The poll found that 48 per cent of Australians believe that the Greens and the coalition should pass the government's Help to Buy Bill and build-to-rent bill. Only 22 per cent disagreed, with 30 per cent undecided. Of Greens voters, a majority, 55 per cent, believe the bills should be passed, with only 21 per cent in favour of blocking them. While the Greens claim to care about housing affordability, their actions have resulted in fewer affordable homes being built and fewer Australians owning their own home. In the case of the Help to Buy Scheme, the Greens are standing in the way of 40,000 low- and middle-income Australians and their families who would not otherwise be able to afford a home owning one with a lower deposit and lower mortgage repayments. It's time. It's time for the Greens and the coalition to get out of the way and let Labor get on with building more affordable housing and helping more Australians own their own homes. It's time to stop the political games and stop the campaigning. It's time for the Greens to stop using the tactic as a campaign tool. The evidence shows that it has backfired on them, that people are not going to support them. If they want to continue on that way, be it on their own heads. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 34 12:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia This week marks Youth Voice in Parliament Week. This is a wonderful initiative aimed at providing the next generation with the opportunity to feel heard in their nation's parliament on the issues that they feel passionately about. So far, it's led to 216 young Australians having their voices amplified through this parliament. More than half of the participants said that it was their first engagement with Australian politics or a politician. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank Raise Our Voice Australia for the work that they have done to help young people, particularly young women, to engage with politics and feel confident in doing so. This not only strengthens our democracy but also, hopefully, encourages the next generation of Australians to put up their hand and seek to represent their community in the parliament. I also, at this time, give a shout-out to the Parliamentary Education Office, who do an amazing job of taking the parliament into our schools and also bringing our schools into the parliament. This year's speech topic from Raise Our Voice Australia was: 'What do you want your community to look like in the next 10 years, and what can the next parliament do to achieve it?' In answer to this, the following speech was written by Grace, a young woman from my home state of South Australia: My name is Grace, and I am a 17-year-old. The scarcity of dignified employment and the shortage of specialist services in our fragmented healthcare system have had a profound impact on my family, myself, and many Australians. I've had to rely on temporary steroid treatments while waiting nine months to see a specialist. Our healthcare system frequently opts for short-term solutions without tackling the root causes of long waiting lists. This unsustainable approach affects the welfare of all Australians and must be addressed to build the ideal community I envision for the next decade. In South Australia, we face a severe shortage of nurses, with some managing up to six patients simultaneously. This excessive workload endangers patient safety and prevents nurses from delivering the quality care every Australian deserves. This situation leaves me, a 17-year-old Australian, feeling hopeless, unsupported, and unheard—a sentiment that extends beyond my personal experience to my entire community. Honourable members of Parliament, I urge you to take decisive action on these critical issues in the coming years. We need increased funding to boost staffing and resources, measures to shorten waiting times for specialist care, enhanced training for healthcare professionals, and expanded palliative care services. Let us work together to create a healthcare system that delivers timely, high-quality care for both patients and healthcare workers. The well-being of our families, communities, and future generations depends on it. Thank you. I firstly congratulate Grace on her really thoughtful and thought-provoking words, and thank her for the opportunity to read her speech out in the parliament today. It was absolutely worthy of being committed to the parliamentary record of all time. I also thank her for her passion on the need to improve our healthcare system in Australia for the benefit of patients, healthcare workers and the whole Australian community. Grace has shared with me that her interest in politics began with reading the newspaper alongside her nonno. It's a privilege to be part of her continued engagement with politics through the Raise Our Voice campaign. I have no doubt she will have a bright future ahead of her. She has raised the issue of our healthcare system that too often focuses on the short term instead of looking at long-term solutions to address the challenges that we currently are facing—challenges like severe workforce shortages, including of doctors and nurses; difficulties in accessing healthcare advice; and the increasing pressure on our already overrun hospitals. There needs to be real action to ensure that all Australian patients have access to the care they need when they need it and where they need it. I'm a strong believer that in order to ensure Australians can access timely and affordable healthcare we must focus on primary care and identify ways in which we can reduce avoidable interactions with our hospitals and our healthcare system. In pursuit of long-term solutions, I believe that prevention and early intervention is key. I'd like to assure Grace that I am focused on how we can shift our system away from one that only responds to ill health to one that is focused on achieving good health among our wider community. Creating a healthy Australia has far-reaching benefits for our health system and for Australia's economy and social outcomes more generally. Importantly, it would reduce the pressure on the system's resources and ensure Australians have timely access to the essential healthcare they need when they need it. I also agree with Grace that the current workforce crisis is one of the key issues underlying the challenges facing our healthcare system right now. Workforce shortages are impacting on almost every area of the system, and it's something that the government must take action on. That is why, as an example, the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, announced plan to invest $400 million to incentivise junior doctors to train as GPs in the community, providing incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements and prevocational training. This will ensure junior doctors who pursue training as GPs in the community are not financially worse off compared to doctors who remain in the hospital environment. Junior doctors who enter general practice earn about three-quarters of the salary that counterparts do in hospitals, and this pay cap, along with the loss of paid leave, is often cited as one of the biggest disincentives when young people choose a career not in general practice. According to the RACGP, Australia's GP shortfall is expected to approach 11,000 doctors by 2031 as fewer medical graduates choose general practice as a speciality. We want to work with the RACGP and doctors across Australia to develop plans to ensure Australia has a strong pipeline of homegrown doctors to ensure Australians have affordable and timely access to essential health care. But I also acknowledge that the problem is widespread, including nurses and care workers, and that is why we will continue to call for a comprehensive strategy for the entire care sector. Australia needs a comprehensive, concerted and multifaceted approach to this problem. Otherwise, we will just keep on robbing Peter to pay Paul as siloed incentives and programs across the country move workforce from one location to another. We know this is impacting Australians in rural and regional Australia more than anywhere else. I will continue to call on government to take real action to protect all Australians' access to essential health care for the benefit of our entire nation. Finally, I want to thank Grace for her considered contribution to an important issue for so many Australians. I hope that one day you will have the honour and privilege that I currently have: being a member of this parliament and providing yourself the opportunity to put forward your very considered approach on policy decisions to make sure that your voice and the voices of young Australians are the future of this country. 12:56 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Three years ago I promised to hound those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I will continue to do so. Here's the latest evidence of COVID-19 being the crime of the century, taken from new, peer-reviewed, published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, FIRN conducts a limited literature review of the progression and reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events, or SAE, in scientific journals, finding: 'The literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgement of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024. These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis.' FIRN said, 'This warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risk, because social and economic considerations often influence.' Why has it taken three years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer-reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks. All the big pharma research money, grants, fake conferences and lavish destinations are a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke, cracks are finally appearing. That's why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced: to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser. Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines. There's so much in recent published science that most people are unaware of because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here are the recent top 10 reasons to lock the bastards up. There is the Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety, finding FISA falsified and misrepresented data. There is the Facsova study. A study of 99 million doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis and cerebral thrombosis, and the study extend only for 42 days after each dose, yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. The Fraiman study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections. The Benn study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Lataster's study highlighted counting window failures—that is, how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the first week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after six weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. The Raethke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately one per 400 people—astonishing! Mostert's study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. Lataster's study from the University of Sydney, who provided input to this speech, demonstrated there are correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths and found that COVID injections increased the chance of COVID-19 infection and even the chance of COVID-19 death. The Furst study provided evidence that a healthy vaccine participant bias is at play. They only studied healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations. This brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Kobbe and others. It studied children five to 11 years old one year after they had taken Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing an elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire lives. Published on 30 July 2024 in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had two Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study following healthy kids through two doses of vaccinations, with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections. I'll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct by third COVID inquiry called 'COVID under trial' with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers and politicians, which will be held before cross-party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime's perpetrators, and I will do exactly that. Australian Society 36 13:01 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Australia is the best country in the world—our quality of life, the freedoms we hold dear, the opportunities to succeed regardless of our background, and the spirit of fairness. The fair go and mateship are unique to us. I also choose to believe that the ideals are still held dear by the majority of mainstream Australia. But what about the state of our politics in this country in 2024? A recent survey found that only 37 per cent of Australians are satisfied with our politics or democracy. I recently visited a local school in Launceston and spoke to students about Australia's democracy to determine their views. I was impressed at their ability to articulate a viewpoint, but I was taken aback when I asked them who the Prime Minister of Australia was and who the Leader of the Opposition was. Their hands shot up for the first question, and the students said 'Anthony Albanese'. We need to do better to talk to our kids about Australia's democracy, how our parliamentary system works and how our democracy functions day to day. When students are in year 10, we help them to produce a resume and we talk about the joy of tax returns, but we don't educate them about our local state and federal levels of government and that they have an obligation and, in fact, an opportunity to vote in all of these levels of government. We must teach the importance of having an opinion and turning it into a voice of reason. The discussion around the importance of Australian democracy and why it's so important to care for it is because we all benefit from a vibrant democracy. When we have a global conflict, as we do in the Middle East, and hateful protests are being held in Australia, we need to do better to care for our own democracy and to unite people rather than divide them, so we need to be mindful of the words that are used by community leaders and parliamentarians in this place and the other place. People have busy lives and competing interests. They're working. They've got to make choices in terms of where they get their news and information from, and people are now turning away—which is really sad—and making a conscious choice to not watch the nightly news or read their local newspapers because it's too depressing. Often people will tell me that they don't get their news from mainstream media anymore because it isn't positive or uplifting. This makes the work of leaders more difficult, and we need to use other forms of media and communication to reach out to the public and have them engage with us in positive ways. Continued negativity, misinformation and disinformation only weaken our public interest in politics and our democracy. Sometimes our politics through the media can turn mean and actually undermines the public trust in our democratic institutions, so the broader public switches off. People do not like to see nasty political attacks on each other. The media searching for that gotcha moment might be good for them, but it just undermines our democracy. That's why the general public, the media and politicians all need to work together to tender and look after our democracy. We are so lucky in this country that when we go to an election, whenever that is, there won't be anyone standing at the polling booths with a machine gun, making sure people can have entry to the polling booths. We have to guard that. We have to honour that. Most of all, we have to respect it. It's fine to have different views. That's what a democracy is all about. But what we really need to do is make sure that the governments in this country take care of that democracy and tender that garden of democracy and that the law will apply no matter who you are and where you're from. That misleading information and deceptive and unreasonable contributions that harm our society must be condemned. To see politicians and political parties using a crisis for their own political gain does not go down well with the Australian people. The more important— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Thank you, Senator Polley. Economy 37 13:07 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak about monetary policy and the need to reform our monetary policy system. I will be presenting a number of new policies that I think are needed to reform our system. Let me say that monetary policy is the key to a nation's sovereignty. Any country that uses foreign debt to fund its way of life is doomed to destroy itself. For too long, our RBA has allowed foreign debt to control our markets and dominate our capital markets instead of using domestic equity. That starts within the government itself. If I were to stand here today and say that I wanted to introduce a private member's bill that was going to block private companies from issuing new capital, I'd be rightly laughed out of the chamber, yet that is the attitude we have toward our own government when it comes to building infrastructure. The 1937 banking royal commission—of which Ben Chifley, the former Labor Prime Minister, was a member—recommended that the central bank must always control the volume of credit in the system. That is something that in 1985 Paul Keating, when he relaxed capital controls, threw under the bus. I'm sure Ben Chifley must be rolling in his grave, because what has happened since then? In 1985, the four major banks had $8 billion in foreign debt. By 2008, they had $800 billion in foreign debt. That basically was lent against housing, which increased the price of housing to double the price of houses relative to income. That has led to much poverty and hardship amongst hardworking Australians. If we want to deal with capital in this country, we have to stop relying just on the one monetary policy lever of qualitative easing—that is, where we change the price of money on the first Tuesday of every month. Listening to the discussion amongst the major parties talking about how many boards the RBA has got or should have is like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Instead of talking about qualitative easing and how many boards the RBA should have, we need to look at two other levers that are very important when it comes to managing monetary policy. One is quantitative easing through the use of infrastructure bonds, which, from a government perspective, is no different to a private company issuing new shares. If you have equity in a company, you're entitled to issue new shares to raise new money. As a sovereign country, we have title over this country. We're entitled to issue new shares in the form of infrastructure bonds against seven sovereign assets. They are: dams, power stations, road, rail, ports, airports and telecommunications. If we were to set up an infrastructure bank in this country, which is one of the policies I'm proposing, the infrastructure bank could then issue infrastructure bonds to the state and federal governments to build that much-needed critical infrastructure. We need to use that method because that way we would retain the wealth generated from those assets in this country. What we do currently is, if we want to build a dam for a billion dollars, we will go and source that billion dollars in foreign debt offshore. That means that the first billion dollars we make in wealth from that dam has to be repaid offshore. If you're lucky, you might repay that debt over 25 years at four per cent. That's another billion dollars in interest that gets repaid offshore. So at least 200 per cent of the cost to capital goes offshore because we pay another country to use their printing press. That type of capital management is doomed to impoverish our children. Our forefathers fought for that right, for that untapped wealth in this country. It is wealth for toil. We have title over that untapped wealth and we have to retain it here. But not only should we have an infrastructure bank as part of our monetary policy; we should also restore a public bank and a government insurance office. Since the CBA was privatised, we have seen an alarming number of bank branches close, not just in the regions but in metropolitan areas as well. There are many sectors of the community that rely on bank branches to do their banking, whether it be for cash or face-to-face services. Our regional communities and our retirees don't want to use internet banking. I think that banking is an essential service, like health and education. We should by all means have private banks, but we should have a public bank as a backstop. The other thing we need is a government insurance office. Since the state governments privatised their insurance offices we have seen insurance premiums rise by double-digit figures year on year. We have seen many Australians unable to obtain insurance. I would rather have a government insurance office than waste $10 billion on a reinsurance pool that will end up in the pockets of foreign multinationals. World Egg Day 37 13:12 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I'm really excited about the industry I'm celebrating today, so let's get cracking. This Friday, 11 October, is World Egg Day, and I'm giving a shout-out to our 'egg-ceptional' Australian egg industry and the farmers associated with that great product. Aussie egg farmers produce 18.9 million eggs each day. That's an 'eggs-traordinary' 6.68 billion eggs every single year. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CICCONE 281503 I'm hearing laughs around the chamber. Thank you for that. Per capita egg consumption grew from 262 eggs in 2021-22 to 263 eggs in 2022-23, with an average egg weighing around 58 grams. This equates to 15 kilograms of eggs per person per year. The people in the gallery are probably wondering, 'Really, am I eating that many eggs?' There are three main egg-farming systems used in Australia: free-range, caged and barn-laid. Free-range egg production has grown significantly over the last 15 years and now accounts for 56 per cent of all grocery retail sales. However, there remains very strong demand for caged and barn-laid eggs as an affordable source of high-protein product that everyone can enjoy all year round. The industry benefits our economy, or 'egg-onomy', to the value of $1.8 billion each year, and it's a figure we simply can't 'egg-nore'. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CICCONE 281503 My team was worried about my delivery of this speech. They don't really think I'm that extremely funny! But this year's World Egg Day theme is United by Eggs, which is appropriate because eggs are a staple in the lives of many Australians—and we would have seen that throughout COVID. Eggs are found in cultures and cuisines across the world. Boiled, scrambled, poached, fried or even baked—whichever way you might have them—there are many ways we consume our eggs here in Australia. From omelettes and quiches to frittatas and cakes, they form the basis of many 'egg-cellent' dishes. Let me explain why they're so good. An average egg contains 74 calories. They are packed with protein and 13 essential vitamins and minerals. In addition to the nutritional benefits, egg production has one of the lowest carbon footprints of any food protein. One of the largest contributors to our wonderful egg sector is my home state—and yours, Senator McKenzie—of Victoria. We have many wonderful egg and chicken producers right across the state. On a serious note, to mark World Egg Day 2024, I'm 'egging' you all on. Let's say thanks to our 'eggs-tra' special egg farmers, who supply our homes, shops, factories, restaurants and hospitality sector with fresh eggs all year round. I know there are also many who are currently experiencing challenges this year, with outbreaks of influenza. I want to say: good luck, enjoy the year and I look forward to supporting our wonderful egg industry right across the country. First Nations Australians 38 13:15 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today I wish to send a message of love and solidarity to First Nations women, girls, sister girls, brother boys and gender-diverse people who have been disappeared and murdered since the invasion of this country. It is a gross injustice that First Peoples keep having to say goodbye to our loved ones after they are taken by violence. This violence is felt the most by those in our communities who are black and brown and by our women, sister girls and brother boys. In the words of Dr Amy McQuire: Violence is one of the key stories told of Aboriginal communities, and yet Aboriginal women are silenced in these conversations, seen as without agency or as bodies on which acts of violence are perpetrated. In this way, the active resistances of Aboriginal women throughout their lives, and the resistances of their families, their communities and their personhood, are disappeared. To speak is to speak an end to an unsafe space in which these violences are continually weaponised against whole communities … I know firsthand that staying silent only lets violence and the status quo continue. The racial and gendered violence against our women and girls today is the same colonial violence that began with the first invasion and the Frontier Wars. The root cause of disappeared and murdered First Nations people is the colonial system of white supremacy. This system is enforced by police, courts, predators and media. Together, they have created a culture where those in power get to decide whose life is worth protecting. It means that some people get to do what they like without any consequences while others live in fear. The police do not protect us. The biggest risk factor for First Peoples being murdered or going missing is being policed. If we want to stop the Indigenous femicide in this country, we have to listen to black women and we have to address racism and white supremacy in this place and the way in which violence is inflicted differently on people of colour, women and gender-diverse people. As said by Professor Chelsea Watego: Grieving families are not asking you to keep better count of our dead, or seeking commemorations and condolences for our losses … families want justice for racial and gendered violence against Indigenous women. These families want accountability and safety for our communities now. Impacted First Nations women, girls and their families have always spoken out and will always speak out about this injustice and the silencing of black voices. They must be acknowledged as the experts they are. It is time to do the real work and be guided by First Peoples in finally taking action to end the disappearing and murdering and allow us to heal. We need to move beyond police, prisons and surveillance, which ignore the fact that the only way to make communities safe for everyone is to support community based restorative approaches that exist outside of the carceral system. Unless we address the underlying causes that contribute to the ongoing violence against First Nations women, girls and gender-diverse people, we will keep going around in circles while people continue dying. This means addressing social, economic, cultural, institutional and historical causes. It means holistic self-determined solutions that include housing, health care, education, legal services and other supports. I want to finish by acknowledging that Darwin's queer and Tiwi communities are currently in mourning after the death of a sistergirl. May she rest in power. Crystal Love, an aunty and the matriarch of the Tiwi sistergirls, said: We are living in a world that is all messed up … she was good person, a kind person. She had a good life, she had family and friends who love her, our communities that love her, but it was just tragic, because … sometimes some people have bigger dreams, she had those. Cost of Living 39 13:20 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Since the Albanese government came to power in 2022, our quality of life has taken an absolute battering. They promised us cheaper power bills, cheaper mortgages, transparency and accountability. How is that going for everyone? Transparency is being replaced with censorship, and accountability is being replaced with secrecy. We were told, I remember, that it wouldn't be easy under Prime Minister Albanese. They were right when they told us that, but did anyone really expect it to be this bad? Our quality of life is in a downward spiral compared to what it was before this government took office. Let's check into a day in the life of Joe Citizen. Though Joe Citizen's blood pressure is perfectly fine, he still suffers chronic panic every time he goes to the supermarket. Joe pushes his trolley of groceries up to the check-out, only to find out that he needs to take a second job just to pay for his daily essentials. And he would take a second job and sacrifice his weekends and time with his family, because he's really that desperate. Joe Citizen never imagined his energy bill would be so high, because he was promised a $275-a-year reduction. Instead, it's gone up and up and up, and then it went up some more. It's almost like every time the government subsidises another wind turbine, Joe Citizen is less able to afford lighting, heating, food or a treat for his kids. He is not sure anymore, but he believes Prime Minister Albanese and his government when they promise that, if they can just cover a few more hundred acres of prime agricultural land with solar panels, all his problems will be solved. The assurance by the government that, if it weren't for them, Joe Citizen's power bill would have gone up even more is cold comfort when the original promise was that his bill was going to come down. Mortgages were supposed to be cheaper too, but Joe Citizen has watched in disbelief as rates have gone up, not once, not twice, but 13 times. He wonders how Australia came to this. He wonders: 'Are we still the lucky country? How did it change so dramatically in just a few years?' 'Go woke, go broke'—there is perhaps no phrase more accurate than this one. His savings have all but disappeared as he's tried to keep up with the increased payments, and he's now regularly on the phone to his bank, pleading for more time to make good. What about our Treasurer, Treasurer Chalmers? Well, he's even less help. While Joe Citizen desperately needed mortgage relief, the Treasurer was busy blaming the Reserve Bank for Joe Citizen's woes, and the Reserve Bank was busy blaming the Treasurer for Joe Citizen's woes. The government that promised to be interested in the welfare of Joe Citizen is a lot more interested in its own welfare. Joe has become collateral damage as the government pursues its ideologically driven pet policies on immigration, net zero, censorship and big government. Whatever optimism that Joe Citizen had when Prime Minister Albanese came to office is now gone. It's been eroded by one broken promise after another. He no longer recognises his own country. In fact, he has to be welcomed to this place every darn week, and he is sick of it. There is more chance of the Australian Greens embracing free-market capitalism or conservative, right-leaning values than there is of rate relief, lower taxes, a drop in power prices or affordable groceries. Unfortunately, that is Prime Minister Albanese's Australia. As for poor old Joe Citizen, he cannot wait for an election to be called, and you can be sure that, more than ever, he will be voting 1 UAP when the time comes. Joe Citizen—do you know what?—has had enough. Joe Citizen, you at home, vote 1 UAP. Parliamentary Representation 39 13:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Here I am, colleagues, with five minutes of unlooked-for opportunity to reflect upon the conduct of the Senate this week. I'm not sure what was funnier: Senator Babet's predictably weird contribution on modern Australian politics from the internet fringes or Senator Ciccone's 'egg-cellent' contribution about the very important contribution that egg production makes to the Australian chicken industry—no 'poultry' contribution at all! It is not a 'yolking' matter, the contribution that egg production makes for us. The standing orders often try and restrain me from doing things, but I respect the standing orders, and I won't make a contribution about the two pieces of legislation that are before the Senate and the Australian parliament this week—the Future Made in Australia legislation and the Help to Buy legislation. I won't make a contribution about those two pieces of legislation except to say that it is the increasing pattern of this place that bills that are in the national interest are delayed and defied by a coalition that we see emerging here of the Greens political party and the Liberal and National parties. There are genuine Australian progressives frustrated by what's happening in the world and concerned for the environment who voted for the Australian Greens in the Senate. That's their democratic right in our system. What they didn't realise was that, when they voted for the Greens, they got Peter Dutton. That's the result, now, of voting for the Greens political party. You vote for the Greens; you get Peter Dutton and Barnaby Joyce. There are well-meaning conservatives who can't break the habit of a lifetime and who have been voting Liberal or National their whole lives. Senator Cadell 300134 Good people! Senator AYRES 16913 They're good people, Senator Cadell, who are just starting to figure out that, when you vote Liberal or National, you get Adam Bandt and Senator Faruqi and Senator McKim and Senator Waters. That's what you get. There is an army of Greens members of parliament in the other place who are only there for one reason: Mr Dutton and the Queensland LNP decided they would make sure that they got there. For people who vote Liberal or National, it's even worse. They've got Peter Dutton, the most extreme right-wing leader of the Liberal Party in Australian political history, a party that has drifted so far from its economic, moral and political philosophy that it is dominated by an increasingly extreme, increasingly influential and increasingly spooky and weird backbench. I'm not looking at anybody in particular, Senator Antic. It's an opposition that hasn't come to grips with opposition. It hasn't come to grips with the defeat that it incurred in the last election, hasn't learned from that defeat and is continuing as 'Morrison's leftovers'. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 It being 1.30 pm, we will now proceed to two-minute statements. Bhutanese Australians 40 13:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Throughout the 1990s, the Bhutanese government expelled approximately 100,000 Bhutanese citizens of Nepalese descent who were Hindu people. In the wake of political and religious tensions, they were forced to move into refugee camps in Nepal. The Bhutanese Australian community are hardworking contributors to Australian society. They are grateful to Australia for affording them the opportunity to rebuild their lives after devastating displacement, as well as for the opportunity to provide for their families, contribute to society and secure a safer and more prosperous future for their children. Although the experience of the expulsion lingers in their memories, they have pressed on with admirable fortitude in this land. In light of the imminent visit to Australia this week of His Majesty the King of Bhutan, I want to take this opportunity to humbly convey the earnest desire of members of the Bhutanese Australian community who simply seek to return as visitors to their homeland in a spirit of peace, reconciliation and goodwill. I've no doubt that His Majesty the King is aware of these hopes and sentiments, and I've made some overtures to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to have those conveyed. These people are not seeking to have their citizenship restored; they simply hope to return as visitors and reconnect with the land that previous generations of their families lived on. Hopefully, humanitarian pathways can be opened in light of this royal visit so that these great Bhutanese Australians can return as visitors to their homeland. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 40 13:31 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I rise today to make a contribution on behalf of Callum and the Raise Our Voice campaign. I'll read some words from him: My name is Callum. I'm 17 years old and I'm living in the Nicholls electorate. Over the next decade, I envision a Victoria with affordable cost of living for residents regardless of background or income. Inflation has made life difficult, with rising prices on groceries, rent and everyday necessities. This issue affects not just me, but my friends, family, and everyone in our community. It's crucial that we create a future where people can live comfortably without constantly worrying about how they'll make ends meet. Investing in renewable energy infrastructure would cut power bills for households strained by costs. Supporting small local businesses and farmers through tax incentives or subsidies could lessen our dependence on imports and other inflated costs. Improving financial education in schools would equip the public with skills for budgeting wisely in unpredictable economic times. These strategies, among others, hold promise for relieving cost pressures and strengthening community well-being. In closing, taming inflation must be a top priority for policymakers dedicated to building a just and sustainable society for all. I urge our representatives to pursue practical solutions and work towards a Victoria where every resident can live without undue financial stress. Together, through compassion and innovation, we can fight to ensure future prosperity remains within reach of every member of our community. Callum, I just want to say thank you very much for your contribution to the Raise Our Voice campaign. Rest assured that the Albanese Labor government is committed every day to relieving cost-of-living pressures on every Australian. Thank you for contributing to the debate. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 41 13:33 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I have the privilege of reading this speech written by Konan, a young Tasmanian, as part of the 2024 Raise Our Voice in parliament campaign. My name is Konan, and I'm from the Franklin electorate in Tasmania. In the next 10 years, I want the absurd hypocrisy in my community and in the Tasmanian Government to change. Politicians and citizens claim that they absolutely love living in Tasmania, amongst the vital ecosystems that help us thrive in countless different ways. We are known to have unique native species and some of the most carbon dense forests on the planet, yet native forest logging is the HIGHEST EMITTING SECTOR in the Tasmanian economy. To get a grasp on the scale of this issue, 40% of all native forest log volume in Australia comes from Tasmania, which is more than WA, NSW and Queensland combined. Some might argue that it provides jobs for Tasmanians, but figures from 2021 show that just under 1% of all Tasmanian jobs come from the logging industry. It's crystal clear that cons from native forest logging overwhelmingly outweigh the positives. So let's end this hypocrisy, and end native forest logging. Hear, hear, Konan. I couldn't agree more with you. Thanks for defending our native forests, thanks for your moral clarity and thanks for raising your voice for Tasmania's magnificent, carbon-dense native forests and all the amazing creatures in them. North Stoneville 41 13:35 Senator 250216 Western Australia REYNOLDS () (): Thank you. I rise today to stand with the people of the Perth Hills, who have been completely betrayed by this government in approving the North Stoneville development. Actions speak much louder than words, and, despite the federal member for Hasluck, Tania Lawrence MP, publicly stating she opposes this development, her Labor mates have given the green lights to this most appalling of developments. Let the record be very clear on this. The previous Liberal government listened to the community and, due to serious environmental concerns, did not approve the development. The current member for Hasluck's desperate claims that the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act is outdated is nothing but a stunt. Bizarrely, she and the Labor candidate for Bullwinkel last week blamed John Howard, who has not been in government for 20 years. Talk about the dog eating my homework! She also claimed that Labor's hands were tied by the current laws, but the truth is Labor did have a choice. This is all from the same minister who is trying to ram through the industry-killing Nature Positive Plan legislation while Labor at the same time is endorsing a high-density housing project that will fell 60,000 trees, destroying endangered species habitat and creating a deathtrap in a bushfire-prone area. Now, Minister Plibersek has the authority not to approve this project, but she did—and why now? Why do this before an election? I can tell you there is a lot of speculation about why she did. Together with Matt Moran, the Liberal candidate for Bullwinkel, and Adam Hort, the Liberal candidate for Kalamunda, we stand with the Perth Hills community. I can tell you what: the Perth Hills residents will not forget Labor's betrayal, and the fight continues. (Time expired) Youth Voice in Parliament Week 41 13:37 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm also rising in the Senate today to read out one of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament speeches. This speech is from Evelyn. She's 15 years old. She says: My name is Evelyn, I am 15, and I live in the Groom electorate in Queensland. I am advocating for an issue that is surrounded with far too much stigma and ignorance; youth mental health. In 10 years, I want all young people to have access to mental health services no matter where they are or who they are. I want the Australian government to ensure that charities and organisations that strive to create a safe space for teens to be themselves and learn about mental health are well-funded and accessible. By expanding and supporting these valuable assets we can make mental health care more accessible, especially for those in rural areas. The well-being of young people is not just a personal concern but a societal imperative. Fixing youth mental health is not a task for any individual or organisation— it requires a collective effort. Our commitment to these efforts will not only support the current generation but also lay the groundwork for a healthier, more resilient future. We must work together to invest in the mental health of our young people, for in doing so, we are investing in the future of our society. Thank you, Evelyn, for your speech and for allowing me to read it in the Senate today. I'm always so impressed by the young people that I meet in rural and regional Queensland, and sharing your speech today about the importance of youth mental health has given me an opportunity to reflect on the things that our government can do to support young people in rural and regional Queensland. I look forward to working with you in the future. United Nations Pact for the Future 42 13:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last week the United Nations passed its Pact for the Future. Before the pact can come into effect in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has to do an inquiry, and then both houses of parliament vote for ratification. The public have time to bring to heal the globalists running the Albanese Labor government. The pact is a comprehensive wish list for world governance with no detail and no implementation plan. There are 56 bold actions—really, they're fluffy motherhood statements. For example, action 2, which I will quote in full, is: Action 2. We will place the eradication of poverty at the centre of our efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda. 21. Eradicating poverty, in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is an imperative for all humankind. We decide to: (a) Take comprehensive and targeted measures to eradicate poverty by addressing the multidimensional nature of poverty, including through rural development strategies and investments and innovations in the social sector, especially education and health; (b) Take concrete actions to prevent people from falling back into poverty, including by establishing well-designed, sustainable and efficient social protection systems for all that are responsive to shocks. That's the entire section on eliminating poverty. It looks like the AI author trained only on children's picture books. Do you remember Labor's failed slogan: 'By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty'? The pact is not a pandemic treaty. The word 'pandemic' is not mentioned. COVID is not mentioned. The World Health Organization is not mentioned. There are no penalty clauses for noncompliance. There is no dispute clause, because the pact does not include anything tangible enough to dispute. In the formal vote to adopt, 45 nations opposed it or abstained. What happens now is that our globalist government will sign up to any and every theft of Australian sovereignty it can while saying, 'The United Nations made me do it.' No, the United Nations did not. Whatever nefarious attack on agriculture, standard of living, education and human rights the government is planning is entirely this government's responsibility. Superannuation: Public Servants 42 13:41 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to call out the bureaucratic defined benefits scheme in Canberra, the federal bureaucratic defined pensions scheme. According to modelling from the finance department a few years ago—I suspect this figure is actually much larger today—the total cost for approximately 164,000 retired bureaucrats who've worked in Canberra, all of whom would've had a very good salary and very good conditions, is approximately $335 billion. With the retirement of David Anderson from the ABC, it has recently come to light that his final salary was estimated to be approximately $1.1 million or $1.2 million, and in retirement he is entitled to approximately 37 per cent of his final income every year. If you work that out, someone who's been on over a million dollars courtesy of the Australian taxpayer for the last five or six years is now, in retirement, going to get over $400,000 a year until he passes away. Now, Mr Anderson isn't much older than me—I'm led to believe he's about 55 years old—but for the life of me I cannot see how we can justify paying these ridiculous gold-plated pension schemes in retirement. According to this modelling, there are 40,000 retired public servants, all of whom get more than $75,000 a year, at an estimated total cost of $137 billion. That is completely unsustainable, and it is unfair to the Australian taxpayer, who each will at best get a pension of approximately $25,000 or $26,000, and that's only on the condition that they have assets of less than $312,000 if they're a single pensioner. The defined benefits scheme needs to be means tested. (Time expired) Parliamentary Representation 43 13:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Australians are in the midst of many crises. We're being extorted by supermarkets, while the memory of the Australian dream of homeownership is increasingly distant. We have two major parties that have focus-grouped themselves into a state of legislative fear. We have a Prime Minister who uses disability to mock his opponents in the chamber while passing laws to cut the NDIS. Simply put, years of the Labor and Liberal duopoly have, like Coles and Woolworths, made the political environment less competitive, meaning consumers—the Australian people—are left with two mediocre options. This is not to last, however. Over the past 15 years, the combined major-party vote has fallen nearly 20 per cent. Almost a third of Australians acknowledged at the last election that preferential voting allows them to offer their vote to minor parties and Independents who represent them better than the majors do, without the danger of wasting their vote. But who will speak for these Australians? Who will stand up to the duopoly and push the government of the day to remember that they aren't here for themselves and are here for Australians? They need a voice, and Australia's Voice will be that voice. We will speak up for everyday Australians so they can get a better deal on changes for things like housing affordability, through adjustments to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. These changes and many more are what Australians are crying out for, but, as usual with the major parties, politics comes before people. Conversely, in my travels around WA, I haven't met anyone who has told me how glad they are that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are being sent overseas to build hypothetical submarines in the decades to come. It's time for Australia's voice to be heard. (Time expired) Youth Voice in Parliament Week 43 13:45 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'm using my time today to read out a speech written by Rachael, a young person from a WA. Rachel submitted this speech to the Raise Our Voice campaign. They said: The past 8 years of my life have been plagued by various mental health conditions. Whilst I am new on the road to recovery, there have been periods filled with revolving door psychiatric admissions and medical admissions for my anorexia. Throughout my experience, I have been subject to countless instances of medical malpractice, neglect, verbal abuse and other horrors, the extent of which cannot be conveyed through words. I have been repeatedly let down by a system that is not equipped to support me as someone for whom cookie-cutter approaches have not worked and have consequently been labelled as a 'failure', and 'too complex'. My plea to you is to prioritise mental health and address the appalling lack of funding, education and resources we dedicate to this issue—with a particular focus on eating disorders. Instead of following an outdated medical model, platform the voices of those with lived experience—such as myself. We need to incorporate those who have knowledge beyond the textbook and take action to avoid not only the financial burden caused by repeated admissions that achieve more harm than good, but also to maintain human decency and dignity. Thank you, Rachael, for sharing your lived experience with us today. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 43 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Can someone tell me again why Australian taxpayers fork out more than a billion dollars a year to fund the ABC? In this day and age of wall-to-wall information, surely the need for a national broadcaster is long past. Not only do the overwhelming majority of Australians not watch the ABC, but most of them are appalled that so much of their money is being frittered away supporting what is, in my opinion, garbage. Far from serving the national interest, far too often the ABC seems to be actively working against the national interest. I've got some examples of this; we're sadly spoilt for choice unfortunately. What about this one? The ABC tell the Pacific islands all the time that they are disappearing into the sea thanks to Australian emissions. Obviously that's a lie. The ABC's anti-Western agenda is never-ending. They continually tell us that our country is inherently racist. Nothing better highlighted the disconnect between Australians and the activists at the ABC than what we saw last week, when an ABC journalist asked the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Dutton, why Hezbollah was listed as a terrorist organisation. Come on, guys! Granted, there are some people—not many but some—who enjoy listening and watching this sort of carry-on. You know what? Let them subscribe and pay. The Labor Party will never defund the ABC, of course, because the broadcaster, effectively, functions as their propaganda arm, but, if the next conservative government is serious about honouring taxpayers and about servicing the national interest, it will save the country a billion bucks a year—and a lot of heartache, might I add—by removing this media outlet from the national teat. Global Care 43 13:50 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I'd like to acknowledge today the work done by Global Care in Wyoming, in my patron seat of Dobell, on the New South Wales Central Coast. They are providing affordable groceries to families in need. This year I visited Global Care with the Liberal candidate for Dobell, Brendan Small. Families are able to pick out products laid out similar to a supermarket, allowing them to choose their own items rather than being told what they will get in a hamper. This provides dignity to the working poor who have been forced to use a service like this. A young mum came in whilst we were there, after feeding her family on vegemite sandwiches for over two weeks. She was in tears after spending just $15 and getting enough food to feed her family for nearly two weeks, including chicken and mince. Due to the current cost-of-living crisis, this organisation has gone from servicing around 200 families to now over 2,200 families in need. Operated by Rachael and Marcus McDonnell, Global Care Wyoming has served the coast for eight years. I'd like to thank them and their team of volunteers for their tireless service to the community, supporting the Central Coast community in one of the most challenging environments in which sustain a family that this country has seen in many, many decades. Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme 44 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, or TFES, reimburses businesses for shipping their goods across the Bass Strait. Don't get me wrong: many in my state think being separated from the mainland by a body of water is a good thing! But it also causes problems when it comes to us competing on a wider stage. The TEFS was established almost 50 years ago because Tassie businesses don't have the option to use road or rail transport across the 448 kilometres of water between Devonport and Geelong. I've worked with some farmers who pick and process their produce so they can get it to market still fresh, but, as hard as they work to get that fresh produce to you, it can take weeks or even months for those businesses to be reimbursed for their freight costs. Services Australia delivers the TEFS on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, a clunky process that probably makes it harder to work through than necessary. We know this scheme isn't broken, but it's out of date and not fit for purpose. Many of us here agree the TEFS is important and necessary, but there are ways it can be tweaked to support those businesses it was established to help. I've been worked with the committee and our secretariat to look at the history of the scheme, speak with stakeholders and arrange hearing dates. I'm pleased to say the first hearing is on Monday on King Island, and the committee is looking forward to seeing how the scheme impacts people there. More hearings will follow next month in Hobart, Launceston and Canberra. We want to know what works with the TEFS, what doesn't and how businesses see it can be improved. Then, we want to make those changes so Tasmanian businesses are competing on a level playing field. And I saw the dab; it was good! Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 44 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Let's talk about the violence black women experience every day in this colony. Nowhere is this more clear than in the way police in this country treat black women. Police do not believe us when we cry for help. They do not investigate our murders. Sometimes they are the murderers themselves. The police do not protect us. I saw this firsthand recently at a rally in Melbourne. My uncle Robbie and I were threatened by a person who is a known threat to me. He was in my face after I spoke on stage. The AFP, who were supposed to be protecting me, once again totally failed. They were asleep at the wheel. It was my community and fellow protesters who surrounded me, to help and protect me. I wish I didn't have to seek protection from the police—the very source of violence against our people—but I have had to have security measures in place after a string of terrorist threats from Nazis. The police regularly perpetrate violence against protesters standing up for human rights and against black and brown bodies, but they are incapable of protecting them. When our safety is threatened, they function to silence us. But I will not be silenced—not by the AFP, not by any police officer in this country, not by this government, not by anybody. The fact that a senator had a known perpetrator threaten her as she came off stage after a speech is not acceptable, and the AFP need to be held accountable. If it was a white senator, this would not happen. So where and when is the AFP going to be held accountable? (Time expired) Western Australia: Road Infrastructure 44 13:55 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Those that have been in this place for a while have no doubt heard about the project in Western Australia called Roe 8 and Roe 9. The federal and WA Liberal team have been longstanding advocates of this project, because, unlike those opposite, we understand the importance of safe and efficient road infrastructure within our communities. Despite WA Labor stopping this project after it had commenced in 2017 and the Albanese government wasting no time in removing the funding, Roe Highway will need to be extended one day because the volume of trucks that must use Leach Highway is getting out of hand. Another project that will alleviate significant traffic congestion and safety on Leach Highway is the Shelley Bridge widening project. This is a project to widen the Leach Highway from two lanes to three lanes where it crosses the bridge over the Canning River. This project is essential for local communities in Tangney and Swan. Every university student driving out of Willetton, Shelley, Riverton and beyond needs to travel over Shelley Bridge to Curtin University. Tradies, small business owners, kids on their way to school—thousands of Western Australians use this bridge every day. Removing the obvious bottleneck that is the Leach Highway over the Canning bridge will reduce commute times, increase productivity and, ultimately, make our roads safer. I want to acknowledge Howard Ong, the Liberal Party's excellent candidate in Tangney, for his outstanding work in advocating for this very important project. Science 45 13:57 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Australia is home to world-leading scientists, innovators, researchers and educators—people who work tirelessly to achieve groundbreaking innovation and who inspire the next generation. Among these exceptional people is Professor Matthew Bailes. He is this year's Prime Minister's Prize for Science winner, and he's from Swinburne University in my home state of Victoria. Victoria holds a proud legacy as a leader in science and technology. From the bionic ear to the world's first IVF pregnancy, we are at the forefront of cutting-edge research. Soon, Victoria will become home to the only mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility in the Southern Hemisphere. We are committed to supporting scientists and their teams to keep doing this vital work here in Australia. Professor Bailes has been a game changer in his field. He and his collaborators discovered the majority of the first 25 fast radio bursts and they now research gravitational waves from huge distant objects in the universe. His work is testament to the talent in Victoria, a state that consistently drives excellence in education, research and science. It doesn't take a scientist to see just how important this work is. Having innovative minds on our shores is crucial to our future. It will unlock the secrets of our universe, strengthen our economy and improve our lives. Our government believes in science. We are proud to support it. We are backing our scientists, our researchers and our educators. Congratulations again to Professor Bailes and, indeed, to all the winners of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science awarded last night. Parliament 45 13:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'd like to welcome the full gallery that we've got here. I know they're here for Senate question time, not because House of Reps question time happened earlier today. If you're a progressive voter who's voted Greens, this week you'll get to see that, if you vote Greens, you get Peter Dutton. If you've been a Liberal voter who's been voting Liberal your whole life, if you vote Liberal, you get Senator Faruqi and Mr Bandt. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time has expired. The 10000 Senator McGrath, I remind you that you often get the last 30 seconds. We'll now move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 45 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Business 45 14:00 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, what is the total number of company insolvencies since you came to government in 2022, and can you confirm whether this number has grown or shrunk over this period? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank the senator for the question. I don't have the numbers that the senator has asked for before me. There were some reports from COSBOA this morning in the media. We understand that many businesses are under the pump because of the result of higher interest rates and some of the challenges that we talk about in this chamber from time to time in relation to our economy. That's why the government has looked to find measures to support small business, including the energy bill relief. I note, from the media reports, that one of the most pressing challenges for business was energy costs, which is why we targeted that measure by giving every small business $325, from memory, to assist with some of those increasing costs. We're also responding to representations from COSBOA around investing in cyber preparedness and cybersecurity, as that has been identified by small business as another area of pressure for them. Senator GALLAGHER ING Cybersecurity, cyber resilience—Senator Ruston, thank you. I am talking to you about the ways the government is looking to support small business through some of the challenges that they have raised with us. They have raised energy, and we've responded to energy. They have raised cyber, and we're responding to cyber. On the instant asset write-off, the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses, that relief is helping. So we are focused on ensuring that we can support small business where we can. Insolvencies, unfortunately— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Kovacic, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Minister, ASIC statistics have revealed company insolvencies hit 11,053 in 2023-24, with overall insolvencies since Labor was elected skyrocketing to 22,800 businesses. ASIC analysis shows these figures represent the worst average number of insolvencies per quarter under any government since records began in 1999. Minister, how are sticky inflation and record-high interest rates contributing to record insolvencies? (Time expired) 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I responded to this in my first question, acknowledging that inflation in the economy has been a challenge for small business. I accept that. I don't think anybody who follows the economy wouldn't have a view about that. But when we look at the rate of insolvencies—and I'm not saying this to dispute the fact that we acknowledge businesses are feeling the pressure of the current economic circumstances—insolvencies have averaged 0.24 per cent under the Albanese government, the lowest on record for any government. That's lower than they were under Prime Minister Howard and lower than they were under Prime Ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. So we will continue to look at ways to provide support for small business where the budget can find room for it and respond to the priority areas that they have raised with us. Senator Hughes 273828 Why don't you just tell them to work harder? The PRESIDENT 112096 When you're quite finished, Senator Hughes—Senator Kovacic, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales The COSBOA Small business perspective report launched today states, 'Operating conditions are arguably the most challenging in living memory,' and 57 per cent of small-business owners reported high stress due to financial strain, with one in three not paying themselves, due to cash flow issues, and 25 per cent using personal savings to keep afloat. Minister, why should Australia's small businesses have to pay the price for the Albanese Labor government's poor economic management? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm going to remind all senators that I expect senators to listen in respectful silence. Minister. 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My response to that question is that we are doing what we can to support small business and to drive down inflation in this economy. The people that are seeking to block that and stop that are those opposite, so it's a bit rich to come in here and go, 'What are you doing? What are you doing?' when every vote you have in this chamber is to oppose a measure the government is putting in place to support people through a period of higher inflation. So you can sit there and raise questions, but the real measure is how you vote. When you vote in this place, you vote against energy bill relief. You vote against the cost-of-living measures that we have put in place. That is the reality, and your voting record showings it while we on this side get on with responding to challenges, engaging with COSBOA, looking at ways that we can support small business as the engine room of our economy. We will continue to do that, including in the renewable energy space, which is a real opportunity for small business in this country. Economy 46 14:06 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government wants Australia to be a country that makes things here. We want Australia to be a country that produces renewable power in abundance, bringing down domestic power prices and exporting excess energy to the world. We want to make the most of our natural resources, value-adding here and strengthening our economic security. And we want our people skilled up to reap the benefits of this economic transformation. Minister, how will the government's Future Made in Australia policy set up the Australian economy for the future? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for the question and for the interest and energy that she puts into the Future Made in Australia agenda. I heard while Senator Green was asking her question the snipes from the 'no-alition', which is the combination of the opposition and their friends the Greens. We see them there griping away. I think most people outside of this chamber would think, 'On what grounds could anybody in any parliament vote against a future made in Australia?' We know, as Senator Watt said yesterday, that those opposite vote against a future. They would like to go back to the past; we know that. They don't like the future. They're scared of the future. But a future made in Australia, about jobs, about opportunity, about seizing our natural strength, about increasing manufacturing opportunities and our sovereign capability after the COVID-19 pandemic—who on earth could really stand and vote against a bill like that? But here we have it. Here is the Senate for you all to witness. We have those opposite voting again against housing, voting against a future made in Australia, voting against a renewable energy transition. Any major piece of economic transformation in this country the opposition opposes. If they could find their little alliance with the Greens and strengthen that—we know it makes Senator Duniam uncomfortable. We know it does, Senator Duniam. It's like forests and—oh! I know, Tasmania. We don't really like to be in bed with the Greens, but here we go. Come to Canberra and all we is those opposite, the 'no-alition', working together to block a future made in Australia. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, today we learnt that almost 80 per cent more women are training as apprentices in male-dominated trades. What opportunities exist for women in the Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia agenda, and why is the government so focused on increasing economic opportunities for women? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for that and, again, for advocating for the economic opportunities for women in this country. We know that the economic opportunities for this country going forward—the jobs, the technology and all of that—rely on utilising all of our labour capacity, and that involves 50 per cent women. We don't want to see women locked out of opportunities or be having to retrofit a gender segregated workforce after it happens. So we have been putting investment behind programs, such as the Building Women's Careers Program, to support more women to train in jobs in male dominated industries. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I can hear a groan from the other side, but we have one of the highest gender segregated workforces in the developed world. We on this side of the chamber don't think that women should lose out on any of the economic opportunities or the job opportunities going forward. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, a key focus of the Albanese Labor's government Future Made in Australia agenda is the energy transformation. How do the Future Made in Australia initiatives support the energy transformation, and what challenges has the government faced in responding to the energy transformation and in providing cheap, clean electricity to Australians? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for that question because it is an important one. A key component of the Future Made in Australia agenda is about ensuring that we get the energy transformation right through things like our production tax credits, making our supply chains more resilient, particularly through solar, our innovation fund and making sure that we map the geological opportunities and the potential of the entire country. This is just part of our Future Made in Australia agenda. We've got our Rewiring the Nation plan. We're also providing the private sector with the certainty they needed after—what was it, again?—10 years and 22 failed energy policies. And I think we're shaping up for a 23rd. This one's from opposition. I think we're going to see the 23rd failed energy policy, which is, of course, Mr Dutton's risky nuclear energy plan, a plan that hasn't been costed and has no detail and, even if they do cost it, will only— (Time expired) Middle East: Migration 47 14:12 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. A report in the Daily Telegraph today revealed a Palestinian man, Mr Fayez Elhasani, was granted a visa to Australia despite once hosting political members of terrorist organisations Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad at his Gaza art institute. Minister, can you confirm whether Mr Elhasani was cleared by ASIO prior to his visa being granted? 14:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Chandler. These matters were canvassed quite extensively this morning in question time in the House of Representatives, but I'm very— Senator Paterson 144138 No answers were provided. Senator WATT 245759 Well, there were answers given. They might not have been the answers that you were hoping for, but accurate answers were provided. I went to the trouble of getting a transcript of Minister Burke's answers. I'm surprised that you didn't bother to do the same yourself. I'm very happy to repeat the comments that Minister Burke made. They were that we are working closely with our security agencies on this matter, as people would expect. Everyone from Gaza granted a visa since 7 October has been checked by our security agencies. That is the answer to the question. Every single person has been checked by our security agencies. I think the disturbing thing that we continue to see from the opposition is a complete lack of faith in our security agencies. We have seen that over and over again. It's very concerning to see this creeping authoritarianism within the opposition. Last week we had the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, and other frontbenchers demanding that state police go and arrest certain people. This week we've got the opposition trying to direct the security agencies as to what they should do. That's a little shadow. It's a little insight into the kind of operation we would have under a Dutton government if, God forbid, we ever had a Dutton government. What we know about Mr Dutton is that he has no limits. There are no limits to the authoritarian action that he will take. You will not get a member of the Albanese government directing the security agencies in the way that Mr Dutton seeks to do and Senator Paterson seems to seek to do. You won't get members of the Albanese government directing state police to go and arrest people, because there's this quaint old notion called 'the separation of powers'. I know it's something the Queensland National Party was never able to understand, but it seems the Liberal Party doesn't understand it either. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, lower your voice. Senator Chandler, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania The reporting also revealed Mr Elhasani had opened this meeting by stressing the need to support Palestinian resistance and confront the occupation by all possible means to restore rights and liberate the land. The Director-General of ASIO has previously said, regarding visa security assessments, 'If it's a tweet … that says the 7th of October was acceptable, that's going to be a problem for that person.' Minister, how is it that someone who has made these statements passed security checks and the character test for an Australian visa? 14:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, we see a direct attack on the independent security agencies from the federal opposition—an absolutely extraordinary situation that we continue to see. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, lower your voice. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I know the opposition don't want to see themselves characterised— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, equally—lower your voice. Senator Hughes 273828 Why do we need you, if you just hand it over to bureaucrats? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I'll call you to order! Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I'll take the interjection from Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes just said, as a member of the opposition, 'If you're just going to leave it to bureaucrats, then why are you here?' That's the policy of the federal opposition. Ministers in a Dutton government would direct the national security agencies to make decisions, rather than rely on the independent advice from national security— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Chandler. Senator Chandler 264449 A point of order. The minister is going nowhere near answering the question. It's a point of order of direct relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! As you know, Senator Chandler, the minister— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I am responding to the point of order. The minister is entitled to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, when you've quite finished. Order! Senator Hughes, if you can't remain quiet, please leave the chamber. That's your choice. Senator Chandler, as you are aware, the minister is entitled to respond to interjections. You could get your question more directly answered if you invited your colleagues not to make interjections. Minister Watt, I would also remind you to direct your comments to the chair. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, what we see continually from the federal opposition are direct attacks on the independence of our national security agencies. The Albanese government is more than willing to rely on the advice from national security professionals as to the security credentials of any applicant for a visa. Our security agencies don't stop checking someone's national security credentials the moment they enter into Australia. And, as further information comes to light, then advice is updated and we act on that advice. The only people who want to ignore our national security agencies are those sitting opposite. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, second supplementary? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Chandler was on her feet, waiting. Senator McKenzie! It's about the fourth time I've called you this question time. I invite you to listen in silence or leave the chamber. It's your choice. Your colleague has been on her feet, trying to ask the next question. Senator Chandler, second supplementary? 14:18 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Can the Minister guarantee that the Albanese Labor government has not granted a single visa to any individual with links to a terrorist organisation? 14:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Chandler. Well, the benefit of Senate question time happening after the House of Reps question time is that we can refer back to the answers that House ministers provided to exactly the same questions that were asked four hours and about 19 minutes ago. Minister Burke was asked this question, and the guarantee that I can provide is exactly the same guarantee that Mr Dutton could have provided when he was the home affairs minister and allowed for hundreds of people to enter Australia on visitor visas from war zones such as Afghanistan. When Mr Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs, he granted 991 visitor visas to people from Afghanistan while it was a war zone, so I guess I can provide the same guarantee that Mr Dutton could provide then. When Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister, 4,994 visitor visas were granted to people from Iraq while it was a war zone, so I'll give you the same guarantee as Mr Dutton could do then. And 1,505 visitor visas were granted to people from Syria while Mr Dutton was the minister as well, so we're happy to provide the same guarantee as Mr Dutton. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I've called you a number of times during question time. I ask you to listen in silence or leave the chamber; it is your choice. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 49 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Franklin, Hon. Ben, MLC, New South Wales: Parliamentary Delegation 49 14:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a delegation from the parliament of New South Wales led by the Hon. Ben Franklin MLC, president of the Legislative Council and my friend and colleague on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Executive Committee. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate, and, with the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite the president to take a seat on the floor of the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Mr Franklin was then seated accordingly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Environment 49 14:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. Today the Minister for the Environment and Water is hosting her Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney. Yet in the last month alone the minister has approved three coalmines, has green-lit the destruction of precious bushland in Manyana in New South Wales and has not addressed the illegal destruction of koala habitat by a coalmining company in Queensland. In the parliament the Prime Minister is refusing to negotiate with the Greens for environment laws that actually work. Shouldn't the summit be more accurately called 'the nature negative summit'? 14:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales That was a long list of grievances which effectively come down to a set of questions around why the Labor Party and the Labor government won't apply the law in the way that the Greens political party assert it should be applied, which is essentially on the vibe of things. We take a very different approach. The approach taken by Minister Plibersek, as should be taken by all responsible parties of government, is to consider the matters placed before her, to consider the evidence associated with those issues and those decisions that are required and to then apply the law. That is the approach we take. It's not about considering the vibe of things and choosing projects that we like, people that we like or proponents that we like, as you would suggest and is so frequently and shamefully suggested by those sitting opposite us. It's about applying the law. I'll tell you what: we are working incredibly hard to restore all of the damage and all of the destruction that has been wreaked upon our environment by the people opposite over the last decade. There was a wasted decade when so much could have happened and very little did, but we are working on it. We are seeking to set up our first environmental protection agency with strong powers, a new tough cop on the beat, and we would like the Greens party to support that. The Greens political party should support that legislation, because it would be good for the environment—and, incidentally, it would provide a great deal of certainty for the business community. We have doubled funding to better look after national parks, including Kakadu and Uluru after the Liberals left them to fall apart. We are protecting Jabiluka from mining; we're adding it to the Kakadu National Park. We've protected an extra 40 million hectares of Australia's beautiful land and sea—an area bigger than Germany—and there's more to come. We've tripled the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. We've kept the Great Barrier Reef off the World Heritage in Danger list. That's a set of achievements, in a short time, to be proud of. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Could the minister please tell me what is nature positive about approving three new coalmines that will create 1.4 billion tonnes of emissions out to 2060 and will destroy hundreds of hectares of koala habitat? What is nature positive about your three new coalmines? 14:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I explained to the senator in my answer to her primary question, the job of government is to make decisions based on the national environmental law and on the facts. The truth is that the decisions that the senator refers to extend three existing operations. These are not new projects. Senator McKim JKM You promised to fix it, and then you broke your promise! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order, particularly Senator McKim! Minister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 These are not new projects. The senator essentially asks the environment minister to consider the emissions associated with these projects, and the truth is that they are considered, of course. They're considered under laws that were developed and voted for in this chamber by the Greens political party. The safeguard mechanism ensures that all new industrial facilities, including new and existing coal mines, are subject to binding limits to reduce their direct emissions to net zero by 2050. That law is in place, and it's a law that you voted for, Senator. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary? 14:25 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The government have broken their promise to fix Australia's environment laws. The Prime Minister has told the mining lobby he wants to weaken them even further, contradicting his environment minister. The Prime Minister says one thing in WA; the environment minister says another thing in Sydney. Why has the Prime Minister rolled his environment minister? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator McKenzie 207825 She's more popular. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, seriously, your choice is to sit here in silence or leave the chamber. 14:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The truth is that there are a set of laws before this chamber which you could vote for. They are a set of laws that we committed to. We did say we wished to reform the EPBC— Senator Hanson-Young I0U You can't do both things. Senator McKim JKM You promised to fix them! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young and Senator McKim, I don't need to hear a running commentary. You are being disrespectful to the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, you're not in a debate with me. Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The government has made it very clear—and this is from the Prime Minister down—that these are laws that should be supported in their current form because there is something in this legislation for everyone. There's a new tough cop on the beat, the first-ever national EPA with strong powers and the ability to issue orders, audit and monitor businesses to make sure they're doing the right thing. Those are measures that a party that claims to seek to protect the environment should vote for. Those are things that you should vote for. But it would be important for business, too, because what business say is that they want certainty, and these laws offer that. It is a very great shame that the coalition refuses to support them. Broadband 51 14:27 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. The NBN is critical infrastructure which reaches over 12.4 million premises across Australia, providing fast, reliable and affordable broadband across Australia. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to secure this important public infrastructure for the future? 14:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the question, Senator Ghosh. You are right: the NBN is absolutely critical. It currently reaches over 12.4 million premises, and it's on track to deliver connectivity to 90 per cent of houses and businesses across Australia by the end of 2025. It's an asset that strengthens connectivity, whoever you are and wherever you are. We know that more than ever it is essential that people have strong and reliable internet. It is not a luxury; it's an essential service. It impacts on how we work and live. It is also critical for sharing information during emergencies. Today, in the House of Representatives, the Albanese government has introduced amendments to the National Broadband Network Companies Act that provide certainty for industry and consumers by securing ongoing public ownership of the NBN. These amendments demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to delivering social, economic and employment benefits for Australians. It's actually vital that the ongoing mission of the NBN should be guided by the public interest, not by the interest of shareholders, because it's in our national interest to have internet access that is affordable and accessible. They reinforce that the NBN will remain in public hands for the foreseeable future. It's what we set out in the 2022 NBN statement of expectations. It also delivers on a commitment we made ahead of the 2022 federal election. We remember when those opposite rushed to declare that the NBN was complete just so they could sell it off. We are working to ensure that the NBN is owned by the Australian people. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Minister, what other investments and improvements have been made to support the delivery of the NBN across Australian premises in the last two years? 14:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Labor has a proud history of investing in the NBN. It was established, of course, by a previous federal Labor government because we knew back then what we know now: that access to fast, reliable and affordable internet is a necessity. Since coming to government, we have invested $2.4 billion to expand full-fibre NBN access to 1.5 million additional premises. That includes 660,000 rural and regional communities. From September next year, millions of NBN customers next year will benefit from an increase in download speeds with up to five times the current capability at no extra wholesale cost, and we are rolling out more fibre in the fixed-wireless network, upgrading the fixed-wireless network and planning for future needs. We've connected over 18,000 families with free internet until the end of 2025 through the School Student Broadband Initiative to ensure that no child experiences a digital disadvantage. (Time expired) The 10000 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia How is the approach by the Albanese Labor government different from the approach of previous governments? What risk is there to this critical communications infrastructure if this bill is not passed? 14:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales That's a very good question, Senator Ghosh. I've heard the opposition calling out, interjecting, 'Why is this legislation required?' I can tell you why. It is because those opposite will never pass up an opportunity to privatise critical infrastructure. Privatisation is in their DNA. You can look at their track record on communications infrastructure. First they sold off Telstra and then they made an absolute mess of the NBN. For those in rural and regional Australia, communities that were already separated by distance, the coalition set them up for an enduring disadvantage, subjecting those communities to a second-rate NBN patch-up job. Keeping the NBN in public hands will ensure that that company has the certainty that is necessary for its investment planning and for its operational decisions—the decisions that are needed to maximise the economic and critical social benefits of the NBN. (Time expired) Visa Refusal or Cancellation 52 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Last week the Australian Federal Police publicised the case of a father who was convicted of attempting to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages. For clarity: my question relates only to arranged marriages where either party is not given a choice. To respect the privacy of the children involved, my question goes to policy. Is human trafficking a 15-year-old girl into marriage sufficient grounds for deportation? If not, why not? 14:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for the question. I don't have details as to the specific case that you're referring to, but certainly what I can say is that a breach of character grounds on any basis would be the basis for cancelling someone's visa and deporting them from Australia. If it is the case that a crime has been committed in this case or that character grounds in general were found not to be satisfied, then of course the outcome of that would be that a visa would be cancelled. As I said, I don't have enough details about the particular case involved, and you yourself said you didn't want to go to the details of that case and wanted to talk more generally, but that is the general position when it comes to visas. If there's any further information I can provide, I would be happy to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, the forced marriage of a child carries a nine-year prison penalty and 25 years if a child is sent oversee for the marriage. Australia Federal Police commander Kate Ferry described the offence as 'human trafficking', as does the Attorney-General's website. Your answer downplayed a serious issue of women's rights and contradicts your own website. Minister, with 91 cases of forced marriage reported to the AFP in the year to June, when will you start deporting the offenders, including the clergy involved? 14:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I don't have the details of the 91 cases, and I'm not certain that they all involve people who are in Australia on visas. I want to fact-check that before accepting that that is the case. But, as I said, when it comes to visas that are granted to people to visit Australia, they come on conditions. Of course, any visa holder has responsibilities to the people of Australia while they're present in Australia. Ordinarily what would occur is that if someone is convicted of an offence—and I don't know whether any of these individuals have been convicted of offences. But if that were to occur then they would ordinarily serve their sentence in an Australian prison and, once they've served their sentence, that would be the time at which they would be deported, that their visa would be cancelled. Ordinarily, as I understand it, we don't cancel people's visas before we put them in jail, if they've committed an offence. They would serve out their sentence in a jail and then, on release, that would be the time that their visa would be cancelled. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, how many arrivals on permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? For clarity, I don't want visa overstays or deportations on technical grounds. My question goes specifically to a reluctance to deport for a serious criminal offence. 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I don't have that level of detail with me, representing the Attorney-General, but if there's information that I can provide to answer your question I'd be happy to provide that. What I can say is that, obviously, it's a matter for police if there is an allegation of a crime. As I said, I'm not across the details of this particular report that you're referring to. I'm not aware of whether the person has been charged or convicted, but it's a matter for police— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 Standing order 72(3)(c) says that answers shall be directly relevant to each question. I'm not after the details on this question. I've got them. What we want to know is: how many arrivals and permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, you simply needed to have stood and said 'relevance'. The minister was relevant. He indicated in the first part of his answer that if he could get more detail he would, and he is entitled to continue his answer. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, Senator Roberts, I'm happy to provide any further details in addition to anything that I do have here. What I am aware of is that significantly more visa cancellations have occurred under this government than ever occurred while Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister. That's something I can tell you. But I'm happy to come back to you with additional details once they come to hand. Infrastructure 53 14:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. On 25 September, in Tasmania, the Prime Minister said that his government had not exempted the Queensland Olympic infrastructure from GST calculations, yet Treasury documents show that these projects actually have been exempt from GST calculations. Minister, are the Treasury documents wrong, or did the Prime Minister mislead Tasmanians? Can you confirm to the Senate whether or not these projects for the Queensland Olympics infrastructure are indeed exempt from GST calculations? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Duniam for the question. I don't have details of that before me. I do know that all states regularly seek exemptions for a range of different projects from GST considerations, including the Tasmanian state government from time to time, and they are dealt with through appropriate processes and decision-making. I don't have the specifics of the arrangements on the Queensland Olympic infrastructure with me, nor the comments that you say the Prime Minister made in Tasmania. I'm happy to see if there's any further information I can provide to the chamber. Of course, we are the government that is looking to co-fund and support— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 President, by way of support for the minister, I'm happy to table the documents for the— The 10000 Senator Duniam, resume your seat. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, forgive me for not accepting— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING No, for the way the question has been asked. And for saying that if there is any further information I can provide to the chamber, I will undertake to do so. It is not unusual for states to seek GST exemptions for infrastructure. I would think every single state has applied to do so over the last few years. It goes through the appropriate decision-making and accountability processes for those decisions. Of course, the way GST is distributed is a matter for the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and, again, there's a range of views about how that GST is shared or allocated, and how the relativities are arrived at. There isn't universal agreement across the states about that either. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On 25 September, the Prime Minister also suggested that, as infrastructure minister, he never signed off on anything exempt from GST in Tasmania. Except there is a document that he signed, dated 2 October, when he was minister for infrastructure, exempting $50 million of payments to the Tasmanian government for the Macquarie Point precinct from GST calculations. Minister, who is right: the Prime Minister at his press conference on 25 September, or the document he claimed he didn't sign in 2012? 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm wondering why— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The minister's on her feet. Senators on my left and my right. Order! Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator GALLAGHER ING I thank Detective Duniam for the question. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Look, forgive me for— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, I do remind you that you need to refer to people by their correct title. Senator GALLAGHER ING Sorry, Senator Duniam. Again, I haven't seen the transcript from which he's reading. I haven't got that detail in front of me. As I said, there is universal disagreement about this matter between states across the federation, particularly about what should and shouldn't be included for the relativities process. I know there have been exemptions from time to time—not for all the exemptions that have been sought—across all of the states across Australia. If there is further information I can provide, I'll come back. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The Prime Minister cited Queensland's not having gotten an exemption as the reason for Tasmania being unable to get exemption for its stadium funding and cited his not having signed off on the Macquarie Point precinct funding as a reason for Tasmania not to get a GST exemption. Now that we know both of the projects got an exemption, will the Australian government do the right thing by Tasmanians and give us our GST back? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators on my left and right—particularly the Tasmanian senators on my right—come to order! 14:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The decisions about how GST is distributed are made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, where a relativity is provided through annual reviews. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I wonder if we could try to listen to what Senator Gallagher is saying. The PRESIDENT 112096 Well, Minister Wong, you may have noticed that I have been calling the chamber to order since we commenced question time. I don't think I've been very successful, but I will try again. I ask senators to listen in respectful silence whilst the minister is asking the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Commonwealth Grants Commission is responsible for determining the relativities for each state. I know that each state and territory usually participates in that and argues about why they should get a larger share of the GST than another state through direct consultation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please be seated. Senator Birmingham, wait until I call you to raise the point of order. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X The finance minister is wilfully seeking to mislead the Senate in her presentation of the arguments here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham— Senator Birmingham H6X The reality is that the government decides exemptions, not the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The 10000 Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat! That is a debating point. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Duniam asked me about GST distribution, essentially. That was his question: will Tasmania get some GST back? I'm saying that the way GST allocations are made is through the Commonwealth Grants Commission, so I completely reject Senator Birmingham's assertion there. This is done by direct submission to and assessment by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. They determine, and have always determined, the distribution of GST. Human Rights: Australian Children 54 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Minister, do you agree that children's human rights are being regularly violated in this country? 14:45 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the question. We were able to announce last week a national commissioner for Indigenous children in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 On relevance, it was a simple question— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. The minister has just started her response. I will listen carefully and, if necessary, I will direct her to your question. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Last week we announced the national commissioner for Indigenous children because we see it as incredibly important. The rates of removal of First Nations children in this country are way too high. We certainly see that there is a real concern for First Nations children in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria It's not good enough that you can't clearly acknowledge that children's human rights are being abused. We have 10-year-olds being strip searched, Minister, in your electorate, in your territory. As the minister, are you and your government not bound by the human rights obligations this government is signed up to? And please don't ramble—just answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, just ask your question. 14:47 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I look forward to answering the question, and, given the time that I have, I think it's important to alert the Senate of the significance of trying to care for our children, all Australian children. It is of concern that children, in particular First Nations children, end up in custody, in detention, and that is why we have announced a First Nations Indigenous children's commissioner, because we want to see low rates and the rates reduced across the country, obviously not just for Indigenous children but for all children. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Children in prison are routinely subjected to violence, abuse and neglect. Two children who were denied basic mental health care have died by suicide in the last year in child prisons that your government and you support. Will the federal government stop facilitating the abuse of children in this country and take action, or will you just keep avoiding responsibility and blaming the states? 14:48 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I certainly reject outright any assertion by the senator that we are individually responsible for what's going on. It is clearly not good. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 Relevance to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Please resume your seat, and I'll call the minister to continue her answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I have asked you to resume your seat. Thank you. Senator McCARTHY 122087 These are good leg exercises, President! It is clearly concerning, of course— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 On relevance, this is not a joke. There are children dying in prisons under your watch. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Thorpe, come to order! Senator McCarthy. Senator 122087 It is clearly a serious concern—the high rates of First Nations youth and First Nations people in custody across the country. I've certainly spent time in Western Australia visiting the Banksia Hill Detention Centre to work on and look at what was going on with our First Nations children in that centre. I've been working, trying to see that we have our Aboriginal medical centres in detention centres across the country. It is a process that Minister Mark Butler and I are working on. (Time expired) Cost of Living 55 14:50 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. I note the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations agenda is specifically designed to help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures and get wages moving. Because of this agenda, real wages are finally growing after ten years of deliberate stagnation by those opposite under Mr Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government supporting wages growth, and how do these policies help ease cost-of-living pressures on workers? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, I've called you to order a number of times this question time. 14:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Isn't it interesting that, if there is one thing that will set off the opposition, it's the idea that workers get paid fair wages. The horror! The horror that workers would get paid fair wages! You can be guaranteed the opposition will go off about that, because they always want to drive wages down. We on this side of the chamber know that people in Australia are doing it tough right now. The cost of living is front and centre of people's minds, and it's at the top of our government's priorities. That is why we've delivered fairer tax cuts, which were opposed by the opposition; energy bill relief, opposed by the opposition; more bulk-billing, opposed by the opposition; cheaper child care, opposed by the opposition; cheaper medicines, opposed by the opposition; rent assistance, opposed by the opposition; and HECS relief for students and graduates—we're yet to have the vote, but I reckon that will probably be opposed by the opposition as well. We have done that because every bit of relief matters to Australians. Unlike the opposition, the Albanese Labor government also sees strong wages growth as a key part of the cost-of-living solution, not the problem. When we came to government, annual real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent. Wages were falling dramatically compared to inflation. So it's no wonder that Australians are feeling cost-of-living pressures. It wasn't an accident that we saw that under the coalition, because, of course, we know that they openly said that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economic policy. Now that they're in opposition, Mr Dutton and the coalition have continued that approach, voting against almost every single measure to get wages moving, and now they're threatening to take it all away. After a decade of attacking workers and deliberate wage suppression under the Liberals and Nationals, real wages are growing again. At the same time, we're driving down inflation and keeping industrial action low. Labor's changes are working as we intended. In the last fortnight alone, we saw average private sector pay rises in new enterprise agreements hit four per cent for the first time in 12 years with the highest number of workers covered by— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I know that Mr Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals have opposed these wage rises every step. How are the Albanese government's reforms helping Australians with the cost of living, and why is it so important that Australian households earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It is important, at a time of cost-of-living pressures, that Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That is what is happening under the Albanese Labor government. As I said, in the last fortnight we saw average private sector pay rises in new enterprise agreements hit four per cent per annum for the first time in 12 years. How long was the coalition in power? Ten years! Twelve years ago: it must have been the last time Labor was in power that we saw private sector rises hit four per cent an annum. We've also seen the gender pay gap fall to historic lows under Albanese Labor government, and annual real wages have been growing now for three consecutive quarters. That wasn't what we saw from Mr Dutton and Senator Cash, who told us we would enter the dark ages and would close down the Australian economy if we passed our IR laws. In fact, what's happening is that wages are increasing, industrial action is falling, more jobs are being created than ever, and Australians are moving forward. Senator Cash I0M People are poorer than ever. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I invite you to make your contribution at the time to take note, not during question time. Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:54 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Given that Mr Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals have committed to making targeted repeals of our workplace relations changes and Senator Hume has claimed that adding more rights for workers is unreasonable, what are the key barriers to creating jobs and getting wages moving, and why is the Albanese Labor government so committed to delivering well-paid, secure jobs for Australian workers? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Albanese Labor government wants to see Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, whereas Mr Dutton and the coalition want Australians to work longer for less. We know that's the case because that is their record every time they've been in government, when they've had an anti-worker and anti-union agenda. Now they're in opposition they're committed to ripping away rights for casual workers and forcing workers to do unpaid overtime by removing the right to disconnect. We saw Senator Hume recently confirm that they are going to take a sledgehammer to wages and conditions and review multi-employer bargaining. As Senator Sheldon said, Senator Hume, on TV—it's there for you to have a look at—described more rights for workers as 'unreasonable'. What a terrible thing for workers to have rights! That would be a disgraceful thing! It would be unreasonable! Well, that's what we saw from Senator Hume, that it would be unreasonable for workers to have more rights. What it means for early education workers is $155 more per week under Labor than what they were getting under the coalition. And that's what will happen to more workers if the coalition were ever elected— (Time expired) Climate Change 57 14:56 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, sorry, please resume your seat. Senator Hume! Senator Rennick, I invite you to begin your question again, and we will reset the clock. Senator RENNICK 283596 My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. In an answer to a question on notice asking for the model used to prove that reducing CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050 will actually achieve a 1.5-degree reduction in global temperatures, the CSIRO replied that there are over 40 global climate models used around the world. Why should the Australian taxpayer stump up billions of dollars in subsidies for renewable energy when the scientific experts can't even agree on the method used to calculate CO2 emissions and their impact on temperature? 14:57 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Rennick for his question. It's pleasing to see that somebody in this place has got an interest in science and industry. That's a very pleasing development. I don't know the specifics of your question off the top of my head because, of course, this is not my policy area. We have a very fine minister in Minister Husic, who looks after this area, and I will get an answer to your question from him as soon as I can. But can I say this: I don't think the science is in dispute about the need to move to net zero, Senator Rennick. Australia is unique— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 Point of order: the question is how it's being measured, not whether or not it's in dispute. It's about how it's being measured and the accuracy and quality assurance of those measurements. The PRESIDENT 112096 There was an introduction to your question. I think the minister is being relevant to the question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Thank you, Senator Rennick. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you for that support for my answer. I said to you quite honestly, Senator Rennick, that I don't have the specific details to answer that question, but I will get them for you. But I'm making the general point that the need to move to net zero is not in dispute. This country is uniquely placed not only to move to net zero for our own economy but to assist the rest of the world to do so. One of the areas that I'm very directly involved in is the issue of critical minerals. Australia is very fortunate in that we have an overabundance of those critical minerals that we're going to need to move to net zero. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The Black Summer bushfires triggered a massive phytoplankton bloom the size of Australia in the Southern Ocean. Phytoplankton is the biggest carbon sink on the planet, and, according to the CSIRO, it absorbs 30 per cent of human CO2 emissions. Yet, when asked in estimates if phytoplankton is used as a CO2 offset when calculating net zero, the CSIRO said it wasn't. Why isn't phytoplankton being used as a CO2 offset when calculating net zero? 15:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Rennick for his first supplementary question. I wasn't present during those questions, I don't believe, but I shall make contact with the CSIRO and seek to get an answer to your question as quickly as I can, Senator Rennick. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland In relation to a 1½ degree reduction in temperature, two executives at the Bureau of Meteorology were recently castigated for giving evidence to a Federal Court judge that was false and unreliable in a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. The case came after it was revealed that the bureau was no longer meeting its obligations in upper air monitoring. Given this behaviour, why should the public trust anything the bureau says about weather records? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, your second supplementary question should really relate to your primary question. It is hard to— An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm ruling on this, so I don't need input. It is hard to see that, but I would invite the minister to respond to your question as he sees fit. 15:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Rennick for his second supplementary question. Again, I'm not familiar with those issues that you raised or the proceedings that you referred to. Again, I will get a detailed response for you and provide that to you, Senator Rennick, as quickly as I can. First Nations Australians 58 15:01 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. I'm sure that everyone in this chamber can agree that the rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in out-of-home care are clearly unacceptable. First Nations children are 11 times more likely to be in out-of-home care compared to non-Indigenous children. Can the minister outline what steps are being taken to reverse these statistics for our children? 15:02 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Stewart for her question. The Albanese Labor government is committed to achieving better outcomes for First Nations children, young people and their families. We committed to a national commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, and we are delivering on that commitment. The overrepresentation of First Nations children in out-of-home care continues to trend upwards. Closing the Gap target 12, which aims to reduce the overrepresentation of First Nations children in out-of-home care by 45 per cent by 2031, is not on track. The Productivity Commission found that nationally, as at 30 June 2023, the rate of First Nations children aged zero to 17 years in out-of-home care was worsening. The national commissioner will be dedicated to protecting and promoting the rights, interests and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people across a range of issues, including the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in out-of-home care. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 15:03 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I thank the minister for outlining the government's commitments to improving outcomes for First Nations children. Can the minister tell us more about the independent National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People and how the national commissioner will better support outcomes for First Nations children. 15:03 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory While many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are doing well, the outcomes for some have just not improved. This role represents a key step forward in the government's commitment to listen to and meaningfully engage with First Nations people, and this is how to promote systemic change. The new national commissioner will complement and not duplicate the role of the National Children's Commissioner. The new national commissioner will provide expert advice on the development and delivery of policies, programs and services to ensure they meet the unique needs of First Nations children and young people, drawing on their work and consultation with community. The national commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people will have a specific focus on protecting and promoting the rights, interests and wellbeing of First Nations children and young people across Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 15:04 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I thank the minister. It is great to hear about the plans for the national commissioner. How have organisations and peaks in the sector, who are the experts here, responded to the government's initiative to establish an independent national commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people? 15:05 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The role responds to longstanding calls from First Nations stakeholders for stronger accountability for the outcomes experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people—as recently indicated in the Productivity Commission's review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Safe and Supported Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership group members, along with other First Nations reps, have specifically called for a national commissioner. In particular, SNAICC, the National Voice for our Children, have called the announcement a game changer. The CEO, Catherine Liddle, said: The National Commissioner will be the champion, the voice and facilitator for our children, young people and families, and who will hold governments to account. Catherine Liddle goes on to say, 'They will help turn the tide.' I want to thank SNAICC for working with the government on the development of this commission, and I look forward to continuing our productive relationships. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. BUDGET 59 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 59 15:07 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 57, 62, 66, 705, 706, 709, 710, 1,010, 1,011 and 1,012 asked during the 2024-25 budget estimates hearings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The questions relate to the legacy case load and fast-track systems. 15:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The answer, in essence, comes down to the sheer volume of questions on notice that are being asked in the Home Affairs portfolio. At the last round of Senate estimates hearings, more than 1,000 questions on notice were asked in the Home Affairs portfolio. There were 276 from Senator Hume, 264 from Senator Shoebridge, 170 from Senator Paterson and hundreds more from other senators. Of those questions, just under two-thirds have already been answered—672 have been answered, and 376 are unanswered. The reason some of these questions remain unanswered is the unprecedented explosion in the number of questions on notice so far this term. We've seen repeated questioning from those opposite, for example, about what paper departments are using or what temperature thermostats are set to. They're asking the big issues. As I said, more than 1,000 questions on notice were asked in the most recent Home Affairs estimates. By comparison, the numbers of questions on notice in the Home Affairs portfolio in the last term of parliament were 563 in 2021-22, 468 in 2020-21 and 109 in 2019-20, so there has been, essentially, a doubling of the number of questions on notice asked in that one portfolio alone. But I'm aware that ministers, ministers' offices and departments are actively working on the answering the remaining questions. 15:09 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. There are a number of matters to say immediately to that. It is the job of the government, under the standing orders, to respond to the questions that have been asked. Each and every one of these questions relates to serious issues involving the human rights of some 7,000 people living in our community. To respond to them in the manner that the minister just did, to equate them to questions about paper supplies or thermostats, shows the utter disrespect this minister and the government have for the thousands of people who are having their rights abused because they're being denied under the grossly unfair fast-track system. To equate the lives and the unfair struggles of people under the fast-track system with issues about the temperature setting of thermostats shows the disrespect that this government has for people who are having their rights repeatedly abused by the broken immigration system the government is in charge of. These questions that have failed to be answered related to questions related to issues such as the staffing allocation to the Immigration Assessment Authority. That's an authority that this parliament has passed legislation to abolish, and we want to know: Is it still operating? How many people are employed there, in a system that everybody agrees is grossly unfair and which we have collectively decided should be abolished? We wanted information about the number of people who have lodged applications for ministerial intervention. How many people have been refused a TPV or a SHEV? We wanted answers to basic questions—information that should be readily available to the minister at the touch of a button—about how many claims from this case load have been approved, granted or refused this year on information provided by Home Affairs. We wanted to know the information on the 375 children that have had their claims rejected by the unfair fast-track system. This is all critical information about a core human rights issue and it's information, I would suggest, this government doesn't want to provide, because it would show what an appalling state of affairs it is presiding over. We're some 2½ years into this government that promised to do things differently to the previous government, and what they have done is continue to subject some 7,000 people who were failed by the coalition's appalling fast-track process to a system that every independent review says is unfair, biased and cruel. This government not only has not helped them but is now refusing to even answer basic questions about what's happening to those people. The Albanese government is preventing these people from rebuilding their lives and from stepping forward, and it's this waste of human potential that is just so criminal. I was lucky to meet with three people yesterday—three bright, capable, engaging young people—who have been subjected to this fast-track system. I know that they would have met with any other member in this chamber. The offer was open to all of you to talk to these people, and their advocates, and to find out what's been happening in their lives. This isn't the first time I've met with these three extraordinary young people. I've previously met with them and many others in the cohort. One of the people I met with was Elnaz, a brilliant woman with a PhD in cancer research. She is truly extraordinary. I would like to go into detail about her cancer research work—her study of genetics and how that can be particularly used to treat skin cancer, including melanoma—but, frankly, I don't understand it. She is an extraordinarily talented PhD recipient. Her work is internationally renowned. She has received repeated requests to speak to her research—her research which has been government funded, I might add, and which continues in a government funded agency to provide world-breaking cancer research on melanomas. She is repeatedly asked to make international presentations on her work, but she can't go because, if she leaves the country, she won't be allowed back in. She'll be refused a right to return if she leaves the country. So she can't share her research knowledge with other cancer researchers around the world. She can't even go to New Zealand, and some of the work she's doing is part of a co-production with New Zealand research authorities. She can't travel to New Zealand. Why? Because this government refuses to give her any kind of permanent visa. It has her on endless, cycling bridging visas, with the constant threat that the next visa won't be granted or that her work rights will be removed or that her right to Medicare will be taken off. Every time, on this six-monthly cycle of bridging visas that she lives on, she waits to see if some unnamed bureaucrat in Home Affairs will take away her work rights and any ongoing study rights. Why are we doing that to Elnaz, this extraordinarily talented young woman who's contributing so much? I've got to be frank with you. As someone whose skin burns when I walk out on a 20-degree day that's overcast, I want Elnaz's work on melanoma and skin cancer to be complete. I'll be frank; I have a personal interest in it—as do many of my colleagues. Why is this government doing this? Why is Elnaz still, a decade on, unable to build a permanent life here? Why is she refused the right to travel? Why can't she go and teach her research, give her research insights to other cancer researchers around the world? Because this government refuses to help. They refuse to deal with any of the 7,000 legacy case loads in the system. Not only that, Elnaz is here because she's an Hazara, who, we know, are currently being persecuted in Afghanistan for the simple fact of being Hazara. Imagine this: she's not just Hazara; she's an incredibly educated, articulate, capable Hazara woman. Does this government seriously say she has no refugee claim and that she can go back to Afghanistan and return to the Taliban? It's obscene on so many levels. Why won't the minister put in place a process that can see Elnaz get security? The system is so arbitrary. When it comes to Elnaz, she and a number of her family members came here fleeing the persecution of the Taliban some 10 years ago. Other members of her family, close members of her family, had their refugee claims accepted, and, almost with exactly the same family history, Elnaz was randomly rejected—almost exactly the same facts. When you speak to Elnaz about what happened in the fast-track process, she will tell you that she put her application in after months of pulling together the documentation. It was a thick application that went in, supported by detailed accounts, supported by contemporaneous records telling the story of her persecution as a Hazara woman. She put it in at 10 o'clock one night, and she got the notice of rejection by the fast-track process at 10 am the following day. It was so obscenely disrespectful, so obviously unfair, so obviously a refusal to engage with the merits of her claim, or to even pretend to. And, 10 years on, she's asking why the government is still doing this to her and so many like her. That's the question we haven't had answered from the minister today, and that's the question Labor refuses to answer. That base unfairness is why Labor's refusing to answer any of these 10 questions about the fast-track process, because they know what they're doing is so bloody wrong. I could speak more about the unfairness in Elnaz's story, but I also met with Saroya. She's a young woman of Sri Lankan heritage who came here as a child and, again, was refused by the fast-track system, like pretty much everybody who came here with a Sri Lankan Tamil background. There's like a 93 per cent refusal, under the fast-track system, for any Tamil refugee claim. It's almost like, 'Computer says no', when anyone with a Tamil background puts in an application. 'Computer says no'; you will be rejected. Saroya finished her HSC very recently in Sydney. She did incredibly well—proud parents—and enrolled in a short course at university because she had a bridging visa that, for that moment, gave her study rights. She paid some $17,000 for the short course, to get started, because the government refuses to give her and anyone like her—other young people who have spent the great majority of their life here going to schools next to our kids—any access to HECS or any subsidised access to university. So she paid $17,000 of her own money for the short course at a university in Sydney. She starts it and is halfway through the three-month course, and then her bridging visa rolls over, and they took away her study rights. She had to be withdrawn from the course and she didn't get her money back. I think she got back half of her money that she'd paid for the course. She's a young woman with a refugee background and minimal financial resources who was looking forward to going to university and engaging in the next stage of her life, and not only does the government take away her study rights; they do it in the middle of a short course that she's paid for, and she's $7½ thousand to $8,000 in the hole. Why are you doing that to Saroya? Why won't you let this incredibly bright young woman live to her full potential and go to university? Even if you won't permit or agree to extend HECS, why take away the study rights of this bright, young 18-year-old woman halfway through a course so she has to pull out of university? Why have that level of cruelty towards her? I can't understand it. Is it any wonder that we don't get answers from the government? Is it any wonder that the minister's gone—they've all headed out. They don't have an answer to this other than that they want to be crueller than the coalition, like we heard here in question time. We had the minister proudly say that you've rejected more visas under Labor than the coalition used to—that they're actually nastier and harder on immigration. The results of that exchange of rhetoric between nasty and nastier in this chamber is that people like Saroya have their lives turned upside down, have their study rights taken and their future stolen and live in this endless fog of uncertainty, where they have no permanency, no rights to go to university, no rights to settle down and live to their human potential. Finally, I met with Malad who fled Iran a decade ago. He was a human rights advocate there, and he's a human rights advocate here. I've been with him at those Woman, Life, Freedom rallies, as have—I reckon—other members in this chamber and other members of the government and the opposition. I've seen him proudly speak about human rights and support those women who are standing up to the regime. He speaks about human rights publicly and proudly, and because of that he's targeted by the Iranian regime. He's targeted. He has a target on him. If he ever returned to Iran he would be arrested, potentially tortured and put through the most grossly unjust system. We all know that. Anyone from Home Affairs with a fair mind would know that. But what does the government do in relation to Malad? Not only was he rejected by that unfair fast-track system; he's put on these endless bridging visas. One day he has study rights; one day he has work rights, and next day he doesn't. He can't get a mortgage, can't get a permanent home and can't get a permanent job. That's his life. But now they also say that he should be returned to Iran and that they don't accept his refugee claim. Malad, who's a human right advocate and has stood with members of parliament proudly challenging this government, this brutal murderous government—the Albanese Labor government says he should be able to be returned to Iran. What would happen if Malad got off the plane in Iran? He'd be arrested. He'd potentially be tortured, and heavens knows what would happen to his family. How do you let this happen? There are some 7,000 people in this situation. What does Minister Burke say in relation to this? He says, 'I've met with some people, and when I meet with them one on one or I get a ministerial intervention, an individual, one-off ministerial intervention, then I may approve it.' What we know in terms of his ministerial intervention and the answer to this—for the one-by-one, bespoke justice applications to the minister—is that that will inevitably fail. Between 2021 and March 2024, there were only some 1,100 people who were allowed to make a ministerial intervention, and of those only about 400 requests a year get dealt with. If the 7,000 backlog, the case load legacy of the fast-track system, is going to be dealt with by ministerial intervention at 400 cases a year, which is the government's apparent plan—that's why we wanted data—it'll be two decades before that's ended. Elnaz, Saroya, Malad and thousands like them deserve so much better. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 61 15:24 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of all answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today. GST, goods and services tax revenue, to our Commonwealth is, of course, a lifeblood when it comes to the provision of services in all of our states and territories. One of the key principles of Federation is that no matter where you live in this country you should have access to good services that meet your needs in health, in education, in infrastructure. The way many of our states and territories pay for this is through our allocation, in each state or territory, of the goods and services tax revenue, GST revenue. In a state like Tasmania, a small jurisdiction, we depend on this vital stream of income to be able to support Tasmanians in getting the services they need. That's what good Tasmanian representatives stand up for—to ensure that our community receives what we need. This is why I was most bemused, rather upset, mildly alarmed by some comments that were made by Australia's Prime Minister, the Labor Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, when he was in Tasmania on 25 September, not so long ago. He was there announcing support for a good health project—so I give kudos to him, in partnership with the Tasmanian Liberal government, for that. What alarmed me most were the Prime Minister's answers to some questions he was asked about a very unique Tasmanian issue, or, at least, one that is accentuated in Tasmania because of our reliance on GST. He was asked by a journalist, at a doorstop, on 25 September: Here in Tasmania, will you exempt the Macquarie Point Stadium from GST calculations? The Prime Minister answers, 'No.' The journalist says, 'Why not?' The Prime Minister says: Because if we did that, we'd have to do the same for the Olympic sites in Queensland, for every infrastructure project in the country. That was the Prime Minister on 25 September. By that, I read that the Prime Minister says, 'We can't give you, Tasmania, your GST exemption on this $240 million project.' Two hundred and forty million dollars is a significant amount of money, and it's a project that I'm sure will bring in great revenue streams for Tasmania eventually. But the Treasury documents that were provided through Senate estimates last defy what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said that we will not get our GST because Queensland's Olympic infrastructure was not exempt from GST. Yet, in a document entitled Directions issued to exclude specific Commonwealth payments from the calculation of GST relativities, Treasury officials say, about the financial year 2024-25: QLD: Payments to Queensland for sporting venue infrastructure for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Prime Minister says, 'No exemption for them,' but Treasury has already signed off on one. So the Prime Minister's first excuse as to why Tasmanians are being ripped off by $240 million fails. Treasury belled the cat on that absolute misleading. Then, the Prime Minister went on to talk about when he was infrastructure minister in the last wonderful period of time of Labor rule in our country, and he said, in the same interview: But infrastructure across the board is not exempt. I was an Infrastructure Minister for six years, I assure you there was no GST exemptions during that period. Well, I will read from a document entitled Project agreement for Macquarie Point Railyards Precinct Remediation Project: an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Tasmania. It was signed by the Hon. Anthony Albanese MP on 2 October 2012. There's a line in here that says: 15. The Commonwealth will provide a total financial contribution to Tasmania of $50 million in respect of this Agreement. All payments are GST exclusive. That is, they are exempt from GST calculations. Again the Prime Minister points to Tasmania not being able to get its GST exemption on the stadium funding, something it deserves and should get as an equal state in our federation, because (a) the Brisbane Olympics infrastructure wasn't getting an exemption—wrong, it is!—and, (b) he says when he was infrastructure minister he never signed off on exemptions for any infrastructure project. Well, here is a signed document, by his hand, exempting $50 million of expenditure on an infrastructure project in Tasmania, eerily, on the same site. I question: What is Mr Brian Mitchell, the member for Lyons, doing? What is Ms Collins, the member for Franklin, doing when it comes to asking for Tasmania's fair share? I ask: what are the Tasmanian Labor senator team doing in asking for Tasmania's fair share? Under Labor, we will be ripped off $240 million. Every other state and territory gets their fair share, except Tasmania. Queensland gets its fair share for sporting infrastructure GST exemptions; Tasmania, under this Labor government, does not. And that's a shame. And that is something that Tasmanian voters will know about when it comes to the next election. They have a chance now to sign a letter that they didn't sign just a few months ago. 15:29 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Forgive me for being just a little confused here. We've got the good senator from Tasmania who opposes the stadium, opposes his own Liberal state government, who says that the stadium shouldn't be built, who criticises the government at a federal level for making a contribution—I'm just a little concerned about how confused my Tasmanian community will be. Not only are you misleading this chamber in relation to how GST is allocated but you're propping up a Liberal state government that is putting Tasmania further and further into debt every single day. They're in chaos. The minister responsible for infrastructure, the Hon. Michael Ferguson, had to step away. Why did he have to step away? Because he failed as that minister and had to step away. Not only that, if you want to talk about the stadium, why don't you tell the full story and say how your colleagues in Tasmania have not allocated any funding for the underground car park. How much is that going to cost the Tasmanian community? How much further are your colleagues that you're defending going to run Tasmania into debt? But could you clarify at some stage: are you a supporter of the stadium or not? Because you're coming in and misleading the chamber in relation to the allocation of funding of GST, so let's just clarify things, shall we? Commonwealth payments for sporting infrastructure related to the hosting of international sports events are usually treated as not impacting GST calculations by the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission, which you, Senator Duniam, know very well. You're just trying to be a little too tricky. Maybe you're taking too many lessons from Mr Dutton. But why was it then that, as a Tasmanian senator who is so genuinely concerned about getting our share of the GST, you supported a Liberal government with a Liberal minister for health—none other than Mr Peter Dutton, who, when he was Minister for Health, was voted the worst health minister in Australia's history—that cut $50 billion from health, including from Tasmanians, who have some of the worst chronic illnesses in this country? At least, in the rambling contribution of my good friend Senator Duniam, he acknowledged that it was this Labor government, not his state government, that made a commitment to fund the new heart unit in Launceston. It was the Liberal state government after the last state election who backed away from that commitment and had to be bailed out by this government. We put $120 million into it. The Prime Minister announced this on 25 September in Launceston, along with, I might add, a very grateful Mr Rockliff, the Liberal Premier. And why was he so grateful? Because he's on a very rocky road, because he knows that former senator Eric Abetz is after his job. That brought a smile to Senator Duniam's face, because he knows it's true. It's only a matter of time. But let's not forget what else the Prime Minister announced when he was in Launceston, in the great state of Tasmania, with our fabulous education minister, Jason Clare. It was further funding for education to assist young Tasmanian kids to reach their potential, which no previous Liberal government, state or federal, has had the gumption to do. So I am proud to stand here and defend this government, because there is no-one who has been a better friend to Tasmania than our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, in terms of what he has delivered, both previously when he was a minister and now as the leader. He has been to Tasmania a lot more times than has Peter Dutton. And I might say this: a good thing about my recent visits to schools across Tasmania was that they didn't even know who the Leader of the Opposition was, let alone like him. Question agreed to. Business 63 15:35 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Just when you think that this Labor government couldn't get any more incompetent or hurt our economy any more than they have in these 2½ years, something else comes out to demonstrate just how incompetent they are. I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Kovacic today relating to company insolvencies. Despite the fact of this being the biggest issue today in the news, in her portfolio and in the Treasurer's portfolio, the minister said: 'Oh! I can't answer that. What story? What question?' It was just extraordinary, so let me share the facts. Five million Australians are employed in small to medium enterprises in this country, and this government—I can't even find words for it—has now got the record of being the worst government in the history of this nation for small to medium enterprises. No wonder the Minister for Finance hadn't seen it in the papers and hadn't read what COSBOA had put out! She hadn't even had a briefing, supposedly, on this issue. What did this report find? It found that the Albanese Labor government has the worst business insolvencies in this nation's history. And as they shot to No. 1, guess who the second and third worst were. The Rudd-Gillard government in the 42nd parliament had an average of 2,341 business insolvencies per quarter—that is only per quarter. That was followed, in the 43rd parliament, by the Gillard-Rudd government. They had 2,336 insolvencies in one quarter. Not to be outdone by those incompetent Labor governments who were so bad for Australian businesses and the five million Australians employed in small business, the Albanese government has shot to No. 1, and shame on you, because in one quarter you've now had 2,481 business insolvencies. In Western Australia, for the last quarter alone, that represents 377 small to medium businesses and thousands of Western Australian jobs, so you are definitely on track to be the worst government for business in modern Australian history. Let's have a little bit more of a look at these numbers and what they actually mean. Senator Brockman and I note that in our own state of Western Australia, 71 per cent of businesses identified rising costs as a barrier to their growth, with agriculture, real estate and hospitality recording the highest concerns. What have other experts said about these figures? The COSBOA deputy chair, Wes Lambert, said: … it's hard to find a way forward … keeping the business going and paying staff keeps small business owners in our industry up at night … Master Builders Australia chief executive Denita Wawn said: It's been a perfect storm— created by this government— high inflation, rising interest rates, chronic labour shortages, industrial relations changes and high material costs … All of those factors have come about through this Labor government's deliberate strategies. This hasn't just happened. Inflation hasn't just got so high. Interest rates haven't just happened. It has happened because of the deliberate policies of those opposite in less than two years. I very much agree with the deputy opposition leader, Sussan Ley, who said that this data confirms Anthony Albanese is on track to be the worst PM for business insolvencies this century. This isn't just data. It is real businesses going bust, real jobs disappearing and real Australians hurting. Access to capital will remain a critical hurdle, with many female small-business owners finding it difficult to secure funding for growth and development. As I said, over five million Australians are now employed in small to medium enterprises. But let's have a look at some more of the data— (Time expired) 15:40 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Seriously, I'm not sure what I have been listening to this afternoon from Senator Reynolds. Being here next to the finance minister, I know she's one of the finest finance ministers that we have had in a generation, working alongside one of the best treasurers this country has ever had. I say that because, when I look at the financial position of this country, I see that this government, since coming to office back in 2022, has delivered not one but two budget surpluses and looks to be on track for another. I say that because our budget position has been sound. We've delivered budget surpluses, but guess how many budget surpluses the previous government delivered. I'll tell you a little secret: it doesn't have a number, because it's a big fat zero. In the decade they were in government they racked up an enormous amount of debt—over $1 trillion worth—which the Commonwealth now has to service. That's right: $1 trillion of debt was accumulated under a Liberal-National government, the so-called economic managers on that side of the chamber. But Labor is currently in government. When we were last in government and had one of the world's best treasurers—remember Wayne Swan?—the IMF and others applauded how Australia conducted itself as one of the most fiscally responsible governments around the world. He was awarded the title of best treasurer of the world. I say that with a very good colleague of mine, Senator Gallagher, here today. She has the world and the country on her shoulders when it comes to ensuring that the economy of this country remains stable, is able to function and does not go into recession. That's unlike those opposite, who, every single week, come into this place and advocate for this country to go into recession. They absolutely want to smash small businesses and want to make sure that the wages of the working class, the workers of this country, go backwards. Not once when they were in government did they advocate to increase the basic wages of working men and women of this country. But the very first action that the Albanese Labor government took when it first came to government was to put a submission to the Fair Work Commission advocating for an increase to the wages of those who were on the minimum wages, the awards, of this country. Guess what? The commission agreed. We have seen time and time again in the last couple of years increases to wages, which are now filtering through our economy and supporting many men and women and their families who are on some of the lowest and middle incomes of this economy around the country. I also want to acknowledge the report by COSBOA. It's important to look at what this government has been able to do. I say this from the outset: we have over 5½ million small businesses, and they are the engine room of our economy. They are the heart of many economies and many local communities around the country, including those in regional Australia that I visit on multiple occasions when I'm not here in Canberra. They employ millions of very hardworking Australians. But there are some things that I want to run through. The government has been supporting and providing assistance to these 5½ million small businesses. In our most recent budget we provided over $640 million in practical and targeted support. We gave small businesses a tax cut in the last financial year, through the $20,000 instant asset write-off. We've also extended it for a further year, with legislation before this place right now, to provide small businesses with confidence and certainty to invest. This is equivalent to an estimated $290 million of support each year. We are abolishing 457 tariffs in the largest unilateral tariff reform in two decades. We've updated the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and small businesses are getting a big slice of the $70 billion in contracts the Australian government spends each and every year, with a target of 25 per cent. Our government is investing more than $60 million to help small businesses lift their cybersecurity and digital capabilities. The very fact is this government, federal Labor, is on the side of workers. It's on the side of small businesses, unlike those opposite, who are always against the working class. (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We've set the clocks for three minutes, Senator Brockman. 15:45 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Only three minutes, Deputy President—that's very sad! We've just heard from Senator Ciccone, and I only need three minutes to tear apart this government's record on small business. Senator Ciccone, you tried absolutely valiantly to defend the indefensible there. If small businesses in Australia weren't suffering as badly as they are, they would've been rolling around on the floor laughing at the idea that Labor's the best friend of small business. No small business believes that. The 57 per cent of small businesses that are under severe financial pressure certainly don't believe that. The one-third of small businesses with owners who can't draw an income at the moment don't think you're their best friend. I can tell you this because I meet with these small businesses. I've had, at a cost-of-living forum in the seat of Swan, a small-business hairdresser in tears due to the financial pressure they are under thanks to the high interest rates and high inflation of this Labor government. He and his wife sat down with their accountant, and their accountant said, 'The best thing you could do is sack your four employees and go back on the tools.' This is a man who is 63 years of age, and that was his accountant's advice—sack your employees and go back on the tools yourselves. Are these the people that are having it so good at the moment, Senator Ciccone? It's absolutely ridiculous that this government is trying to defend its record in the face of soaring costs, soaring interest rates and a shortage of labour and in the face of small businesses being unable to not pass on cost increases from the supply side through to their customers due to the cost-of-living pressures that are also affecting families and their budgets. These are real people, millions of Australians, who are under real pressure, struggling to make a living and to survive. The idea that a Labor senator stood up and said, 'Labor is the party of small business,' is a joke. It is an insult; it is an absolute disgrace. We're now seeing the insolvency rate skyrocket at the highest level over a six-month period. We're seeing another trend towards this being the worst period of government, certainly in this century, in terms of small-business insolvency, possibly for a very long time indeed. This government is a disgrace. Question agreed to. Visa Refusal or Cancellation 65 15:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to grounds for visa cancellations. The Australian Federal Police prosecuted the case—concerning the failure to deport a recent arrival who attempted to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages—resulting in conviction and imprisonment. Well done to the Australian Federal Police. The number of human-trafficking complaints to the AFP has increased, with the AFP receiving 382 reports including 91 forced marriage allegations across the 2023-24 financial year. A forced marriage involves the absence of free will. That's why the Attorney-General's website compares forced marriage to child labour and slavery. I thank the minister for informing the Senate that deporting criminals in cases of forced marriage is an option. The media, in part, reported this case using the term 'arranged marriage'—it's no such thing. Nonnas and yayas have been arranging marriages for centuries, and they're still at it, so they must be getting something right. In this case, though, the father knew forced marriage is illegal in Australia, and his daughters refused to be trafficked. I would've thought that one benefit to this government bringing in 2.4 million new arrivals is the opportunity for us to keep the best and send the rest home. In the last week, we've seen thousands of new arrivals marching through the streets of our capital cities calling for death to other Australian citizens. Inciting violence is breaking the law. We've seen illegal terrorist symbols in full display. They have been breaking the laws of our country—to which these people have chosen to come—breaking and flaunting our laws. I shared the video from the Opera House of these same people chanting 'death to the Jews'. The audio is perfectly clear. We're letting in people who hate our culture and wish to replace it with their own past culture, which they abandoned and left behind. When faced with such a threat, One Nation believes an immediate outcome should be the deportation of criminals. Question agreed to. Environment 65 15:51 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I stand here reflecting on the answers to the questions that I asked the government today in relation to their environment policy. All I can say is what sheer, sheer disappointment. It's just so frustrating. It is so frustrating, because this government went to the last election promising the Australian people that they would act on the environment, that they would take climate action, that they would fix our weak environment laws so we could stop the extinction of our beautiful, wonderful native species and that they could protect our precious beaches and waterways—our rivers, our forests and our bush lands. But, over the course of the last 2½ years, what we've seen is the courage of this government diminish. We've seen this government's ability to stare down vested interests and lobbyists disintegrate and evaporate. I'm not the only person who speaks of such disappointment in this government. So many Australians had higher hopes. We really wanted this government to be better. We really wanted this government to act. I stand here prepared to work with the Albanese government to put in place laws that genuinely protect nature—laws that would stop the bulldozing of our native forests and the fast-tracking of new coal and gas mines that continue to put climate-wrecking pollution into the atmosphere. The whole point of this global environment summit that the environment minister is hosting in Sydney is that the world has recognised that we can't keep trashing mother nature. We can't keep dismissing the fragility of our environment. If we don't act on reducing pollution and protecting and restoring biodiversity, it's going to be gone before we have realised. I just want this government to be better and to do better. Because, of course, the alternative is Peter Dutton, who does not care two hoots about the state of our nature. He doesn't care about the prospect of future generations when it comes to the climate. Most of Peter Dutton's front bench are climate deniers—they don't care! Peter Dutton doesn't want a debate in this coming election on the environment or on climate. He wants it on division and fear mongering—racism, immigration, war mongering. There's a reason that Peter Dutton reverts to type over and over again. It's because that's the only thing he has got going for him. We're left in this horrible situation where the government is so incapable of standing up for what they promised that they're now willing to do a deal with Peter Dutton, delivering what Gina Rinehart wants, what the big mining lobby want, what the logging industry wants rather than what they promised the Australian people when it came to protecting the environment and taking climate action. I urge this government to stop acting so irrationally. Believe in something. Stand up for your principles. There is a pathway through this parliament for laws that will protect our environment, safeguard our climate and protect the future for future generations, but it's not going to happen unless you're prepared to talk, unless you're prepared to stand by your principles. Stop being so afraid of Peter Dutton and Gina Rinehart and do something for nature. I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities (Senator McAllister) to a question I asked today relating to the environment. Question agreed to. NOTICES 66 NOTICES Withdrawal 66 15:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Pursuant to notice of intention given yesterday, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name and the name of Senator Dean Smith for today, proposing the disallowance of the Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024. Postponement 66 BUSINESS 66 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 66 15:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That Senator O'Neill be granted leave of absence for today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 66 15:58 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Whish-Wilson from 8 October to 10 October, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 66 15:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Hanson for today and tomorrow, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 67 MOTIONS Israel Attacks: First Anniversary 67 15:58 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that, after 6.30 pm yesterday, a division was called on the amendments moved by Senator Birmingham to the motion moved by Senator Wong concerning Hamas's attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate that the deferred vote be held now. 15:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I will make a short statement. The government will be requesting that the question on the amendments moved by the opposition be divided. I've had a discussion with Senator Birmingham and I think he's of the same mind—I'm sorry I haven't had a chance, Senator, to speak to you about that. We seek to vote separately to oppose amendments contained in paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) of the sheet of amendments, which is on pages 6 and 7 of the Notice Paper, circulated by the opposition yesterday. For the clarity of the chamber, paragraph (i) relates to the opposition seeking to delete reference to the number of Palestinian civilians killed and the catastrophic humanitarian situation. We wish to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (l) the opposition seeks to remove the reference to a ceasefire in Gaza. The government wishes to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (m) the opposition seeks to delete the proposition of support for a two-state solution, and the government wishes to oppose that amendment. However, in the interests of seeking maximal bipartisanship on this, the government is supporting the remaining amendments. For the benefit of senators, I table a letter I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition that outlines the government's position. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. I advise the chamber that the Government Whip did advise the chamber last night that the government would be seeking to vote differently on the different amendments. 16:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—President, when it comes to the question, I foreshadow that I will ask that certain parts of the substantive motion, after we've dealt with the amendments, be voted on separately. But we'll deal with that when we get there. The PRESIDENT 112096 The first question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to, and the government has requested that they be dealt with separately. So the question is that the opposition amendments to paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. 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. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:10 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania by leave—I was in the wrong spot, and I ask that my name be recorded as being opposed to the motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 With the agreement of the chamber, we will record your vote as being with the noes. The question is that the remaining amendments to paragraphs (a), (f), (h), (k), (p) and (q), as moved by Senator Birmingham, be agreed to.

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

49 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:15 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move the amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber: Omit all words after "That", substitute: "the Senate: (a) commemorates the victims of 7 October 2023 and reiterates its condemnation of the attacks; (b) calls for the unconditional release of the hostages and political prisoners; (c) condemns all forms of racism including anti-semitism and Islamophobia; (d) condemns the State of Israel's ongoing genocide and war crimes in Gaza that have killed more than 41,000 people and the ongoing illegal actions and bombing in the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon; (e) notes the International Court of Justice has made clear the State of Israel's occupation of Palestine is unlawful and based on apartheid; (f) believes the illegal occupation underlies the escalating cycle of violence in the Middle East which must come to an end; and (g) calls on the Government to take meaningful action towards a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians and others in the Middle East by implementing the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteurs and ending the two-way arms trade and placing sanctions on Netanyahu's extremist government". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to the amended motion as moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 44 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:20 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the amendment to the amended motion be agreed to. 16:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia On behalf of the coalition, I ask that paragraphs (l) and (m) be put separately on the motion as amended. These paragraphs, in the coalition's perspective, given the defeat of our proposed amendments, do not reflect appropriately what had previously been the longstanding bipartisan approach towards a negotiated two-state solution, nor do they accurately reflect the international approach in relation to securing lasting peace and security. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham has requested that paragraphs (l) and (m) be moved separately, so we will deal with these two amendments first. The question is that paragraphs (l) and (m) be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Hanson-Young I0U I'm wondering whether the two clauses could be put separately. The PRESIDENT 112096 If that's your request then we can do that, Senator Hanson-Young. I am advised that we will put the question again. Senator Hanson-Young has requested that paragraphs (l) and (m) be put separately. It is my intention to move paragraph (l). The question is that paragraph (l) be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT 112096 While we're waiting for the bells, I have been asked to read paragraph (l). On the original motion, this was paragraph (k). It says that the Senate: (l) stresses the need to break the cycle of violence and supports international efforts to negotiate and secure de escalate, for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Lebanon, and for lasting peace and security for Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and all people in the region; That is what we are voting on now.

The Senate divided. [16:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. 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. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Wong, P. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—We will shortly be proceeding to vote on the paragraph in the resolution which deals with a two-state solution: … so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensure a just and enduring peace; I understand, and I hope I am wrong, that the opposition and the Greens are not prepared to support that paragraph. Can I say to both the opposition and the Greens that that is not only a longstanding bipartisan and historical position; it is the position of the international community, it is the position of so much of the Palestinian leadership, and it is the position that is the only way in which we will, ultimately, see long-term security and peace for Israelis. If the Greens and the opposition combine to ensure that this parliament is not able to support a two-state solution—a longstanding commitment made by the international community when Israel was established, a longstanding commitment that would reflect the aspirations of both peoples—it really says something about the extent to which domestic politics is now perverting this debate in Australia. It is inconsistent with Australia's longstanding position, it is inconsistent with the international community, it is inconsistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people and it is inconsistent with long-term security and peace for the people of Israel. 16:33 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—The coalition will be opposing clause (m), and we will be opposing it, noting that the amendment we proposed was defeated on the opposition of the government. By opposing our amendment, which would have changed the 'support for a two-state solution' to being 'support for a negotiated two-state solution', the government critically tore up decades of bipartisan support. Senator Wong is being entirely misleading when she says that, in the position the coalition is taking, we are opposing longstanding bipartisanship. It is in fact the Albanese government that has reversed the position of longstanding bipartisanship, has walked away from the commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, where difficult questions and issues, such as security guarantees between the two parties, agreed borders and rights of return, would be settled to achieve a lasting and secure two-state solution. It is indeed the government that has rejected longstanding bipartisanship, that has changed position on these matters, and we will not, in a Senate resolution, be railroaded into supporting the government's revised form of wording. That is why we proposed an amendment consistent with the longstanding bipartisan position and, given the government chose to reject that longstanding bipartisan position, we cannot support this clause of the resolution. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that paragraph (m) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:39]
(The President—Senator Lines)

21 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. 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. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:42 The PRESIDENT 112096 I now intend to put the next question: that the remaining paragraphs be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

38 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 72 Reference 72 16:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland At the request of Senator Hanson, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2025: The implications of large-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) projects in Queensland, with particular reference to: (a) the consultation processes undertaken with local communities, specifically assessing the adequacy of community engagement by companies involved in such projects in rural and regional Queensland; (b) the potential risks and impacts of BESS projects on local environments, focusing on fire hazards, chemical emissions and impacts on local flora and fauna, with an examination of the Bouldercombe incident involving the Genex Power battery project; (c) the adequacy of the environmental impact assessments and the project approval processes by federal and state regulatory bodies, including the decision-making frameworks that do not adequately address community concerns; (d) the socioeconomic impacts on local communities, particularly those dependent on rural and natural landscapes for their livelihood, assessing how such projects affect their lifestyle and economic stability; (e) the transparency of data and scientific basis supporting the safety claims of these projects, including an evaluation of the robustness of fieldwork, data collection and analysis provided by project proponents; (f) the broader implications of deploying large-scale renewable energy projects in rural communities, assessing whether these projects align with the best interests of those communities; (g) how the transmission lines needed for these projects will affect properties, farmland and national parks, focusing on the amount of land they take up and the environmental damage they could cause; and (h) any other related matters. 16:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland . I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion. The government last year commissioned the Dyer review into community engagement. In this year's budget, the government allocated $20.7 million over seven years from 2024-25 to ensure best-practice engagement with local communities and landholders as new renewables, backed by storage and transmission, are installed across the country and as ageing coal-fired power stations continue to retire. Battery related fires are rare. Senator Hanson knows this but continues to fearmonger as a way of encouraging distrust in the energy transformation. The government is focused on implementing the recommendations of the review already undertaken and will not be supporting a bad-faith distraction from Senator Hanson. Question negatived. MOTIONS 73 MOTIONS Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces 73 16:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That— (1) The Senate and the House of Representatives approve the following standards of behaviour and behaviour codes with effect from 14 October 2024, noting the Behaviour Code for staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is subject to a determination by the Special Minister of State: Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces Welcome to this Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace. Please be aware we have clear guidelines on how we must behave towards each other: Act respectfully, professionally and with integrity. Encourage and value diverse perspectives and recognise the importance of a free exchange of ideas. Recognise your power, influence or authority and do not abuse them. Uphold laws that support safe and respectful workplaces, including anti-discrimination, employment, work health and safety and criminal laws. Bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or assault, or discrimination in any form, including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability, or religion will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored. Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians Purpose of Parliamentarians' Behaviour Code (1) All Australian Parliamentarians have a shared responsibility as employers and leaders in the community to ensure that Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces meet the highest standards of integrity, dignity, safety and mutual respect. (2) All Australian laws must be upheld, including the employer obligations outlined in the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. (3) This code forms the Parliament's expectations for how we behave towards each other and others we engage with in the course of our work, while recognising the importance of a free exchange of ideas and parliamentary privilege, which is an integral part of our democracy. Code coverage (4) Every Parliamentarian is required to understand and comply with this code and the Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. These codes and standards are enforceable and a breach of either code could lead to sanctions being imposed. (5) Both the code and the standards apply to Parliamentarians in the course of their role, including at social events, when travelling for work, and outside of normal business hours. This includes conduct engaged in by any means, including in person, or by electronic communication. Alcohol is no excuse for breach of this code or the standards. (6) Ensuring compliance with the code and the standards is a core requirement of Parliamentarians discharging their work health and safety obligations as employers. Respect (7) Parliamentarians must treat all those with whom they come into contact in the course of their parliamentary duties and activities with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect. (8) Parliamentarians, as employers and leaders in the community have a leading role to play in fostering a healthy, safe, respectful and inclusive environment where all people feel safe and valued. Diversity (9) Parliamentarians, as employers and leaders in the community, have a role in fostering and respecting diversity in their workplace, to ensure everyone feels safe and welcome to contribute. (10) Parliamentarians recognise the importance and value of diverse viewpoints, and that robust debate is conducted with respect for differing views, which are essential for a functioning democracy. Prohibited behaviours (11) Bullying and harassment, sexual harassment and assault, discrimination in all its forms including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability, or religion is unacceptable. Such behaviour will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored. Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (12) Anyone who believes this code has been breached is encouraged to raise their concerns about the breach. (13) Disclosures and complaints in relation to this code will be received confidentially and managed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC). (14) Advice and support regarding this code can be sought from the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. (15) Parliamentarians have obligations to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to: (a) cooperate with investigations and comply with sanctions imposed; (b) maintain the confidentiality of the complaint process, unless authorised by the IPSC (or otherwise required by law) to share or release information; and (c) act on allegations of misconduct made about their staff and to implement recommendations of the IPSC in relation to staff misconduct. Failure to do so may be a breach of this code and sanctions may apply. Complaints under this code (16) A vexatious complaint or a complaint made in bad faith may itself be a breach of this code and may be subject to sanctions. (17) Any attempt to intimidate or victimise a reporter/complainant or to lobby, influence or intimidate the IPSC (its office-holders, staff or contractors) will be treated as a serious and aggravated breach of this code. Upholding the Code for Parliamentarians (18) Parliamentarians must incorporate this code in their everyday workplace practice. This is done by: (a) undertaking any training or professional development as recommended or deemed necessary as an employer and leader within the community; and (b) complying with all workplace policies. Behaviour Code for staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 Purpose of MOP(S) Act Behaviour Code (1) All employees employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MoPS Act) have a shared responsibility to ensure that Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces meet the highest standards of integrity, dignity, safety and mutual respect. (2) All Australian laws must be upheld, including relevant workplace laws. (3) This code forms the expectations for behaviour in the course of MoP(S) Act employment while recognising the importance of a free exchange of ideas, which is an integral part of our democracy. Code coverage (4) Every MoP(S) Act employee is required to understand and comply with this code and the Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. These codes and standards are enforceable and a breach of either could lead to sanctions being imposed. (5) Both the code and standards apply to all duties undertaken in the course of MoP(S) Act employment, including at social events, when travelling for work, and outside of normal business hours. This includes conduct engaged in by any means, including in person, or by electronic communication. Alcohol is no excuse for breach of this code or the standards. Respect (6) MoP(S) Act employees must treat all those with whom they come into contact in the course of their MoP(S) Act duties and activities with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect. (7) All MoP(S) Act employees have a role in fostering a healthy, respectful and inclusive environment where all people feel safe and valued. Diversity (8) All MoP(S) Act employees have a role in fostering and respecting diversity in their workplace, to ensure everyone feels safe and welcome to contribute. (9) MoP(S) Act employees recognise the importance and value of diverse viewpoints, and that robust debate is conducted with respect for differing views, which are essential for a functioning democracy. Prohibited behaviours (10) Bullying and harassment, sexual harassment and assault, discrimination in all its forms including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability, or religion is unacceptable. Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (11) Anyone who believes this code has been breached is encouraged to raise their concerns about the breach. (12) Disclosures and complaints m relation to this code will be received confidentially and managed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC). (13) Advice and support regarding this code can be sought from the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. (14) MoP(S) Act employees have obligations to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, to: (a) cooperate with investigations and comply with sanctions imposed; and (b) maintain the confidentiality of the complaint process, unless authorised by the proposed IPSC (or otherwise required by law) to share or release information. Complaints under this code (15) A vexatious complaint or a complaint made in bad faith may itself be a breach of this code and may be subject to sanctions. (16) Any attempt to intimidate or victimise a reporter/complainant or to lobby, influence or intimidate the IPSC (its office-holders, staff or contractors) will be treated as a serious and aggravated breach of this code. Upholding the Code (17) MoP(S) Act employees must incorporate this code m their everyday workplace practice. This is done by: (a) undertaking any training or professional development as recommended or deemed necessary; and (b) complying with all workplace policies as required by the Parliament. (2) This resolution be transmitted to the House of Representatives for concurrence. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Privileges Committee 75 Appointment 75 16:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That standing orders 18 and 58 be amended as follows, with effect from the day that Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Act 2024 commences: 18 (Privileges) Omit standing order 18(1), substitute: (1) A Committee of Privileges shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report on: (a) matters of privilege referred to it by the Senate; (b) right of reply submissions referred to it by the President under privilege resolution 5; and (c) serious breach findings referred to it by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. 58 (Business of the Senate) At the end of standing order 58, add: (f) a motion for the adoption of a report from the Committee of Privileges on serious breach findings referred to it by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 75 Order for the Production of Documents 75 16:48 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 16 October 2024, any correspondence from the Treasurer or his office to the Department of the Treasury requesting modelling, policy proposals or any other information on potential changes to negative gearing or the capital gains tax discount since May 2022. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 642, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. 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. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Department of the Treasury 76 Order for the Production of Documents 76 16:55 Senator 306168 New South Wales KOVACIC () (): At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 16 October 2024, any correspondence between the Department of the Treasury and foreign fund managers relating to build to rent tax changes since May 2022. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 643, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. 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. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 16 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Central Land Council 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 17:01 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Friday, 18 October 2024, the minutes in full of the Council meeting of the Central Land Council held on 17 September 2024 in Tennant Creek. 17:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government can't support this motion as it does not have the meeting minutes sought by Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator Price has chosen to play politics with this matter. The senator is able to request the minutes from the Central Land Council directly. Land councils do not routinely send copies of minutes to the Commonwealth and are not required to do so. Senator Nampijinpa Price should seek these documents from the Central Land Council directly. It is clear that the motions being sought today by Senator Nampijinpa Price are an attempt to use the Senate to further a personal vendetta in relation to the leadership of the CLC, and that is something that the senator should explain. This is particularly improper and concerning whilst Senator Nampijinpa Price is being sued for defamation by the CEO of the CLC. The PRESIDENT 112096 I just remind senators that you can't take photos in the Senate. Question agreed to. Central Land Council 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 17:02 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Friday, 18 October 2024, the following: (a) any documents relating to leave taken by Central Land Council Chief Executive Officer, Mr Lesley Turner; and (b) any documents relating to acting arrangements in place during Mr Turner's leave. 17:02 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 This motion is completely inappropriate and a concerning use of Senate procedure. It's a matter of public record that Mr Turner, the subject of this motion, has brought defamation proceedings against Senator Price. Those legal proceedings remain underway. Senator Nampijinpa Price's motion directly names Mr Turner and asks for documents to be produced that could potentially form part of the case. The government is concerned that the Senate could be brought into Senator Nampijinpa Price's dispute or at worst potentially interfere with legal proceedings that are underway. For this reason, we will not be supporting the motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price? You need to tell me why you're on your feet. Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 It is a point of order, because twice now, quite evidently, I have been impugned in these accusations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, that is not a point of order; it's a debating point. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 That is a debatable issue. It is a point of view that you have taken and it's a point of view that Senator Chisholm has taken. But, Senator Nampijinpa Price, I am prepared to seek the Clerk's advice on this. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, I'm going to stand by what I ruled. You are, of course, free to seek leave to make a statement in the Senate at some other point. I now intend to put the—Senator McGrath? Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McGrath 217241 I—sorry; you go ahead. The 10000 I advised the Senate that I would take the advice of the Clerk, which I took. I am standing by my decision. I invite the senator to seek leave to make a statement at some other time. Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath 217241 On a point of order, President, Senator Nampijinpa Price has raised a point of order under standing order 193 that her motivations have been impugned, and she has asked that Senator Chisholm effectively withdraw that imputation. I think it's up to Senator Chisholm to determine whether or not he will withdraw the imputation. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's incorrect, Senator McGrath. First of all, it's up to me to rule. I have ruled. I've given a solution to the senator and I now intend to put that vote. Senator McGrath, why are you on your feet? You're not in a debate with me. Senator McGrath 217241 I'm not debating; I'm trying to seek clarification on behalf of Senator Nampijinpa Price and other senators that the new ruling in the Senate is that, where a senator is impugned, that cannot now be withdrawn and that they have to seek— The PRESIDENT 112096 No. Senator McGrath, I will respond. You've quoted the correct standing order. It is the question of whether or not I believe there was impugnment there. It did come close; I accept that. But I have ruled and I've offered the senator a response, and I now wish to move on. Senator Canavan, no, just a moment. I'm giving you the call, but I'll also advise senators that it is really my prerogative whether or not I entertain further points of order on this. Senator Canavan. Senator Canavan 245212 Thank you, Madam President. Just on your ruling, if I could briefly comment, could I ask that perhaps this does get reviewed. As you yourself just mentioned, it was maybe running close to the line there. Senator Chisholm did raise some facts in his points, but, in my view, at the very least he implied a certain motivation behind the moving of a motion in this chamber, which is clearly questioning a senator's motives. I think it might be good for the chamber if this could be reviewed in the light of day and, in particular, the transcript and what was said looked at. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, I sought the advice of the Clerk and I've ruled. But, in order to move on, I'm more than happy, always, to review decisions I've made, and I will do that. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 650 standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Antic, A. 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. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. 27 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS 79 MOTIONS Central Land Council 79 17:13 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 17 September 2024, the Central Land Council removed Matthew Palmer as Chair, (ii) there are serious concerns regarding the process leading up to, including and following his removal, (iii) during question time on 18 September 2024, the Minister for Indigenous Australians confirmed that she was not aware of the action of the Central Land Council, had sought a briefing but refused to confirm whether an investigation will be conducted, and (iv) on 4 October 2024, a significant group of Arrernte elders and their supporters rallied in Alice Springs calling for an inquiry into the Central Land Council generally and its treatment of Mr Palmer specifically; and (b) requires the Minister for Indigenous Australians to attend the chamber on Thursday, 10 October 2024, at the conclusion of formal business, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes on whether an investigation will be conducted into this matter, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) the motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. Question negatived. DOCUMENTS 79 DOCUMENTS Rural And Regional Affairs And Transport References Committee 79 Order for the Production of Documents 79 17:14 Senator 283596 Queensland RENNICK () (): I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 10 October 2024, the government response to the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on bank closures in regional Australia. 17:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The Albanese government understands the important role cash plays in our economy and is committed to ensuring Australians have continued and reliable access to cash. As the senator may be aware, a revised protocol for bank closures under the ABA industry Banking Code of Practice came into force from 1 July 2023, implementing the Regional Banking Taskforce's principle recommendations. The revised protocol includes a new customer care standard, with additional obligations to be triggered if the nearest branch is more than 10 kilometres away—down from 20 kilometres—mandatory branch closure impact assessments and enhanced customer notification obligations. Additionally, Australia Post's Bank@Post service is part of the solution for maintaining access to banking services. Through this service, customers can make withdrawals, deposits and balance enquiries at their local post office. There are currently more than 3,400 post offices providing access for more than 80 banks and financial institutions. The government is concerned about the impact that this may have on those who need to refer to or to access face-to-face banking services and is currently considering its response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Transport References Committee report. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 653 standing in the name of Senator Rennick be agreed to.

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

41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 16 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 80 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 80

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024

First Reading 80 17:20 Senator I0U South Australia HANSON-YOUNG () (): I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and for related purposes. Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024. Question agreed to. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 81 17:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I table an explanatory memorandum and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I rise today in favour of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024, the Australian Greens' Bill which will implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of online gambling advertising across television, radio, online and print. Gambling causes enormous harm to our communities, with Australians losing up to $32 billion annually—the highest per capita losses in the world. Advertising only fuels these losses, normalising the practice of gambling across our screens. In just one year, one million gambling ads were aired on free-to-air television and radio—and that's not to mention the exponential rise in targeted ads across social media and online platforms. People are sick of having gambling ads rammed down their throats—Australians love sport, yet it is not possible to follow these important cultural events without being assaulted by ads, odds or betting commentary. These ads and inducements fuel addiction and cause devastating social harm—not just financial loss, but health and mental health issues, family violence and breakup, and suicide. Young people are particularly vulnerable and gambling companies prey on this vulnerability, reaching children through social media and grooming them to be gamblers. Research showed that up to one third of young people may be gambling before the age of 18. The harm this causes to Australian communities is a national social and health issue, and must be treated as such. This is what we did by implementing a tobacco advertising ban, and this is what this Bill seeks to do on gambling. A comprehensive ban will help to stop the onslaught of gambling advertising that encourages risky betting behaviours, and lessen its harms on our communities. Such a ban has been time and time again recommended by experts, and there is wide public support. It is what the community expects. The Parliamentary Inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, recommended a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising with a phase in approach, which received cross-party support. The passage of this Bill would implement a staged ban, as per this recommendation. If the major parties showed similar support to the Inquiry recommendations, this ban could be enacted immediately. Yet the Albanese Labor Government has since backed away from a full ban on gambling advertising, proving where their true loyalties lie—with the cashed-up gambling lobby and some of the big media companies and major sporting codes. Almost two years have passed since the Murphy inquiry, and despite many promises made, all there is to show for it is a suggestion of watered-down legislation to implement a partial ban on gambling advertising. The evidence has long been clear—partial bans don't work. While gambling advertising remains on our televisions, in our newspapers, and on our phones, addiction will continue to wreck lives, communities and our kids' futures. It will be extremely disappointing if the major parties continue to show they don't have the guts to stand up to the gambling lobby. Australians will wonder whether a dinner with Sportsbet or a free ticket to the Melbourne Cup is worth more than the lives of their kids. Gambling ads are crucial to the bookies' business model as they fuel the human misery of problem gambling—but we as decision makers must prioritise the safety and wellbeing of Australians over the wellbeing of the gambling lobby. Who are the major parties trying to protect? The bookies, or our kids? The public has had enough of the excuses and political donations. The power and dirty donations of the gambling lobby cannot be allowed to infect our democracy and put our kids in harm's way any longer. I call on the Parliament to support this Bill and ban gambling advertising in Australian communities. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 81 DOCUMENTS Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 81 Order for the Production of Documents 81 17:21 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 5 pm on 17 October 2024: (a) all documents relating to the Minister's decision to approve Melbourne Airport's third runway; and (b) all documents, correspondence or advice provided to the Minister by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts relating to Melbourne Airport's third runway. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 82 Order for the Production of Documents 82 17:21 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) on 16 September 2024, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water provided a link to a document as a response to order for the production of documents no. 601, (ii) the document identified in that response was not the document being sought—and therefore the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water has not complied with the order, and (iii) the document actually being sought was the statement of reasons (as referenced by the Minister for the Environment and Water in her Sky News interview of 5 September 2024) in respect of the August 2024 declaration on the tailings dam of the McPhillamys gold mine project; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 15 October 2024, the statement of reasons by the Minister for the Environment and Water in respect of her declaration on the tailings dam of the McPhillamys gold mine project, under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 82 Order for the Production of Documents 82 17:22 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 Friday, 11 October 2024, full final copies of the two ministerial decision briefs titled MS24-001034 and MS24-001339 respectively. Question agreed to. 17:22 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia If I could seek the indulgence of the Senate, I made an error in the count for motion 650. I seek leave to recommit the count. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 650, standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price and moved by Senator Askew, which is being recommitted, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 83 Order for the Production of Documents 83 17:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move general business notices of motion Nos 646 and 647 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 646 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Thursday, 10 October 2024, any document in the possession of the Prime Minister or his office that provides the evidentiary basis for the following claim made by the Prime Minister in question time in the House of Representatives on 11 September 2024: "We know, when we look at where the harmful gambling comes from, that almost 70 per cent of that harmful gambling is actually poker machines. More than or around 15 per cent, off the top of my head—it's about that figure—comes from lotteries and lotto and those tickets as well". GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 647 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9 am on Tuesday, 15 October 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notices, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction since 1 January 2024 related to online gambling reform, advertising reform for online gambling or the government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' report You win some, You lose more between the Prime Minister and his office and any of the following organisations, including any of their employees or representatives: (a) National Rugby League; (b) Australian Football League; (c) Alliance for Gambling Reform; (d) Gambling Harm Lived Experience Experts; (e) Responsible Wagering Australia; (f) Sportsbet; (g) Pointsbet; (h) Bet365; (i) Tabcorp; (j) Entain; and (k) Unibet. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion Nos 646 and 647, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to. Question agreed to. Department of Health and Aged Care 83 Order for the Production of Documents 83 17:31 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Ruston, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 10.30 am on Thursday, 10 October 2024, the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check and/or associated documents. 17:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government opposes the motion, which Senator Ruston has brought again this week, because, again, the minister has not been provided with the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check. Senator Ruston, the minister would welcome a request for a briefing on the health check rather than you using the Senate to request sensitive data from private hospitals which we have already indicated is commercial in confidence. The government is working closely with the sector on the financial health check, and the minister and his department have appreciated their close cooperation in that work. We will respect the good faith in which the sector has provided highly sensitive, commercial-in-confidence information. As the minister has indicated, when he does receive the report, he will look to publicly release a form of the document that does not breach this confidence. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 84 Order for the Production of Documents 84 17:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Thursday, 17 October 2024: (a) all correspondence between the Minister, including any representatives of the Minister's office, and Vitrinite since 8 August 2024; (b) all correspondence between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and Vitrinite since 8 August 2024; and (c) any documents relating to potential compliance breaches or clearing without approval undertaken by Vitrinite. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS 84 STATEMENTS Parliamentary Standards 84 17:33 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I seek leave to make a short statement with regard to what just occurred. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 In relation to your ruling when the Senate was considering general business notice of motion No. 649, I have had the opportunity to review the captions and I am of the firm view that there was a clear statement as to my motive in moving the motion. I will not repeat the words, but they are a clear breach of standing order 193(3), which states that 'all imputations of improper motives shall be considered highly disorderly.' I ask that you request Senator Chisholm to withdraw those words. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. As I indicated to the chamber, on the request of Senator Canavan I will review the tape. I obviously haven't had a chance to do that yet, but I certainly note your point. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 84 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 84 17:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 A letter has been received from Senator Bragg: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Albanese Labor Government's high taxing and high spending strategy is killing the Great Australian Dream of owning a home, their hapless policies have been widely recognised as ineffective, and interest rates staying higher for longer is placing even more pressure on Australian families who are already doing it tough. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements of the whips. 17:35 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales This matter of public importance is all about the Labor Party having extinguished the Australian dream. Over the last 2½ years, the Australian dream has become further and further out of reach for younger Australians. Not only has Labor presided over the biggest influx of migrants since the 1950s, but it has presided over a collapse in housing construction from 220,000 houses eight years ago to just 160,000 houses this year and fewer than 160,000 houses next year. The government has one cruel idea for first home buyers—one. We've heard the Prime Minister and the new housing minister talk, over the last three days, about their one hopeless idea for first home buyers, and that is Help to Buy. It is not really an idea to help first home buyers own a home. It is an idea for the government of Australia to own 40 per cent of a person's home. That is not private ownership, and that is why these schemes, called shared-equity schemes, have been rejected by the Australian people when they have been run by the states—rejected and in many cases closed down due to insufficient demand. That is their one idea for first home buyers. But the Labor Party have lots of ideas to help institutions build houses and own houses. There's one idea for the people, and there are lots of ideas for the top end of town: the super funds and the foreign fund managers. One idea they have for the big end of town is that the super funds would use the Housing Australia Future Fund to get taxpayer subsidies to build houses and then rent them out to Australians as if they're serfs. An even worse idea is their bill—and we're waiting to see it soon in the Senate for debate and a vote—on the question of tax subsidies for foreign fund managers. Labor want to cut taxes so it is easier for foreign fund managers to build what's known as build-to-rent housing. They're houses that the Australian people will never ever own but that the foreign fund managers like BlackRock and the sovereign wealth funds will own in perpetuity. So they're out of ideas on homeownership—out of ideas on the demand side. That is why the Senate has wisely, in the absence of any good ideas from the government, established an inquiry into lending standards and the cost of lending regulation. We on this side understand—and it seems parts of the crossbench do too—that it is very hard to get a first home if you can't get a mortgage. In fact, it's impossible. The question of the cost of lending regulation and what that is doing to first home buyers is a very pertinent question indeed at the moment. We know that the serviceability buffer of three per cent that APRA has in place is now at the top of a tightening cycle, a tightening cycle which has been fuelled by the government's reckless fiscal management. That now effectively means that, for a prospective first home buyer, they are being assessed not at six per cent but at nine per cent when they go into a bank or a mortgage broker to get a mortgage. That is pushing many first home buyers out of the market. The Centre for Independent Studies has said in a submission to our inquiry that the buffer is very bad because it applies to all loans, including those on fixed rates, even though those rates cannot rise. This is compulsory protection against a risk that cannot occur. That's from the CIS. We believe that it is entirely reasonable for the parliament to step in and set some rules in relation to mortgages and lending. This is not like the independent preserve that is required for monetary policy. It is not good enough for the government to say: 'We're giving it all to APRA. We're going to leave it all to the unelected bureaucrats to make all the lending laws in the dark down there in Sydney.' We think it is very important that we look at the mandate of APRA. Can that be channelled to support first home ownership, and can we look at these policies, like the lending buffer, to ensure that they are going to promote first home ownership rather than take away the Australian dream, which Labor has almost already killed with its terrible, failed supply policies and its cruel, mean hoax of a demand policy called Help to Buy. 17:40 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I thank my colleague Senator Bragg for this motion on housing and homeownership because housing affordability is a really significant issue in our society today. Owning a home is a dream that most Australians hold. It is the case that today it can take many years to save a deposit for a home, a home that costs several times the average Australian income at least. I think that we are agreed on what the challenge is here. The question for us as a parliament is what to actually do about this challenge after a decade of a Liberal agenda where absolutely nothing was done for housing. There was no strategy for housing in this country under those opposite. There was no investment in housing over a decade from those opposite. There was no plan. There was nothing. So, again, the question is: what do we do today when we face this challenge? According to Senator Bragg, who has just spoken, what you do to help people buy a house is block the actual plan that is in front of the parliament to help people buy a house. That is the great solution from those opposite. The Help to Buy plan is a good plan. It will help 40,000 Australians buy a home. It will help them do that with as little as a two per cent deposit, and it will help them do that with a smaller mortgage to service. It is a good plan, so what is incomprehensible to me is why those opposite are blocking it and why they are joining with the Australian Greens to block the plan that is in front of the parliament to help people buy a home today. The next step in the plan of the coalition, after blocking the Help to Buy legislation, is to become the government and legislate super for housing. The next step of their plan is to ask Australians to raid their superannuation savings in order to make a deposit for a house. This is a choice that no other generation of Australians has been asked to make. Asking people to pour their superannuation into housing will have two results and two results only. One is that it will push house prices up further and make housing less affordable. All the experts who come to our committees, the committees that I share with Senator Bragg, say this: super for housing is inflationary. It will push house prices up. The second effect of this policy is that it will push people to retire in poverty, to rely on the age pension without their superannuation. Every expert agrees that the answer to housing affordability is building more supply. Now, the one policy that the coalition has, their super for housing policy, only contributes to demand. It pushes prices up. It doesn't build a single home. There is no policy from those opposite to increase supply. There is not one single policy to build one single home. This is a Liberal Party masterclass on how to do absolutely nothing about a problem that people are actually experiencing today, so it's no wonder they have found new friends with the Australian Greens, the other party in this chamber that likes to give us a daily masterclass in doing absolutely nothing, talking up a good game and then joining with their friends—the Liberals, the coalition, those opposite—to block the policy that is in front of the parliament right now to actually help Australians buy a house. For 40,000 Australians, it means a two per cent deposit and a smaller mortgage, and what we have is the Greens joining together with their new besties in the coalition to block that policy. There is no policy from those opposite to build more houses, and there is nothing from the Greens. 17:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania In the face of the housing crisis in this country, the massive crisis that is smashing the lives of millions of Australians, the real masterclass in doing nothing is coming from the Australian Labor Party. Not only do their policies do nothing; the so-called Help to Buy legislation that is before this parliament may—and I do say 'may'—provide marginal help to an extremely small number of people who want to get out of the rental market and buy a home. There are 0.2 per cent of Australian renters who might be lucky enough to win the lottery that the legislation is proposing, but the other 99.8 per cent of renters, whom that legislation will not help, will actually be worse off if the legislation passes because it will increase house prices in Australia. That's the problem with Labor's so-called Help to Buy legislation. That's why we are desperate for Labor to come to the table and negotiate with the Greens to fix it, and the questions for Senator Walsh, Senator McAllister and others are: Why won't you not negotiate with the Greens? Why is it your way or the highway? Why do you want to make it harder for 99.8 per cent of Australian renters to actually get into the homeownership market? This housing crisis is no accident. It's the result of a system designed by the neoliberal parties, the Labor and Liberal Parties, to create a neofeudalist society where property ownership is the only ticket to social progress. They give away obscene tax breaks—$176 billion dollars in tax breaks projected over 10 years in Labor's last budget—to things like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. They will line the pockets of investors, property developers and property speculators while millions of Australians remain trapped in rental stress or homelessness. If you don't own a home at the moment in Australia, good luck in getting by. This is no accident. Again, the establishment parties in this place have abjectly failed to build in enough homes over many decades. That has been the case because they don't believe in homes as a place for people to live; they believe that homes—houses—are an asset class in this country. That's where they differ from the Greens. The Greens understand that homes are a human right and that every Australian in our society has the right to live in a safe, affordable, dignified home. That's what we're trying to achieve. Labor should come to the table and work with us. 17:49 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Homeownership is absolutely a matter of public importance. The price of housing in this country has gone up by 13.1 per cent since the last election. Families are struggling to pay their mortgages. Families are struggling to pay their rent. Someone with a mortgage has seen their interest rates rise 12 times under this government. We've spoken many times in this chamber about that equating to a family or someone with an average mortgage of $750,000 being $35,000 a year worse off. That's an extraordinary amount of money. It's basic maths that, with interest rates doubling or repayments doubling, if your loan repayment was $4,000 a month when this government came into power, your loan repayment now sits at around $8,000 a month. That's a lot of extra money to have to find. In the US, in the UK, in Canada and in New Zealand, interest rates have already come down. This government keeps pointing to the opposition and saying that it inherited this and it inherited that. This government has been in office for almost a full term. All of our global contemporaries have been able to manage inflation. They've been able to see their interest rates come down. That hasn't happened in Australia, because we have homegrown inflation here. That is what we are dealing with now: inflation that is here because of the actions and inaction of this government. Australian families, Australian small businesses and young Australians who are trying to break into the property market are paying the price for that. All we keep hearing about is how all the coalition want to do is raid super and raid piggy banks. I have some news for the government: the money in our super belongs to us. It does not belong to any government. It does not belong to any super fund. It is money that has been taken out of the salaries of everyday Australians. It's been sequestered in an account, and we're told that, if we want to use that for housing security, we're bad and we're raiding our own money. I've spoken about this before. Explain to me why a woman at 55, in the largest-growing cohort of homelessness, cannot access her super to help her buy a home but 10 years later can use that same super to pay rent to somebody else. Explain that to me. Australian households have been in 18 months of household recession, and the latest national accounts show us the slowest GDP growth since the 1990s. Yet this government goes, 'Here's Help to Buy; this will solve the housing problem.' No it won't. It's a niche program open to only 10,000 households each financial year, and it's going to cost $5.5 billion. There is a lot that we don't know about it. What happens when significant repairs have to be undertaken? What happens if major construction needs to be done? Maybe the family wants to do an extension. Do they have to then sell their home and move somewhere else? Do they have to go back to the government for some more money? Who ends up keeping that equity if they choose to spend that themselves? What changes? We don't know. We have no idea what happens, because the government haven't given us any details on it, which is pretty consistent with the way they operate. They say there will be 10,000 spaces. We have something like 2.9 million Australians living in rental properties. So we're going to offer an opportunity to 10,000 people to get into their own home, or 10,000 households, per year. This highlights that this government has no new ideas, that there is no real investment in housing, that there are not enough homes being built, that there are no real initiatives for first home buyers and that there are no initiatives for renters who wish to get out of the rental cycle and own their own home. This is entirely unacceptable, and there absolutely needs to be some fundamental rework of policies to actually deliver housing to Australians and deliver opportunities for Australians to own their own home. 17:54 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on this MPI. There is absolutely no economic issue weighing more heavily on the minds and hearts of millennial Australians than the issue of homeownership. Young Australians—my generation of Australians—feel let down, and they feel locked out of the housing market. They have seen a change in what they can aspire to. They've seen a change in the market around them. They have felt unheard and let down for too many years as they have raised the alarm that housing continues to feel out of reach for them and for the generations coming after them and what that means in terms of their economic opportunities, their potential, their futures and how they raise their families, what communities they live in and how connected and close they stay to their parents and where they grew up. These issues weigh heavily. It is the source of huge frustration for these Australians that, when they look at a chamber like ours and they look at the parliament, they see political parties that are more interested in and more focused on teaming up to stop action on housing and to stop policies which would promote supply or help young Australians get into a home. There is more focus and energy on that, on the tactics and politics of the day, than on the policy development. That is deeply distressing to them, indeed. Again today, we've had more time spent on crafting a motion than on crafting policy ideas. We've had one policy idea from the opposition, and that's to raid your superannuation to buy a house. Their idea is that, if you're a young Australian, you have to choose between superannuation and homeownership. Superannuation was never intended for that. It is about having a secure retirement. I don't think it's right that young Australians should have to choose, that we should limit the aspirations of young Australians to that choice. Labor believes you should have both. We believe in superannuation and we believe that ordinary Australians should be able to own a home. We believe that nurses, childcare workers and teachers should be able to own their own home. Our Help to Buy policy, which the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals teamed up to block out of this place, would've helped low- and middle-income earners into a home—tens of thousands of them. Who benefits from the decision to block that legislation? Absolutely no-one, except maybe the social media clicks of the Greens political party. There's a political advantage here, but there's no policy outcome for people. Millennial Australians want to get into a home. They know that the answer to the problems before us is supply. The answer is supply, and I've yet to see a single plan put on the table by those opposite which would do anything to encourage supply. There is this unholy alliance in this parliament which, for political gain, is so focused on blocking progress and denying people the opportunity to buy a home. It's just so unfair. It is so unfair to millennial Australians, who want the same opportunities that their parents had and deserve that opportunity, who don't want to have to choose between superannuation and homeownership and who don't think it's fair that their aspirations are limited by the generations before them, including those in this chamber. They don't think that's fair, and I don't think it's fair either. We have brought policy after policy to this chamber, seeking support to take action on a crisis which weighs heavily on the hearts of these Australians, and we've seen those political parties team up to block and delay. They are delaying the HAFF and blocking other pieces of legislation, including on rent-to-buy—that's off the table. They haven't come in here with a plan or a policy which would actually make a difference in people's lives. They're more interested in their social media algorithms and clicks than they are in building social housing. That's a sorry and sad state of affairs. The other side are more interested in limiting the aspirations of young Australians than in backing them in and supporting them. This is a ridiculous state of affairs. People look at this parliament and see that we have the power to do something. We have the power to do something on supply. We have the power to help ordinary people into homes and to focus on what we can do to increase supply and get people into homes. There is this unholy alliance more interested in and committed to the political outcomes of what it might mean for them at the next election than what young people are calling for, and that's to have their aspirations to own a home realised. 17:59 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania On his website, Australian Greens housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather, says, 'People have lost faith in the political system.' I agree, except Mr Chandler-Mather is part of the problem. Instead of doing a deal with the government to get a system going that could help low-income people into the housing market, the Greens housing guy is insisting on a rent freeze—a policy that all serious economists and housing policy experts reckon will make the situation worse. Max Chandler-Mather is often on TV banging on about wanting to stop single mums from being evicted. Then why does his housing policy propose a rent cap at $90 more per week than the maximum parenting payment available to single mothers? His idea of what is affordable is totally out of touch. Chandler-Mather's housing policy says that rents for public housing could be capped at 25 per cent of the national household income. The latest figures put that at just over 120 grand a year. It's $200 more a week than the rate of JobSeeker—what a joke! Do you know the Greens' problem? Most of them have no idea what it's like to struggle on a low income let alone being a single mum. They don't know what it's like to be on public housing waiting list, and Max Chandler-Mather has zero idea what it's like to be a single mother on a low income. Senator LAMBIE 250026 The Greens pretend to be a voice for working people—what a big steaming pile of BS that is. The Deputy Leader of the Greens, Senator Faruqi, also loves to bang on about affordable housing, but she is a wheeler and dealer of investment property. She even had plans to bulldoze 20 gum trees at one of her properties. How un-Australian, to cut down a koala's home. If the Greens do want to help Australians get a roof over their heads, they will pull their collective heads in— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM Under standing order 193.3, imputing the motivations of senators is out of order, as is, by the way, imputing motivations of members of the other place. That applies whether or not what you're saying is true rather than a great big load of rubbish, which is what Senator Lambie's just been spouting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I didn't actually hear an imputation of actual motive. I did hear a lot of criticism. Senator McAllister? Senator McAllister 121628 On a separate point of order, interjections are disorderly. Senator Lambie has been delivering her speech and, during the entire time, Senator McKim has been interjecting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Anyway, Senator Lambie, you have the call. Senator LAMBIE 250026 And then there is the Greens' Treasury spokesperson, Nick McKim, who told the Prime Minister via social media last year that he should 'shut up about his childhood story'. How rude! What he didn't tell his followers is he owns four houses himself. How dare you tell people who've lived in public housing that. How dare you! If the Greens really want to help Australians get a roof over their heads, they will pull their collective heads in and pass this bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim, on another point of order? 18:02 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to make a personal explanation of no more than 10 seconds. Leave not granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McGrath, let's take it to a higher plane. 18:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I have come here to the rescue. But I would like to commend Senator Lambie for bringing the Greens into this housing debate. What we need to do is just remember what this debate is about: The Albanese Labor Government's high taxing and high spending strategy is killing the Great Australian Dream of owning a home, their hapless policies have been widely recognised as ineffective, and interest rates staying higher for longer in placing even more pressure on Australian families who are already doing it tough. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes on a point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 My point of order is that I'm sitting in front of Senator McGrath and I can barely hear him over— The DEPUTY 10000 I ask for a bit of order at the back end of the chamber. Senator McGRATH 217241 I think the back end of the chamber needs more than a bit of order; we need some common sense in the back end of the chamber, because the Greens political party are a clear and present danger to the Australian economy. They are not just a clear and present danger to the Australian economy; they are a clear and present danger to the social supports that are in Australia at the moment. We have the Greens in their housing policies talking about a rent freeze. A rent freeze is something that would come from a first-year social studies student, someone who doesn't understand the basics of economics. But then again I repeat myself because we have the Greens political party. The Greens political party has Senator Faruqi, who bulldozed 20 homes that koalas were living in in order to build a townhouse. So we have a property developer in Senator Faruqi. Then we have the Greens members of parliament in Queensland, who go around their electorates talking about the importance of housing and how important it is for people to have a home. But, if anyone ever proposes building a home in Queensland, the first person to oppose the building of that home will be the local Green MP, because the Greens political party are a party of hypocrites. I'll get to their antisemitism and their racism later tonight, but they are a party of hypocrites when it comes to housing. These are the people who believe that the great Australian dream is to be homeless on the street, living in a cardboard box. That is the great Australian dream—living in a cardboard box—whereas we in the coalition believe the great Australian dream is owning your own home. We in the coalition believe that you should be able to use your super—because it is your super—in order to build or buy your own home. But, no, that is not what the Greens believe. They want you to live in the gutter. They want you to live in the cardboard boxes. They weaponise housing, because they take the politics of envy to the darkest heart of their soul. The Greens, that antisemitic, racist party—that's what they specialise in. They specialise in division in this country. They specialise in going to protests. Let us hear a Greens politician condemn the murders in Israel. Well, we won't hear that. Let a Greens politician talk about the great Australian dream. We won't hear that from them either. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Order, Senators! Senator McGRATH 217241 They are not just the fairies at the bottom of the garden; they are the dangerous fairies at the bottom of the garden. They are goblins. They are evil orcs, actually. They are the orcs at the bottom of the garden. I blame the Labor Party, because you do preference deals with them. The only reason these people have any relevance is because you preference them. So I call upon the Labor Party— Senator Henderson ZN4 Put them last! Senator McGRATH 217241 to put them last. Put the Greens last. Put that antisemitic, racist party last. Make sure that you preference any other party rather than— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Take your seat, Senator McGrath. Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order, I presume? That's the only ability you have to interrupt the debate, so what's your point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 I assume that Senator McGrath's going to tell us what he told Mr Wadsworth—is that right? Is he going to tell us— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T That's not a point of order. Senator McGrath, you have the call. Senator McGRATH 217241 I would tell the Greens to find some common sense and stop being such hateful, horrible individuals. People who despise Australian Jewish people—that's what the Greens political party has become. You are the antisemitic party. You should be ashamed of yourselves! It is a blot on Australian democracy that antisemites like you sit in this chamber. It is a blot on our liberal democracy that antisemites like you use parliamentary privilege to defame Australians. This is what our democracy has come to. Senator Faruqi 250362 You are a disgrace! Senator Hughes 273828 You called for the destruction of Israel. You're an antisemite. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Order! Senator McKim, on your point of order. Senator McKim JKM The point of order is section 193(3) of the standing orders, on imputations of improper motive. I'm not going to cop being called an antisemite by a guy who got sacked by Boris Johnson for being a racist! Senator 217241 That's beside the point. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator McGrath. Senator McGRATH 217241 Senator McKim, that great oxygen thief from Tasmania! Your greatest contribution to political life would be to immediately withdraw from it. What have you done for public policy in Australia? Absolutely nothing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator McGrath, take your seat. Senator McKim. Senator McKim JKM I'm just wondering if you could rule on my point of order that describing a group of senators as antisemites is contrary to section 193(3) of the standing orders. Senator McGrath 217241 On that point of order— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I don't need your intervention, Senator McGrath. I will take advice. But I let Senator McGrath continue on the basis that it was attributed to a group, a party, rather than an individual. I will seek advice, should my interpretation be wrong. Senator McGrath. Senator McGRATH 217241 They're worried because it's come too close to the bone. That's the issue with the Greens. They are the new nasty party of Australian politics. They are the party who are supposed to be about progressive politics, but they are about nasty politics. They're the party that wants to break us down by race. This is the party that should be thrown out of the chamber. This is the party who the Australian Labor Party should put last at the next election. This is the party who the Labor Party in Queensland should put last, but they won't, because the only way you can stay in power is by doing a preference deal with this horrible, nasty, racist bunch of people who live in that Greens political sphere. Put them last. Throw them out of this place. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senators, the time for the debate has expired. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator McGrath, what is your point of order? Senator McGrath 217241 Senator Shoebridge has just impugned me. I ask you to ask him to withdraw please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I did not hear what Senator Shoebridge said. Senator Shoebridge, you understand the standing orders. Is there something you said you need to withdraw? I'll ask you to reflect on that. Senator Shoebridge 169119 In compliance with the standing orders, although it is true, I withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I asked you to reflect on whether your remarks were within the standing orders or not. If they're not, you need to withdraw unconditionally. Senator Shoebridge 169119 Yes, I will reflect on it. I'll seek the advice of my colleagues. Senator McGrath 217241 You should withdraw. You really are a grub, aren't you? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator McGrath! Senator McGrath 217241 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The time for this discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 90 MATTERS OF URGENCY Housing 90 18:10 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 9 October, from Senator David Pocock: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to implement a national housing and population plan that manages international student growth based on consultation and without unintended consequences for the economy or Australian students." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will now set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 18:11 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to implement a national housing and population plan that manages international student growth based on consultation and without unintended consequences for the economy or Australian students. It seems to me that there is a clear need for the Australian government to implement a national housing and population plan that manages international student growth based on consultation without unintended consequences for the economy or Australian students. GDP growth was 0.2 per cent in the June quarter of this year. Capital Economics today forecast that the government's Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill will shave 0.7 per cent off growth in 2025. I'll let you do the maths on that one. The Albanese government say that they want a future made in Australia, that they want Australia to be more than a 'dig it and ship it' country: 'We're going to be the smart country and develop a new economy.' Yet, they bring forth a bill that will cripple our fourth biggest export industry: international education. This is the biggest export outside iron ore, coal and natural gas. It doesn't seem to square to me. They're happy to give our gas away mostly for free. Here we have an industry that isn't doing that, yet they've taken out the sledgehammer. Under the guise of education reform, we see what is clearly just an immigration bill. We obviously need a sensible conversation about immigration in Australia; we absolutely do. It is not fair on Australians and it is not fair on new Australians, new migrants, who arrive here into a housing crisis. It's not working, and we need to be looking at the number of people who are arriving here and having a really sensible conversation about what the trade-offs are when it comes to the environment of a growing population. It was in the State of the environment report. It is very clear. But we should do that in a sensible way, set targets and then have a plan to actually achieve that. How big do we want Australia to be? I don't hear too many people I talk to here in the ACT saying they want a big Australia, so that means we need to actually have a plan. Instead of a plan that takes into account things like housing, accessibility, affordability, infrastructure, the environment and water and our priority skills, we have legislation that is rushed, is poorly drafted and will do immense harm to our economy and our higher education sector, a sector that is already on the rocks after COVID. We currently have the lowest research and development spend on record. We have to turn that around, and we have not seen the government deal with that. They finally commissioned a review to look at our R&D spend, right at the end of their term. As a former well-respected senator in this place and a former higher education minister said today, this bill ignores the Faustian deal that, when the universities were not properly funded, they turned to international education as a way of securing the revenue they needed. Removing funding for research meant they had to go after international students to cross subsidise, and here we are taking that away from them and not giving them extra research funding. Obviously there is broad agreement that the integrity and quality measures in this bill are welcome; there are some shonky providers that need to be cleaned up. But we are in a situation where the unintended consequences are severe not just to the economy, as I have discussed, but also to domestic students. Western Sydney University really highlighted this in their evidence to the Senate committee. They have a small percentage of international students, but, as Vice-Chancellor George Williams said: In our case, for every dollar we take in from an international student, 24c goes to supporting other activities, particularly our domestic students. So 24c in every dollar goes to our food pantry for domestic students, to equity issues and to study help. So we're thinking very carefully about how this will affect our Australian students, because we will no longer be able to offer some of the vital programs they need to get through university. The other thing we need to talk about in this bill is the extraordinary power this bill confers on the minister. Surely the Morrison administration taught us the enormous risks with this approach. In closing, I will say the Senate hasn't even begun debate on this bill, and the government wants it to start on 1 January next year. It's untenable and creates enormous risks. We should be talking about immigration, not using higher education as a scapegoat. 18:16 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria It's my pleasure to rise and make a contribution to this debate, which of course is necessary because of Labor's opening of the floodgates, which has meant we are seeing record levels of international students in this country, fuelling the housing crisis and causing unprecedented chaos in the international education sector. Senator Pocock is correct in saying that the bill currently before the Senate has caused enormous distress and grief for the tertiary education sector. It is a bill which is riddled with incompetence, secrecy, unfairness and uncertainty because of Labor's botched student caps scheme. We have, in fact, endured some four public hearings looking into the ESOS bill to discover the many irregularities in proper decisions which have been made, as well as the blatant discrimination. It does reflect the government's sheer incompetence. It is now October, and the government is asking Australia's higher education and VET sector to implement student caps by 1 January with so much uncertainty we don't even know whether or not the bill is going to be debated tomorrow. Really, as the sector is saying, it is absolutely insane. I particularly want to raise concerns with the way the government, with its proposed student cap, has blatantly discriminated against smaller and regional universities and private higher education and VET providers. We've had myriad pieces of evidence in that regard. That is a shocking reflection on the government's focus on fairness and equity for all. For the Minister for Education, on the day that he announced the national planning level of 270,000, to declare that the regions and regional universities would be the winners is an absolute joke and of course not supported by the facts. We have seen that, at the Group of Eight universities, Australia's most prestigious universities, the proposed number of students there is very much on par with 2023, while the regions and small universities, particularly private providers, have taken a very big hit. But let's not forget what this is all about. This is all about fixing Labor's immigration mess, fixing Labor's 'big Australia' policy. Labor, in fact, has run the biggest migration program in a generation, with more than one million migrants coming here under this government. At the same time, we've seen record-low construction and building approvals, and that is putting more and more pressure on the housing market. Even the government itself, in its assessment of rentals and the impact that international students are placing on the rental market, has conceded that the record number of international students is fuelling the housing crisis. Very proudly, the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, announced in his budget reply that we will fix Labor's mess by reducing the excessive numbers of foreign students studying at metropolitan universities to relieve the stress on rental markets, and that's where the big problem is. That's where the big pressures are in Melbourne and Sydney in particular. We will also enhance the integrity of the student visa program by introducing a tiered approach to increasing the student visa application fee and applying it to foreign students who change providers. The coalition also believes that, by rebalancing the Migration Program and taking decisive action on the housing crisis, we would free up almost 40,000 additional homes in the first year and well over 100,000 homes in the next five years. We will do this by implementing a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes in Australia. Secondly, we will reduce the permanent Migration Program by 25 per cent, from 185,000 to 140,000 for the first two years in recognition of the urgency of this crisis. The program will then increase to 150,000 in year 3 and 160,000 in year 4. We are determined to fix Labor's mess, to fix Labor's big Australia policy. As I say, this is very much a mess of its own making. 18:21 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm pleased to rise and speak to this pretty wide-ranging urgency motion today. I understand that the mover of the motion and others seek to talk about a bill that's before the Senate and the broader approach by the government to managing student immigration and international students and what impact that might have on resources and housing in other parts of the country. It's a noble approach. I understand the mover of the motion seeks to implement a plan to have better policy outcomes, to have something written down that says how we will go about balancing ensuring that we have enough housing and resources and services for people but also a sustainable education system. I understand that, but the problem with that is that the government has done this work. The government has done the reviews and the work required to understand what is going on in our international education system. We started this work very early on, particularly after COVID, where it was really evident that we needed to understand what was happening in Australia's education system, particularly how international education was impacting our education system. We know that integrity concerns in Australia's international education system and student visa program have been identified in three recent reviews that the government commissioned and has been looking at. This includes the review of the migration system, which is referred to as the Parkinson review, a large-scale review that showed that the immigration system under the previous government was a complete and utter mess. It also includes the review that we did, the rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system. That was the Nixon review. Underlying a lot of this work that we're doing is to make sure that people that come over here to study and are on student visas are not exploited when they are here. Those reviews found that there was a lot of work to do and that we needed to get integrity back into the system. The preliminary report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into Australia's tourism and international education sectors is also being considered by the government. So the work is there, and we are considering those recommendations. In implementing this important work, what we are seeking to do as a government is welcome international students but also update the system to ensure that the sustainability and integrity of the sector is ensured. We need to do this because we need to make sure that our international partners can continue to have confidence in the quality of the education and experience that international students receive when choosing an Australian provider. It's a really important step forward. And we need to do this not for the bare political points that are being made by those opposite. On the one hand, they say that students are contributing to the housing crisis, but they didn't do anything about the housing crisis for 10 years. Somehow that's the problem, but they also don't want to do anything to fix it. If you're genuinely concerned about this sector and how we can build integrity back in, then the ESOS bill before the Senate is dealing with those issues. I know that there are universities in big cities that have for a long time relied on international students, and one thing that I am genuinely really pleased to see is that, through this process, we are going to get more of those international students into regional universities. I know that there have been committee hearings. You said it's being rushed, but we've had consultation for a long time, and it's been with the committee since May. That's not as rushed as most Senate bills go. It's really important for the people that I represent that regional universities don't go backwards, and this bill and the work that is being done ensure that that will be the case. That is the direct feedback that I had last week from regional universities in my home town of Cairns. They want to see this bill passed because it will give them the certainty that they need. They want to move on and have integrity in the system for international students. I understand there are probably big universities in big cities that rely on international students, but, for the regional communities and regional universities, this is incredibly important. We know that the government are committed to supporting sustainable growth in the international education sector, and that is exactly what we are seeking to do by delivering on these reviews and implementing this forward. 18:26 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I don't even know where to start with this, but I'll start with the Labor government. Everything the senator has said is completely inaccurate, because, after four days of hearings, no-one could tell us that the bill would in fact do anything to alleviate the housing crisis. It's not even in the methodology or the formula that has been developed to initiate the caps. This formula or methodology did not even consider integrity or quality, and it did not even consider how students would be forced to go into the different skills that the government says are needed in this country. So it is absolute and utter rubbish what the government is suggesting this bill will do. There has been no modelling done to even look at the impacts of this bill on universities, on job losses, on the economy—nothing. This is purely a political play in this horrible race to the bottom that Labor and the Liberals are running to see who can win and who can be the worst on migration. That's what it is all about. It is just a political smokescreen. International students have suffered blow after blow from this government, starting with the secretive introduction of ministerial direction 107. Then what followed were changes to temporary graduate visas, changes to age eligibility, changes to onshore applications and changes to visa application processes without any consideration of the international students who had already commenced. If this wasn't enough, this was followed by a whopping 125 per cent increase in student visa fees. All of this has led many prospective students to reconsider their decision to apply for study here. International students are telling us that they feel unwelcomed and unwanted and they feel attacked in this country, and that is a disgrace. On top of that, now there are these international student caps. Labor like to spout these lines about the importance of international education, but their actions completely belie what they say. These caps are going to decimate and crush the higher education sector. In those four days of hearings we heard again and again an almost unanimous opposition to this dog's breakfast of a bill. Not only is this bill a dog's breakfast, but the whole process that was undertaken to bring this bill to where it is now was completely chaotic. It's been called irrational and illogical, and that is absolutely true. Before I came here I was in the higher education sector as an academic and a researcher for many years, and I can tell you that what the universities are telling us is the absolute truth. Today we heard that the decline in university rankings is yet another dire warning in the long list of warnings that we have heard over the last three months about the terrible consequences of these caps. If Labor had any sense, they would heed these warnings and scrap these caps. That is the reason why I have been unequivocal in my condemnation and opposition to these caps from the beginning and over the past four months. The chorus of voices, over those past four months, opposing these caps has only grown louder and louder. The government have tried to insist—and they keep insisting because they have nothing else to say—that this bill is all about quality and integrity. But we know that these caps will do nothing for quality and integrity, so that argument has failed, as has every single argument that you have presented to support your bill. No-one believes a single one of those arguments. I'll now come to this motion. I have to say, I'm very unclear, having read this motion, what Senator Pocock actually wants us to vote on, because to me it still seems to conflate international students with the housing crisis. Although Senator Pocock is using my line that the student cap bill is a migration policy disguised as an education policy, which is absolutely true, I haven't really heard from Senator Pocock whether or not he opposes these international student caps. So I have to say that I remain confused about where to go with this motion. But I can tell you this: the Greens will not stop doing every single thing we can to make sure that this bill never sees the light of day, because it is going to be damaging for Australia's reputation as a destination for international education, damaging for the sector and damaging for international students. It should be scrapped. (Time expired) 18:31 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I too rise to contribute to this debate. Our government's focus on education and housing reflects a broader commitment to improving the lives of everyone who calls Australia home, whether they are studying, working or raising families here. International students form an essential part of Australia's communities, classrooms and campuses. They bring diverse perspectives that enrich our academic environment and our society as a whole. Many of these students use the knowledge and qualifications gained here to become leaders, scientists, teachers and entrepreneurs. International education is also one of Australia's most valuable national assets, providing economic, social and diplomatic benefits that extend far beyond the campus and the classroom. That is why we proudly welcome international students to Australia. This government is dedicated to ensuring that our international education system maintains the highest standards. We want students to have confidence that they are investing in the best possible education when they choose Australia. Since this government was elected, we have been actively working to ensure we can continue to be a global education leader. As Senator Green has already mentioned earlier in this debate, in September 2022, we announced the Parkinson review of the migration system. This was followed by the Nixon Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System, in January 2023. Both of these reviews highlighted urgent integrity issues in international education, and we have moved quickly to act on their recommendations. In particular, the rise of unscrupulous education providers and recruitment agents who seek to exploit this system and threaten to undermine international education in Australia informed part of these recommendations. These dodgy operators focus on making a quick profit, often at the expense of students who are vulnerable. They damage the reputation of the entire sector, undermining the hard work of universities and providers who are doing the right thing. Such practices have no place in Australia's international education sector. In August, last year, the government closed the concurrent enrolment loophole that allowed agents and providers to shift international students who had been here for less than six months from one course to another—often to a cheaper course or from genuine study no study at all. In October, last year, we boosted the capacity of the VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, through a $38 million investment and by establishing the an integrity unit. As members of this chamber would be aware, the government is seeking to deliver some of these objectives through the so-called ESOS bill. The bill gives the minister the powers to support the sustainable growth of the international education sector by providing the minister with ongoing policy levers to ensure that the number and distribution of overseas student enrolments align with government objectives. International students deserve to experience a quality education when they come to Australia, and we are ensuring that this is the case. Let me quickly turn to the question of housing. We know that being able to find safe and secure accommodation is important to a positive study experience for all students. Housing is a key part of a positive study experience, and we are making sure that it's part of the broader growth of the international education sector. Where universities want to enrol international students above their limit, they will be required to build more purpose-built student accommodation to benefit both international and domestic students. In terms of housing more broadly, this government has an ambitious housing agenda, backed by $32 billion worth of commitments to help people build, rent and buy homes. That has been the subject of much debate and discussion in this chamber. Our goal is to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. It's a challenge, but it's one that we must meet if we are to ensure that all Australians have access to affordable, secure housing. Supporting this housing plan is not only good for Australians and Australian students; it will also benefit the international students who come here to study. This government is committed to ensuring that our higher education system remains one of the best in the world. By managing growth responsibly and sustainably, managing integrity in our education sector and addressing housing challenges, we are working to create a better future for students, both international and domestic. We are delivering on our promise to provide quality education and secure housing for all Australians. 18:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Thank you to Senator Pocock for raising this issue. Australia desperately needs housing and population policies that work for Australians. The Labor government has no coherent or practical policies. Both chiefs of the Liberal-Labor unity party have been implementing massive immigration. It's essentially: 'Open the floodgates to arrivals, no matter how many Australians are made homeless.' We need a policy that does the opposite and puts Australians first. Australia just hit a record level of temporary visa holders. Excluding tourists and other short-stay visitors, temporary visa holders in the country now number 2.43 million people. This blows the previous record of 1.9 million out of the water. That's up to a million extra houses needed for these people. And 680,000 of these are international students—another record. This is putting untold pressure on the housing crisis. When the borders were closed during COVID, nearly all suburbs close to universities experienced higher rental vacancy rates. That means that when international students couldn't come into the country there were more homes available for Australians. Now, who would have thought? The truth is that some universities and private vocational education and training providers are completely abusing the system. A student visa is more often seen as a backdoor way to get working rights in Australia and eventually staying here forever. Hundreds of thousands of people on temporary student visas end up illegally working full-time hours and sending the money back to their home country. Personal remittance flows out of Australia almost perfectly correlate with the number of student visa holders in the country. On the latest figures in 2023, the transfer of money out of Australia hit a record $11 billion—out of the country. We can only assume that it has increased since then. A particular lie is being peddled in this debate. That lie is that international students are one of Australia's largest exports, at $40 billion a year. That figure assumes an international student arrives here on day one with all their money for course fees, rent, food and transport bills, and other spending already saved in their bank account. In reality most students end up working here for the money to support themselves and sending the remainder back home. The claim that international students are one of our biggest exports is simply not true because it is does not align with reality. Until housing and infrastructure catch up, One Nation will drop net immigration to zero. 18:39 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I, too, rise to speak on this motion because I think that we definitely need a plan/policy—however you want to call it—to deal with the catastrophic rise in population and the catastrophic rise in homelessness that is occurring in this country. It is clear that the Treasury, the immigration department and Home Affairs have lost control of our borders. I note a comment made by the current head of the Treasury, Steven Kennedy, during the last set of estimates. I apologise if I don't quote it verbatim, but it was along the lines of saying that he was surprised by the number of immigrants and visas of people who had come into the country. I remember being surprised that he would make such a remark because I would have thought the Treasury would also talk to the immigration department and talk to Home Affairs about the number of visas being issued, No. 1, and then the number of outstanding visas or visas that had been issued whereby people had not yet arrived from the visas that had been issued. I think another key word in all of this planning or policy is actually 'priorities'. As a government, a good government needs to get its priorities straight, and it is clear that the vested interests of universities and big corporations are being put in front of the needs of hardworking Australians in regard to both their ability to acquire housing as well as the ability for the government as a whole to build infrastructure that provides essential services. Finally, our skills based economy—why do we always have to necessarily use people from overseas? Do we really want a large university sector at the expense of a skills based sector in the trades? I feel as though our trades sector is being eroded in order of everyone going to university, getting a degree and then graduating broke and brainwashed. We need to get our priorities straight, and, if having a plan is a part of that, then so be it. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 95 DOCUMENTS Domestic and Family Violence 95 18:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I might just take a moment to draw the chamber's attention to one of the reports that has been tabled today, which is the review of the family and domestic violence leave, which was supported by this parliament during this term of the parliament. This, of course, was the very first piece of legislation passed by this parliament under the Albanese government and addresses a very important right that was missing in Australian legislation beforehand. I think everyone understands the scourge of family and domestic violence that we continue to see in this country. It's an area that this government has taken a wide degree of action on. I want to recognise the efforts in particular of the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, and the Minister for Social Services, Minister Rishworth, who have done an immense amount of work in this space more generally. Of course, I also want to recognise the efforts of so many women's organisations, in particular, and domestic violence organisations as well, who have lobbied so hard for so long to see real action taken to deal with the scourge of family and domestic violence that we see far too much in this country. The purpose of the change to the law that this parliament made was to provide for the first time in Australian history a legislated right to 10 days of family and domestic violence leave for all Australian workers. The reason for providing that leave was that all of the evidence demonstrated that too often women, as the major gender that experiences family and domestic violence, were effectively having to make a choice between their safety and their paycheque because of the lack of leave provided for women to deal with the consequences of family and domestic violence. We commissioned a review to examine how that new leave entitlement was going. What it found in essence was that, for those who have made use of the leave provision, it has provided a very important right to workers who have been experiencing family and domestic violence to obtain the support that they require without losing pay and without fearing the loss of their job. However, the review also did find that there is some work to be done yet in terms of making workers—in particular women—aware of this new right that they have. That's something, of course, the government will take on board and do some more work on to ensure that all Australian workers are aware of this new right that exists for people who have experienced family and domestic violence to take paid leave without fearing losing their pay or their job. That is an important right that has been provided. We do want to make sure it allows workers to not only retain their pay and retain their job but also retain the ability to do something and take more action to seek the support that they require to deal with family and domestic violence. As I say, this is one of a number of things that our government has undertaken to improve the position of victim-survivors of domestic violence. It is still far too widespread in our community. We all, of course, see the tragic murders of too many women at the hands of their husbands, boyfriends, close family members and other relatives. It's something that we do want to stop, and providing this leave entitlement, we think, is an important way of assisting victim-survivors. It's very pleasing to see this review find that it is working very well, at least for those who are aware of that right. I should also draw attention to the fact that the submissions to this review indicate this is a right that has very broad support across the community. I think it's well understood that in the industrial relations field there are often areas where we see disagreement between employers and unions. What this review found was that, across the board, there is very strong support for this leave, so it's terrific to see that the need for this leave entitlement is something that employers, unions and workers can all agree is really necessary. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 96 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 96 Report 96 18:47 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 together with accompanying documents. Treaties Joint Committee 96 Report 96 18:48 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present the 221st report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Human Rights Joint Committee 96 Report 96 18:48 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present additional information received by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on its inquiry into compulsory income management. COMMITTEES 97 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 97 Government Response to Report 97 18:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I present two government responses to committee reports as listed 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— GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE ADVISORY REPORT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ON THE CRIMES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (OMNIBUS NO. 1) BILL 2024 Introduction The Government thanks the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) for its review of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2024, and is pleased to provide the following response to the Committee's recommendations. Recommendation One The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to provide that the definition of 'prescribed investigation' in section 5(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 include, for the purposes of the Parliamentary Inspector of the Crime and Corruption Commission (WA), an investigation that the Parliamentary Inspector is conducting in the performance of the Parliamentary Inspector's functions under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 (WA). The Government accepts this recommendation and has introduced amendments to Schedule 5 of the Bill to implement this recommendation. Recommendation Two The Committee recommends that, as part of the proposed electronic surveillance reforms or other future reforms to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Government consider whether state-based oversight bodies should be given access to stored communications and telecommunications data held by the agencies within their jurisdiction, in addition to the access to lawfully intercepted information and interception warrant information conferred by the Bill. The Government accepts this recommendation. The Government will consider oversight arrangements for Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement, integrity and anti-corruption agencies holistically as part of the electronic surveillance reform process. This will include consideration of the appropriate oversight body or bodies to oversee those agencies' use of electronic surveillance powers under a new Act, as well as arrangements to ensure effective oversight of those agencies' broader activities. Recommendation Three The Committee recommends that, as part of future reforms, the Government consider amending sections 110A, 176A, 187 and 187AA of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to: require that if a Minister makes a declaration by legislative instrument declaring an entity to be an 'enforcement agency' or a 'criminal law enforcement agency', or amending the data retention obligations placed on carriers and carriage service providers, the declaration must be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review and report within the parliamentary disallowance period; retain the existing provision that such declarations cease to have effect after 40 sitting days of either House; and remove the existing requirement within each of these sections for amendments to the primary legislation to be referred to the Committee. The Government accepts this recommendation. The Government will consider mechanisms to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight of legislative instruments made under sections 110A, 176A, 187 and 187AA of the TIA Act that authorise new agencies to exercise powers or alter the nature of substantive powers or regulatory obligations, as part of the broader electronic surveillance reform. As part of this consideration, the Government will have regard to this recommendation of the Committee, and the specialised advice it may be able to provide the Parliament as part of the Parliament's consideration of disallowable instruments. Recommendation Four The Committee recommends that, subject to implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 be passed by the Parliament. The Government accepts this recommendation. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—Report on the Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 21 (2021-2022) : Australian Intelligence Agencies—Government response . On 26 June 2024, the Report on theReview of Administration and Expenditure No.21 (2021-22)—Australian Intelligence Agencies was tabled by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and made one recommendation. Recommendation 1 The Government accepts this recommendation. The Government will provide an update on the progress of the REDSPICE program twice per year until the program concludes. This will comprise an update provided as part of the annual Administration and Expenditure submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and a supplementary update provided to the Committee six months later. Community Affairs References Committee 98 Government Response to Report 98 18:49 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Firstly, I would point out that the Community Affairs References Committee report entitled Out-of-pocket costs in Australian healthcare was completed in 2014, and 10 years later the government has only just decided that it is worth responding to. Even then, all the government bothered to say was that it had been so long since the inquiry finished that a substantive response was no longer required. Personally, I believe that the out-of-pocket costs that Australians experience in the healthcare system are still very much a pressing issue and absolutely require a substantive response. The important report presented, which the government has ignored for 10 years—both persuasions, by the way, across the 10-year period, did not bother to respond—clearly outlines in explicit terms the action needed to reduce the out-of-pocket costs faced by Australians needing health care. I would like to commend my former colleague Rachel Siewert for chairing this inquiry. There are many interesting findings within the report that can be applied today, but the main takeaway is that out-of-pocket costs have absolutely spiralled across the last 10 years. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and healthcare costs are spiralling out of control across this country. The national average out-of-pocket cost to see a GP is over $40. In the electorate of Perth, you will need to pay an average of $48.64 cents to see your doctor. If we compare that to where it was just 10 years ago, the average out-of-pocket cost to see a GP was $28.58. This means that the cost has almost doubled today to see a doctor compared to what it was 10 years ago. Even in the last year, the average fee for a standard 20-minute consult appointment has risen by $3, and, if you are somebody that needs to see the GP regularly, the average cost of such a consult really hits you hard. People are needing to pay more and more each year just to receive basic health care. Ten years ago, 5.4 per cent of people delayed seeing a doctor due to the cost. Last year that number rose to seven per cent. Seven per cent of people are delaying seeing a doctor—delaying getting a mole checked, delaying getting a new script, delaying getting a referral. This has real human impact. The same trends are occurring with dentists. The latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data report shows that 30 per cent of people who need to see a dentist are delaying because of cost. Let me repeat that: 30 per cent of people in our community are delaying seeing the dentist because of cost. One in five of these individuals is delaying seeing a dentist because of cost. It is clear that health care is getting less and less affordable, and people should not have to endure this. They shouldn't have to choose between the health care they need and putting food on the table. Last week the Greens unveiled a bold new plan to enable people to see their GP for free, using only their Medicare card. Our plan will improve the health of the community and bring down the cost of living, because no-one should have to choose between seeing their doctor and putting food on the table. The Greens will build over 1,000 new free healthcare clinics, staffed by doctors, nurses, psychologists and dentists working together to deliver good care. With at least six of these clinics in each electorate, this will enable access to free essential health care. To pay for these clinics, the Greens will make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax. These are corporations that are making billions in excess profits by price-gouging people in a cost-of-living crisis. Yes, we will make them pay, because for too long they have gotten away with gouging people at the supermarket checkout, jacking up people's rents and making off like absolute bandits with the resources that belong to all of us, selling them on international markets at a massive profit that does not return to the community. Only the Greens will make going to the GP free. Successive governments have failed to stop the rapid increase in out-of-pocket healthcare costs in this country. The Labor Party would rather put money into the pockets of property investors, fossil fuel companies and weapons manufacturers than into properly fund public health care. It is clear that you cannot keep voting for the same two parties and expect a different result. In the upcoming federal election, vote Green to make health care free and accessible. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 99 18:59 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia On behalf of Senator O'Neill, the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present Delegated legislation monitor 12 of 2024, together with ministerial correspondence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. In tabling this report, I would first like to draw the chamber's attention to a new matter raised in the monitor concerning the Explosives Regulations 2024. This instrument replaces two previous explosives regulations and condenses them into a single modernised instrument. The committee is seeking the Minister for Defence's advice on a number of scrutiny concerns, including the broad delegation of administrative powers under the instrument. The cohort of delegates under the instrument extends to Australian Public Service delegates below the senior executive service level. The explanatory statement does not address why it is necessary and appropriate to provide for such broad delegation and whether delegates exercising the powers will be required to have appropriate skills, qualifications and experience. This does not align with the committee's expectations for explanatory statements to comprehensively justify the delegation of administrative powers and functions, particularly when these powers are delegated below the SES level. The committee is also seeking the minister's advice as to the inclusion of significant matters in the instrument. The enabling act provides that the contravention of regulation provisions constitutes a criminal offence under the act, punishable by imprisonment or a fine. While the act provides this skeleton framework for criminal offences, the instrument prescribes the substantive content of the offences. As a result, the committee considers that these provisions prescribe significant matters which are better suited for primary legislation. The committee has asked the minister why it is necessary and appropriate to provide for the content of criminal offences in delegated legislation in this instance. The committee looks forward to engaging with the Minister for Defence on this matter and on each of these scrutiny concerns outlined in the monitor. Another new matter raised in this monitor is in relation to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) (CFMEU Construction and General Division Administration) Determination 2024. This instrument determines the scheme for administration of the CFMEU Construction and General Division and its branches. The committee has raised several scrutiny concerns including in relation to broad discretionary powers for the scheme administrator, the delegation of these powers by any nominated person and the possible collection, use or disclosure of personal information. The latter point concerns privacy, which some provisions in the instrument appear to engage. This includes a power of the administrator to keep and maintain a register of CFMEU members. The committee considers this is likely to include the collection, use or disclosure of members' personal information. Where an instrument provides for this, the committee expects the explanatory statement will clarify the nature and scope of the information collected and any applicable safeguards that protect personal information. The committee looks forward to engaging with the Attorney-General on each of the matters outlined in the monitor. In addition, the committee resolved to draw two matters to the attention of the Senate in relation to this instrument. Firstly, there was the Attorney-General's justification for not undertaking consultation with persons likely to be affected by the instrument. The explanatory statement notes that, given the urgent need to determine whether to place the division and its branches into administration, it was not reasonably practicable to undertake consultation. Secondly, the instrument was accompanied by a single-page explanatory statement which meet the legislated minimum requirements but did not provide any information about the operation of the instrument. The committee emphasises the importance of explanatory statements to understand the purpose, operation and effect of an instrument, particularly noting how an individual's rights and interests may be affected by the law. Accordingly, the committee draws its concerns regarding the adequacy of explanatory statements to the attention of the Senate. In monitor 12, the committee also noted the significant matters included in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Regulations 2024. The instrument provides for exemptions from the operation of primary legislation which are not time limited, as well as key definitions and significant elements of a regulatory scheme relating to road transport contractors. The committee considers that exceptions to primary legislation and significant matters of a regulatory scheme are more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. Where these types of matters are included in delegated legislation, the committee expects them to be time limited or subject to sunsetting provisions for the minimum level of parliamentary oversight. The instrument's explanatory statement should also explain why it is considered necessary and appropriate to do so—which I note has not occurred for this instrument. The committee has therefore resolved to draw its concerns about the inclusion of such matters in delegated legislation to the attention of the Senate. In this monitor the committee has also sought further advice from the Minister for Health and Aged Care in relation to three instruments made under the Therapeutic Goods Act to implement vaping reforms. The committee previously raised scrutiny concerns about the conferral of broad discretionary powers, including coercive powers. The minister has since advised he can arrange to repeal the provisions of concern, and the committee is seeking the minister's undertaking to do so. The committee is also asking whether the explanatory statement can be amended to include the information provided by the minister about why it is necessary and appropriate for the instrument to include additional exemptions to offensives found in the enabling act. The committee is also continuing to engage with the minister on the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Regulations 2024. The committee is requesting further detail on specific factors to be considered in exercising broad discretionary powers under items 4 and 28 of the instrument, including for an authorised officer to enter premises. Advice is also being sought on amending the explanatory statement to include the information provided by the minister relating to the intention of the instrument and the definitions of 'authorised officer' and 'authorised person'. The committee considers that this information would be useful to include in the explanatory statement to guide users of the law in understanding how the instrument operates and who is conferred powers under it. This committee would like to thank the Minister of Health and Aged Care for his ongoing engagement in these matters. Finally, the committee is seeking further information from the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to automated decision-making under the Migration (Designated Migration Law—Visa Condition 8208) Determination. The committee looks forward to receiving further information from the minister in relation to the potential operation of a computer program to make visa decisions as permitted by the instrument. Further, I'm pleased to advise the chamber that the number of undertakings that have been outstanding for more than 90 days in the monitor is 14, down from 21 in the previous monitor. Seven new undertakings have been made by ministers or agencies to address the committee's scrutiny concerns, and 12 have been implemented within the last three weeks. The committee is very pleased to see that the recent undertakings have been implemented in a timely manner. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor No. 12 of 2024 to the Senate. Question agreed to. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 100 Scrutiny Digest 100 19:06 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 13 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 100 COMMITTEES Consideration 100 DOCUMENTS 101 DOCUMENTS Services Australia, National Housing Accord, Attorney-General's Department, McPhillamys Gold Project, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Renewable Energy, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Ilpeye Ilpeye Estate 101 Order for the Production of Documents 101 19:07 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Services Australia, the National Housing Accord, the Pareto Phone data breach, the McPhillamys Gold Project and associated legislative instruments, PsiQuantum, renewable energy projects, Australian carbon credit units and the Ilpeye Ilpeye Aboriginal Corporation. 19:08 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the return to order for the order for the production of documents No. 538. In doing so, I note the significant lengths that the Senate had to go to in order to have these documents tabled. What we uncovered at the last round of Senate estimates in relation to a $600,000 ministerial speechwriter employed by the department for the use of the minister was extraordinary. So far we are no nearer to understanding why there was such a need. Minister Shorten does have a whole team of ministerial advisers in his office to attend to his needs as minister, and yet he and his department saw fit to hire a personal speechwriter at a cost of over $600,000 to the Australian taxpayer while everyday Australians are struggling in a cost-of-living crisis. We rightly asked the question as to why. Then, when the Senate ordered the minister to produce these documents, we were given a number of excuses, saying that it was all going to be too hard. Well, I'm glad that the Senate reiterated its order and I thank the Senate for doing so. I am glad that these documents have now been tabled, because transparency is important. We have heard many times from this government about how they want to be transparent. It was part of their pitch at the election. We have seen a lot of obstruction at every turn, anything but transparency. So this chamber has an important role to play in our democracy. It is our job to scrutinise. It is our job to inquire and to hold this government to account. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 101 Order for the Production of Documents 101 19:09 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This is a tabled document relating to the McPhillamys goldmine decision made by the minister for the environment, Minister Plibersek. The document which was tabled is not extensive in nature, I believe, and in fact is just a notification to the Senate that the government hasn't yet had enough time to comply with the order. I find it astounding that on this decision by the minister, which was made quite some time ago now and has been the topic of much conversation in the community, particularly in New South Wales but also far beyond, the government didn't think that perhaps by now, particularly when an order for the production of documents was passed by the Senate, by majority, they would need to comply with it by the date it was tabled in some form of substance. Sure, we have a response, but it basically says, 'We'll get back to you in a couple of weeks.' That to me is an astounding thumbing of the nose at this parliament, at this Senate, when it comes to matters of accountability and scrutiny. The reason we asked for these documents is that we want to actually understand how the minister managed to make the decision she did, which was on any level, by any metric, a bad decision. It was the wrong one, and people are paying the price. We are determined to ensure that this government does not get away with frankly what is an appalling and egregious decision and a breach of faith with not only the people of Blayney, the region around Orange, the people of New South Wales and the people of Australia but a whole range of people from across the globe who invest in companies like Regis Resources, who have spent $192 million only to not build a goldmine and have nothing to show for it because of a decision by this minister. I will remind colleagues what we asked for. We asked for correspondence between the minister and the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation between 1 March this year and the decision date. We asked for all correspondence between the Prime Minister and his office in relation to the McPhillamys goldmine project. We asked for correspondence between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the McPhillamys goldmine project. We asked for correspondence between the federal minister, Minister Plibersek, and the New South Wales Minister for the Environment, Minister for Heritage, Minister for Climate Change and Minister for Energy in relation to the same project and also correspondence between the minister and the New South Wales Minister for Finance and minister for domestic manufacturing and a range of others, including the Premier. I could go on. The point is that all of those people I just mentioned, including the minister's own department, who are not an easy crowd to please when it comes to projects like this, the New South Wales Labor Premier, the New South Wales Minister for the Environment, the New South Wales department of planning—all of these individuals and entities—gave this project the big green tick. We are still at a loss to understand how the government reached the conclusion they did that this mine was not to proceed. We've asked for the statement of reasons and we still don't have it. As far as I'm aware, the proponents of the mine still don't have the legally required statement of reasons for the minister's decision. So how, after months have passed since this terrible decision was made and after a huge amount of scrutiny has been applied to this—and we have attempted every which way to penetrate this black box of decision-making that happens to be the minister for the environment's office—do we still not know what the actual reason was, the written reason that she is duty bound by law to provide to the proponents and, I believe, the community? We don't understand how the voices of 18 members of the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation outweighed the scores of voices of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the organisation recognised at law as the authority to speak on behalf of country as traditional owners. How did that small group manage to outweigh the concerns of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council? How is that possible? We still do not know today, because our ability to scrutinise this decision is being denied. I might also add that it was the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council that expressed extreme concern that this group, the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation, were gearing up to hijack the laws available to them to prevent this mine from going ahead. If people like those from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, those recognised by law to speak on behalf country, are saying that then we should be worried. Yet the minister wasn't worried. She backed them in, and made a decision off the back of their cause, though we still don't understand what that amounted to. In the face of full federal and state environmental and planning approval, including cultural heritage recognition, we still have absolutely no clarity. Again, I invoke the words of Roy Ah-See, a Wiradjuri elder from this neck of the woods, where the McPhillamys goldmine was supposed to be built, who said that he felt this decision had denied his people economic empowerment—opportunities to actually do something for themselves in their part of the world, on country. That's something they would have welcomed and something that would have enabled them to do something constructive. That opportunity has, in his own words, been denied. There was a scathing letter that he sent to Minister Plibersek, which, of course, is not in any way addressed by the response to the order for production of documents, where he says that her decision basically unpicks decades of work and recognition when it comes to traditional owner groups and land councils, who have legislative authority to speak on behalf of their community and their country. Her decision, according to his letter, has undermined all of that. But we have no clarity and no ability to scrutinise any of this. I do express extreme disappointment in the government's nonresponse to our order for the production of documents thus far, along with the nonresponse to the documents relating to the Kings Plains declaration and the nonresponse to a range of other orders for the production of documents that we have here. I won't go on. I think my dissatisfaction is well established. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 102 BILLS National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024, Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 102

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

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

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

Assent 102 COMMITTEES 103 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 103 Reference 103 19:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 February 2025: a) Gambling harm in Australian society, with particular reference to: b) the impact of gambling on Australian communities, families and children; c) the harm caused by gambling advertising and inducements, and their role in gambling addiction and the grooming of young gamblers; d) the relationship between gambling advertising, media companies and sporting codes, including consideration of alternate funding streams; e) the influence of the gambling industry and their political donations on public policy and responsible ministers; f) the Government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, chaired by the late Ms Peta Murphy; g) and any other related matters. This motion is designed to establish an inquiry into gambling harm in Australian society, with particular reference to: the impact of gambling advertising; the impact of gambling on Australian communities, families and children; the harm caused by gambling advertising and inducements, and their role in gambling addiction and the grooming of young gamblers; the relationship between the gambling advertising, media companies and sporting codes, including consideration of alternative funding streams; the influence of the gambling industry and their potential donations on public policy and responsible ministers—that is an interesting one—and the government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impact on those experiencing gambling harm, chaired by the late Peta Murphy. This inquiry is important because what we've seen is, despite the promises made by the government and despite a unanimous report introduced and tabled in the House of Representatives over 12 months ago that recommended a total ban on gambling advertising—a report that was supported by all sides of politics—those recommendations are sitting on a shelf in the minister's office not being acted upon. We've seen, over and over again, advocates and experts calling out the parliament, particularly the Albanese government, for their lack of action and their refusal to back that recommendation and to do what it is that the Peta Murphy report proposed. There have been lots of excuses as to why this is the case. It seems as though every week there's a new excuse. First of all, put forward by the member in the House Mr Bill Shorten, the excuse was, 'If we didn't have gambling advertising, news media companies wouldn't survive.' Heavens above. If we have to rely on gambling addiction and the destruction of Australian families—the harm of the gambling industry—in order to fund Australia's news organisations, we really are in trouble. That was excuse one. Excuse two, from the sporting codes, was people suggesting that we can't possibly ban gambling advertising because the big sporting codes like the AFL and the NRL need the money in order to ensure that they have participation in their sporting activities from members of the community. Heavens above. If the important participation of Australians in sport relies on the addiction and the parasitic nature of the gambling industry, then we have a real problem. Australian sport, community sport, community participation in sport and our kids' participation in sport need to be supported, but it should not have to rely on the disgusting, underhanded, nasty, dirty tactics of the gambling industry, which sucks in those who are addicted, feeds on the most vulnerable in our community and induces them to spend money they cannot afford. The most recent excuse, put forward by the Prime Minister, was that we can't act on this recommendation of a total ban of gambling advertising because the problem isn't gambling advertising—the problem is gambling. That was an excuse, wasn't it? The Prime Minister said, 'It would be too easy just to ban gambling ads.' If it's too easy, could we at least get that bit done? We know—the experts have told us over and over again—that the single most impactful thing that could be done by this parliament in this term of government would be to stop these ads being pushed down the throats of our children and pushed into the faces and the media streams on phones of those who are struggling with gambling addiction: the inducements and the tricky, nasty and sneaky things that the gambling industry does to suck people back in when their lives are already being torn apart. Gambling addiction ruins lives. It ruins families. It tears families apart. It is one of the leading causes of domestic violence in this country. It pushes people who cannot afford to pay their bills and to deal with the rising cost of living even further below the poverty line. Why do you think the gambling industry are so upset and against a ban on advertising? Because they know it works. They know that banning the advertising of their horrible, parasitic, insidious business model will have an impact. They won't be able to continue to feed off the most vulnerable—to be tricky, sending special codes to the mobile phones of people who are right on the edge in trying to deal with this addiction. And, of course, over and over again, every time we hear from someone within the government front benches, or others in the community who are doing the work of the gambling industry, it is excuse after excuse. They are parroting exactly the same lines that have been used by the gambling industry across the world. The same excuses are rolled out in the UK. The same excuses are rolled out in Ireland. The same excuses are rolled out throughout the European Union. Every time governments around the world try and rein in the harm that is done to families, to individuals, every single time there is an attempt by a government or parliament to rein in the damage and harm that is done by the gambling industry, when it comes to advertising, they roll out the same excuses. None of this is unique. I want to know why this government has gone so weak. One of the terms of reference in this inquiry so importantly goes to that point: the influence of the gambling industry and their political donations on public policy and responsible ministers. Let's be frank and honest here. Vested interests in the gambling industry have had their claws in members of government, on both sides, for years—and not just in the federal sphere. Let's be honest—they've had their claws in members of parliament, members of government and ministers in the states and territories as well. They buy their influence through donations. They buy their influence through fancy dinners, birthday lunches and trips to the grand final—nice, cosy corporate boxes at the football. They buy their influence and then they expect to be listened to and looked after by members of parliament. That is how the gambling industry has worked. They've done it in Australia. They've done it around the world, and it is time they were called to account. I'm the first to say that I'm not opposed to gambling. As a kid, my family looked forward to the Melbourne Cup. It was a fun thing to do, to put on a bet for the Melbourne Cup. It was a bit of fun. No-one is proposing to ban gambling. But we do need to rein in the hideous, damaging, harmful conduct of the gambling industry and their creeping, parasitic nature. Because it's not just about putting a bet on the horses anymore; this is about kids being sucked into gambling and putting bets on, just to watch their favourite sporting game, or playing a game on the tablet or the iPad or the phone. The Prime Minister is right. There is a problem with the gambling industry in Australia. They've got too greedy. They couldn't just keep it to the horses or to the TAB; they wanted to find a way to get under everybody's nose and into everybody's phone and onto everybody's television screen. You can't watch the grand final and you can't watch your favourite sporting team play in this country any more without being bombarded by gambling ads. Why is that? Because the advertising works. And that is why the gambling industry wants it to stop. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Smith, Mr Matt 104 19:30 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to speak in the adjournment debate tonight. We all know that, as a former Cairns Taipan, Matt Smith towered over his opponents on the court. But as Labor's candidate for Leichhardt he has been a champion for the community since day one. In the last few weeks alone, it has been nothing but net for Matt Smith as he has continued to deliver for the community in Far North Queensland. In the past few weeks alone he's met with Minister Rowland and Minister Collins to announce the $18 million On Farm Connectivity Program to enhance connectivity for primary producers. He's also been with the Minister for Emergency Management in Cairns, in Holloways Beach, to announce the next round of the DRF funding, which included crucial funding for mapping and flood mapping for the Cairns Regional Council. He's delivered good news for local early childhood educators on their 15 per cent pay rise; announced a $91 million joint investment in Barlow Park to upgrade the sporting facility; had a tour of the Cairns Marine Precinct; marked 10,000 patients having visited the Cairns South Medicare urgent care clinic; and, importantly, announced with the Prime Minister the biggest social and affordable housing project in Queensland history—we are going to build 490 social and affordable homes in Cairns. Of course, he's welcome to the Cairns Taipans season, which has opened; we are two wins at home. He also launched the 2024 Tangaroa Blue Great Barrier Reef Clean-up last week with the minister. Last week we also announced recipients of the government's $200 million landscape repair program with Minister Plibersek, and last week we announced $2.6 million for local sporting organisations to increase women's and girls' participation in sport in Far North Queensland; that is really important and crucial funding. These are all the things Matt Smith has been able to achieve in the very short time he has been a candidate for Leichardt. This is a tall list, as some might say, with such achievements in such a short amount of time, but why don't we compare that to Jeremy Neal, the LNP candidate for Leichhardt, to see if he measures up to Matt Smith in any type of way. We don't know much about Mr Neal because, even though he was announced as the LNP candidate for Leichardt over four weeks ago, he has refused to speak to the media. I find this very curious. It's probably the fact that Mr Neal doesn't want to explain to the people of Cairns a number of things. He doesn't want to explain he doesn't support tax cuts or cheaper child care. Mr Neal doesn't want to say he doesn't support cheaper power bills or cheaper medicines. But the No. 1 reason why Mr Neal has not spoken to the media in the last four weeks is he would have to come clean about Mr Dutton's risky nuclear plan that we know would wreck the Great Barrier Reef. There's only one choice when it comes to protecting the Great Barrier Reef, and that is delivering net zero through renewable energy. If you don't support that plan, then you don't support jobs in Far North Queensland. Matt Smith has been really clear about his support for renewable energy, achieving net zero and protecting reef jobs. But Mr Neal hasn't spoken to the media to make sure he expresses his views. He is hiding from the media so he doesn't have to fess up that he supports Mr Dutton's risky nuclear plan. I think it's time that we measure up these candidates, and I think you'll see that we have in Matt Smith a fantastic champion for the community—someone who's prepared to go out there and support every single type of community organisation, whether it's a sporting organisation or community organisation, all the way up in the Torres Strait through to Cairns. Unfortunately, we haven't seen the same commitment from the LNP candidate, Jeremy Neal, and that's because we know that he does not support cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, tax cuts or the plan to deliver net zero through renewable energy which will reduce power bills, lead to cheaper energy and, most importantly for the people of Cairns, protect the Great Barrier Reef. You cannot support Peter Dutton's risky nuclear plan and also support Barrier Reef jobs, so it is time for Mr Neal to come clean about which side he stands on. Does he support Peter Dutton and the risky nuclear plan or does he support the jobs of the Great Barrier Reef that are the economic lifeblood for the community of Cairns? STATEMENTS 105 STATEMENTS Parliamentary Conduct 105 19:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I want to inform the Senate that in regards to a statement I made during formal motions today that I withdraw those comments. Parliamentary Conduct 105 19:35 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland In a similar vein, I would like to withdraw some comments I made earlier. ADJOURNMENT 105 ADJOURNMENT Australian Greens 105 19:35 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland A rules based order based on freedom is the basis of our society and, sadly, it is my melancholy duty to inform those who are listening and watching that the Greens do not share such views. The Greens are not just a clear and present danger to liberal democracy; they are the clear and present danger to Australia. It is not only the duty of every Australian to not vote for the Greens but it is also the duty of every Australian under a compulsory routing system to put the Greens last, and I call upon all political parties to agree that we should put the new nasty party, the Greens, last. The Greens are a party who have brought ugliness to the Australian political sphere, whether in their weaponisation of October 7 and the growing war in the Middle East or how they campaign in council elections. For example, during the recent Brisbane City Council elections in March of this year, both the Liberal-National Party and the Labor Party were targeted by Greens candidates and by Greens supporters in a manner that can only be described as ugly, thug like and violent. Across Brisbane, candidates, particularly Liberal-National Party sitting councillors, were targeted by Greens activists. We are not just talking about verbal intimidation while out campaigning but standover tactics during pre-poll and on polling day itself. We can talk about how in one ward the wife of the sitting Liberal-National Party councillor was not just verbally abused in relation to the politics of her husband but she was threatened, she was called a stupid woman and she was called a racist. When her elderly mother came to vote, the Greens candidate in this ward called out and said that she hoped this elderly Australian would be run over by a car. This is the Greens political party at their worst. It is how they operate in Brisbane and it is how they operate across Australia. We saw during the federal election how the Greens behaved in the federal seats of Griffith, Brisbane and Ryan. I know the Greens supporters went to the home of the sitting LNP member for Ryan and abused his children through the screen door, calling them 'little Nazis'. These were people wearing Greens party shirts. This is the new reality of politics in Australia. While the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party, the parties of government, will have very strong vibrant and boisterous discussions as to who should lead this country, we do not bring a culture of violence and fear to polling places. The Greens political party has done so in Queensland for some time now, and they are bringing it to the national stage and should be called out for it. The Greens should be put last on everyone's ballot paper. Finally, I just want to say goodbye to Zac Webster, otherwise known as 'Mini Warren', who is leaving Warren Entsch's office for greener pastures. I'd like to say to Zac, who is currently drinking beer in my office, to have a Darwin stubbie from us. I will see you up in Darwin at some point, no doubt. Colonialism 106 19:40 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The British monarchy will soon touch down in Australia. This visit is a timely reminder that the stain of colonialism is still with us and of the persisting refusal of this country to detach from this dreadful legacy. Their visit should be a moment for all of us to have an honest conversation about who we are and who we want to be. Do we really want to cling to the British monarchy, an institution built on the stolen lives, stolen land and stolen wealth of colonised people from all around the world? We know that British colonialism on this land was barbaric. We know that British colonialism caused unimaginable devastation to the Indigenous people of this land. We know between 1794 and 1901 there were at least 300 massacres of First Nations people. There was a colonial genocide of First Nations people. What good does it serve us to celebrate and glorify this brutal past? First Nations people face the worst of systemic and structural racism and discrimination that has existed since colonisation as their struggle for justice, truth-telling, treaties and self-determination goes on. Being tied to the British Crown is designed as a reminder that this colony was founded on white superiority, like other colonies, to dominate and for the rest of us, Indigenous people of colour and migrants not of white European extraction, to languish in the lower rungs. That is the ultimate desire of monarchists wanting to remain attached to the British Crown. It is to preserve white supremacy and preserve the systemic racist structures that were built by the empire and that persist today. Even in this building the desire to cling on to a bygone, whitewashed colonial era remains. Racism and colonialism are intertwined, and the monarchy is a symbol of that. Racist structures rooted in colonialism keep Indigenous kids incarcerated at such high rates and keeps police racially profiling people. It empowers the hardline New South Wales Labor Premier, Chris Minns, to crack down on our democratic right to protest when it is people of colour who are protesting. It ties this nation's complicity to the horrific genocide in Gaza perpetrated by another settler colony founded by the British. Clinging on to British colonialism is not just a stain on our conscience and not just an insult to its targets and victims; it also speaks to this nation's maturity. If we are to claim that we are our own nation then we need to face up to its brutal and bloody colonial past and move forward, not continue to relish it. We must pave the way for Australia to become a republic. Many nations have done that. Barbados did it in 2021, and its then governor-general rightly said, 'The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind.' Well, it's time we did exactly the same. The British monarchy is losing its relevance year on year. However, a republic which cuts the apron strings from the British monarchy must be one that is decolonised and based on the sovereignty of First Nations. It's time for racial justice. It is time for truth-telling and treaty. It is time we become a republic. When the royals leave on 23 October, let's give them a final farewell. May the monarchy never return as the rulers of this land. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 106 19:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Today, as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament week, I'm going to read a speech sent to me by a 12-year-old student from Charles Weston School, in Coombs, named Satjit. Satjit writes: 'Today, I'm writing about a very important topic that's been a problem for a long time: gender inequality. It is no secret that gender inequality is still a widespread issue in many parts of the world, and I firmly believe that this is a problem that should not exist in the next 10 years. Hi, my name is Satjit. I'm 12 years old, and I would love for this to go to parliament. Women and men should have equal opportunities in all aspects of life, including education, career advancement and leadership roles. It is disheartening to see that in many places women are still struggling to attain the same rights and privileges as their male counterparts. This is not just a women's issue; it's a human rights issue. I strongly believe that a good way of creating peace and gender equality is, first, that all women working in any job should have the same pay as the males in the same area of expertise—also, that all women in uni or still in school or just in education should get the same education as males. Gender equality is not just a dream. It is a must that gender equality is real and not just a dream. Let's work together to make this dream a reality.' Thank you very much, Satjit, for writing on this important topic. With writing like that, I know we will reach gender equality one day, and I look forward to seeing what you go on to achieve in the future. United Kingdom: Prisons 107 19:46 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Some people may have seen the news recently that once again British jails are overcrowding. We know they've been here before of course, but this time their solution is not new convict settlements; it's to release criminals early. Around 1,700 criminals have already been released, and there are plans to release thousands more. The British government is saying that it's not releasing criminals that commit violent crimes or sexual offenders, but the union representing parole officers disputes that. One former convict was arrested for sexual assault on the day of his release. These releases have made room for many of the Brits that in recent years have been locked up for simply posting their opinions online. These people include a former police constable who was sentenced to 20 weeks jail for sending to friends some memes associated with George Floyd's death. Another man was locked up for eight weeks for posting pictures of Asian men with a caption of 'coming to a town near you'. The examples are not all of people that would be commonly described as on the right or the far right, either. One man was jailed for posting that he was running for his life from an alleged riot of young locals, when in fact there was no disorder in the area. All of these views appear a little distasteful and inappropriate, but they hardly seem to deserve jail time. The British did perfect the establishment of penal colonies many years ago, but now they seem bent on creating a police state in their own homeland. The UK government's X account recently menacingly told people, 'Think before you post,' and the UK's metropolitan police commissioner, Mark Rowley, said: We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you're in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you Apparently some British officials seem to think they still have a say about what happens in this country. The commentator Konstantin Kisin has reported that over 3,000 people were arrested in the UK in 2022 for things that they posted online. It's hard not to conclude that almost all of these people have been locked up for nothing but the crime of political communication. They are political prisoners. Australia helped out the UK the last time their prisons were overflowing, and it worked out pretty well for us. Despite the constant jibes that we're a land of convicts, I think this country has developed pretty well. We're a harmonious, prosperous and great place for people around the world to come and live. Our start as a penal colony has not held us back, and, with the prisons overflowing again in Britain, it's got me thinking that maybe we can help them out again; maybe we could take some of these political prisoners. I'm not proposing we take the hardened criminals that are being released—they should be locked up—but the bloke who's just shared a few spicy memes with his mates is probably not a great risk to our social harmony. We did okay when we made ourselves home for Irish men and women whose greatest crime was to steal a loaf of bread to feed their family, and we can probably survive a guy who likes to tell a few risque jokes. Once again we'd been doing a great favour for the mother country by helping them out with their perennial problem of not having enough space to lock up their people, and, by providing political asylum to people locked up for speech crimes, we could establish our own country as a bastion for free speech around the world. That reputation has been tarnished in recent years through COVID and the weaponisation of various antidiscrimination laws in this country, but we have a proud heritage of thumbing our nose at authority and being able to take the mickey out of each other without wanting to arrest people for offending each other's feelings. Sometimes laughter, not the law, is the best way to reduce social tensions and build harmony among people. I hope my humble suggestion is taken with that principle in mind. Tasmanian Government 107 19:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Mike Grainger, former chairman of TT-Line, gave evidence yesterday to the Public Accounts Committee in Tasmania in the hearing into the debacle of having nowhere to park the new TT-Line vessels. In late August, I met with Mike. His business, Liferaft Systems Australia, is extremely successful, built on the back of his hard work. But his other love was TT-Line, having served as the chairman of the company for more than 11 years. When I met with Mike, I could tell that he was disappointed and not because he was unfairly and outrageously sacked but because TT-Line had become the scapegoat for an incompetent minister, Tasmania's current Treasurer, Michael Ferguson. Mike said that this is the first time TT-Line has been gaslighted by a stakeholder minister. It's the first time that a minister has put their own political survival ahead of doing the right thing by the government business. What an absolute disgrace you are, Ferguson! Mike presented all the evidence that proves Michael Ferguson knew about TasPorts's blunders and put his own political survival before his ministerial responsibilities. All this came at a cost. Mike was pushed out for threatening to tell the truth, and the CEO of TT-Line, Bernard Dwyer, resigned to focus on his mental health. These two men, who were great at their jobs, were backed into a corner by an incompetent minister, and don't even start me on the useless TasPorts. Ever since I have been in parliament, it has been an absolute waste of space. If you wanted to sack someone, you should have sacked everyone at TasPorts. The TT-Line actually kept detailed notes about what was going on, and Mike's evidence paints a picture of a minister who doesn't give a damn about doing his job properly or even Tasmanians for that matter. For Minister Ferguson it's clearly politics before Tasmanians. In yesterday's Public Accounts Committee hearing, Mike set the record straight. He proved that the minister was briefed in detail on the challenges that the TT-Line was facing in dealing with TasPorts. He gave evidence that, despite knowing about it, Michael Ferguson said ridiculous stuff like, 'I just want you to play nicely in the sand pit.' I say to him: Why don't you grab a Tonka truck while you're there, mate? Amuse yourself. Really! And Michael Ferguson expects us to think he is competent enough to be a treasurer. Please! As Mike explained, the delays in ordering ships started way back in 2013. They were continued when Scott Morrison put pressure on Peter Gutwein to consider an Australian manufacturer. It is an unfortunate fact here in Australia that we don't have the capability to build the kinds of ships that we need to cross the Bass Strait. The constant merry-go-round must have been extremely frustrating for TT-Line. As a Tasmanian, what's infuriating is to see the TT-Line can build and deliver a top-class port in Geelong on time and on budget with the cooperation of GeelongPort. Mike says GeelongPort were amazing and they couldn't have done more to get the project moving, ensuring it was delivered as promised. That's called competence. But in Tassie we have TasPorts, those useless things down there, motivated by self-interest and blind to their own failures in crumbling ports and overdue and overbudget projects. It's like TasPorts has bent over backwards to make sure that the berth 1 development has been as difficult as possible for TT-Line. TasPorts is committed to latching onto TT-Line and sucking on the teat of the Tasmanian taxpayer dollar, getting as much taxpayer dollars out of the company as possible. After all this saga, Michael Ferguson got a slap on the hand and was given another gift. Wait—it gets better. When the heat got a bit too much, he removed himself from the infrastructure portfolio. But, on the other hand, he was gifted another portfolio. Let's be clear: Michael Ferguson knew what was coming. After the last election, he split the infrastructure portfolio to enable the Minister for Transport to have oversight of TT-Line. This was all brought on by the political campaign by the Labor opposition—credit where credit is due. They were like dalmatians and realised that where there's smoke there's fire. But, to be clear, that is where my praise for Labor ends, because Labor relentlessly had the TT-Line in its firing line, holding a press conference at its terminal and constantly pointing the finger directly at TT-Line, even accusing them of breaching caretaker conventions. This was proven not to be the case. At the end of the day, this is really a story about a stakeholder minister who has stuffed up so badly and continues to gaslight people who do not deserve it, who can actually get a job done. That's his problem, you see? Ferguson can't get anything done. He's useless. Apparently, the Premier is appearing before the Public Accounts Committee but not Minister Ferguson. What is wrong with the Public Accounts Committee down there? Why isn't Ferguson in front of you? What? Does he need a bodyguard? Jeremy Rockliff, the Premier, has to be a bodyguard for Ferguson these days. You can't be serious. When he was health minister, he tanked our health system. That's what he did. He drove our health system in Tasmania into the ground. That's what Ferguson did. That's what he's been doing. Michael Ferguson has to go. The Tasmanian people deserve better than a minister who can't play nicely in the sand pit and, sure as hell, wouldn't be able to handle a Tonka truck. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, I remind you that you still need to refer to people in state parliaments by their correct titles, as well as people in the other place. Senate adjourned at 19:55