2024-10-10 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 10 October 2024

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) 1

Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2)

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No.2) and I congratulate Senator Cash for introducing this private senator's bill into this chamber. Nothing has been clearer over the past few months than the fact that this ABCC is absolutely needed, that a tough cop on the beat is absolutely needed in the building and construction industry. It was an absolute travesty that this Labor government, once again, following the instruction set given to them from above by their union masters, wiped out the ABCC, wiped out the tough cop on the beat that kept the building and construction industry in some semblance of order. It is quite shocking, quite revealing, to see those opposite, after having spent years and years and years in opposition, running a protection racket for the ACTU and the CFMEU in particular over these kinds of behaviours, not after one or two but after literally thousands of examples of malfeasance, wrongdoing and criminal activity. They continued to run the protection racket for the CFMEU until the evidence just got so overwhelming that they themselves had to appoint an administrator to the union. That's how bad it got. But before appointing that administrator, of course, they made the situation worse. They made the situation worse by repealing the role of the ABCC, by removing the ABCC, the Building and Construction Commission, from the scene of the building and construction industry. It's not Liberal Party politicians who are pointing out the serious problems with the CFMEU. It's Labor's own Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission, in court documents, has said that the CFMEU broke the law 2,600 times. They have had $24 million levied against them in fines over 20 years. This is not something that just appeared a couple of months ago when the Labor Party finally decided to take action; this is something that has been going on and has been talked about for decades. That is why, when we were in government, we introduced the ABCC. We introduced the cop on the beat to police this industry. Now, ironically, those opposite say: 'But it should have been tougher. It needed to be tougher.' We tried to make it tougher. We tried to give it more powers; you stopped us. The Labor Party and the Greens combined to stop giving the ABCC the powers it needed. Now, dragged kicking and screaming in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, finally the Labor Party has done something about it. It was kicking and screaming, and the reason why is pretty clear. The CFMEU has donated $6.2 million to the Labor Party in the time of Anthony Albanese's leadership alone. It is quite extraordinary that this is the sort of funds that are flowing from an organisation that broke the law 2,600 times—again, these are not my words nor Senator Cash's statistics; this is coming from Labor's Fair Work Commission—and have faced $24 million in fines. I wonder what outrage we would see from those opposite and particularly from the Greens if a private company had faced 2,600 breaches of the law and faced fines of $24 million. Think about the howls of outrage that would have come from the Left if a company had been found to be that bad and that criminal—repeatedly, not just once or twice. There have been 2,600 incidents. There have been 2,600 breaches of the law. Think about the howls of outrage you would get from the Left, the Labor Party and particularly the Greens if a company had done this sort of activity. But what do you get about the CFMEU, particularly from the Greens? Absolute crickets. The Labor Party has been dragged kicking and screaming to put the union into administration after years and years and years of running their protection racket. In estimates, time after time we saw coalition senators attacked for daring to raise issues about the CFMEU's behaviour on worksites. We got attacked over and over again for daring to say that there was a problem in the construction industry that needed to be fixed. Some industries do have systemic problems. They have systemic issues that mean that the government's response, the legal response to those industries, does have to be different. Not all industries are the same. We have a different legal framework around, for example, casinos because there is the risk of things like money laundering. So sometimes we look at an industry, and as legislators we say: 'There's a problem here. It needs to be fixed.' That's what the previous Liberal government did with the building and construction industry. Labor unwound, again following the instruction list handed to them from above by the union movement. And then they regretted it because then, as the clear criminality and lawlessness inside the building and construction industry, particularly the CFMEU, came to light, they came under political pressure to act. I'm sure there was a lot of internal political pressure not to act as well, but they did act. But now they have an opportunity to actually restore the balance in the building and construction industry. There is plenty of evidence that the presence of and the behaviour of the CFMEU, their approach to the building and construction industry, has forced up costs for every Australian. And it's not just something that affects perhaps governments or large companies; it affects people. It affects people buying an apartment, buying a house. It pushes up costs in the industry, from some evidence, by 30 per cent—a 30 per cent increase in construction costs thanks to the behaviour and activity of the CFMEU. It is quite extraordinary that that is something that would be tolerated by any government. The legislation before the chamber today gives us the opportunity to redress the balance, to get some semblance of legal order back into the building and construction industry. These behaviours, which have been on display in the past, have been clearly revealed through these 2,600 breaches of the law and the $24 million in fines levied against the CFMEU over the last 20 years. This kind of lawlessness, which, let's face it, is a form of corruption in our society, effectively allows for standover tactics, heavy-handed behaviour, bullying, abuse and potentially direct corruption—that is, the payment of bribes—to flourish. We need a tough cop on the beat to make sure that these kinds of behaviours are investigated and, when they are found, punished with the full force of the law. This kind of behaviour cannot be allowed to stand. I find it quite extraordinary that in the Australia of 2024 we have someone like a John Setka who up until a few months ago was considered a leading light of the union movement, but who once he was removed from his union got a tattoo saying 'God forgives, the CFMEU doesn't'. That is a direct threat against Labor politicians, it's a direct threat against those who don't want to deal with the CFMEU, for very obvious reasons, and it's a direct threat to the legal system of this country. It should have opened everybody's eyes to just how dreadful this organisation has become. But it's not something that just appeared; it's something that has been around for a long time. Once again, those opposite cry crocodile tears and say: 'You were in government. Do something about it.' We tried. We tried to strengthen the laws, and those opposite know this. We tried to strengthen the laws, and the Labor Party and the Greens blocked us at every turn. They did not want a tough cop on the beat, but they've got a chance to prove they're actually serious about this issue now. They have a chance to support this legislation, to recognise that this industry is one that does need special consideration in terms of the way it is policed and in the way it is oversighted by this parliament and the legal system as a whole. Once again, if we saw an individual or a private company with 2,600 offences listed against it, if we saw an individual or a private company with $24 million worth of fines levied against it, that individual would probably be in jail and that business would be out of business. I mean, let's face it. But here we have a union that, sure, has been put into administration, but it still continues on; it still exists. I feel that unless we return to having a strong body with powers of investigation, powers to actually go into the workplaces to see what is going on in those workplaces, this bullying, this harassment, these standover tactics, this criminality—it might disappear for a little while, but it will creep back in. Unless we take a stand, unless we stand up to the thuggery, unless we actually recognise what is happening here in a genuine way, unless the Labor Party stops following the playbook handed to them by the union movement, we will never solve these issues. 09:15 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It's with great pleasure that I rise as the shadow infrastructure minister to speak in support of the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024, which was introduced by Senator Cash. This is an important piece of legislation that will restore the rule of law to the construction industry. It will help remove lawlessness, corruption and thuggery from our building sites. Importantly, this bill will help reduce the cost of building homes, roads, rail lines and other public infrastructure assets right across Australia. The Albanese government's decision to abolish the ABCC has had a devastating impact on the Australian economy and on law-abiding businesses in the construction sector. We know that CFMEU controlled projects are 30 per cent more expensive to build. They also take 50 per cent longer to build. Not only are taxpayers being charged more; they have to wait longer to actually avail themselves of critical infrastructure projects to increase productivity and to make sure we move people and products around this country more efficiently and safely. Even on this very day, the brazen thuggery that has become synonymous with the CFMEU is on display, with a senior union official overseeing the intimidation of an Indigenous labour-hire company able to keep his job under the nose of the administrator that the minister, Murray Watt, assured us would have this union and its reckless behaviour under control. Minister, it's great to have you in the chamber today to hear the fact that the administrator isn't making a difference to the behaviour on site of the CFMEU. We read in the Australian today that CFMEU administrator Mark Irving has decided to keep employing senior union organiser Joel Shackleton despite him being charged by police with threatening to kill an owner of an Indigenous labour-hire company and losing his right to enter building sites. I'll be interested to hear what the Minister for Indigenous Affairs has to say about this. The Minister for Small Business should be backing Indigenous Australians getting involved in the construction sector and not having to face intimidation and bullying by this union, which we all know has a culture problem. It always has, whether it was called the BLF or, now, the CFMEU, and an administrator is not going to change that culture, as we see. It's an absolute disgrace. I wanted to read into Hansard today the report so the Australian people know exactly the character of this cowardly Labor government to take on this union and their inability to do that. According to today's Australian, the union official in question, John Shackleton: … who was charged after being captured on video telling the owner "I'll f..king take your soul and I'll rip your f..king head off", would be employed in an office job with the CFMEU's Victorian branch. …   …   … Police said investigators would allege he made threats to inflict serious injury on two owners of an Indigenous labour hire company during a confrontation on a Victorian Big Build site … …   …   … The video shows Mr Shackleton telling one owner that he would "f..king end you, c..t, and you know it, don't f..k with me. I'll f..king take your soul and I'll rip your f..king head off. Don't f..k with me, c..t.. F..k you. You're a f..king dog." If nothing changes, nothing actually changes. There's been a big song and dance by Anthony Albanese and Minister Watt on getting tough on the CFMEU. Well, what is going on on the building sites in my home state of Victoria? There's been a lot of big talk but, once again, no action from a government that thinks talking about it is the solution. It's like we're still in our Sydney university or Queensland university debating classes. We're still in student politics. We had that big rant and that big rally, but you lack the capacity and the political will to take the tough action. Why? Because you're inherently conflicted when it comes to this union. This union funds your election campaigns; this union controls the pre-selections of so many of the MPs and senators that sit in this place. It is no wonder that they lack the grit and the courage to take it on. That's why I'm so proud to be part of an opposition that's not afraid to take this union to task. It's not afraid to move legislation in this place that will make a difference to the behaviour of the CFMEU. No-one should forget that, in getting rid of the ABCC, the government was aided and abetted by teal MPs in the lower house, and the move was actually made possible in the Senate only by the votes of a couple of independent senators and the Greens. Without those supporting votes of the teal MPs, it wouldn't have happened—very, very big on integrity, aren't they, unless it's on a building site, or unless it's about threatening Indigenous construction businesses. Without the teals, the independents and the Greens, Labor would never have actually been able to abolish the ABCC, which has resulted in the floodgates opening. In the debate today, the coalition asks those that voted with the Labor Party two years ago to abolish the ABCC to reflect on the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in today. You were sold a pup by Minister Burke. He's a sweet-talker, we all know that—charming, some would say. Senator Cadell 300134 Not me. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I know, Senator Cadell. I'm with you there. But I'll give credit where credit is due. Flattery got Mr Burke everywhere. And in the end they folded and backed this government's desire and, indeed, the CFMEU's No. 1 ask going into the election: to get rid of the ABCC. They couldn't get it done quick enough. They can't get anything done about cost of living but: 'Mate, we can get rid of the ABCC for you. No worries there.' To the independents and to the Greens in this place: this is the opportunity to rectify that mistake, because, as the facts make clear, abolishing the ABCC has had a material impact on worksites around the country, on the costs of public infrastructure and on bullying and intimidation, which is there for all to see. On 9 September 2024, Labor's Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government reminded us all what it means to have the CFMEU in control of infrastructure, with reports that the midyear budget update will include millions of dollars to plug blowouts in road and rail projects. In fact, there was an additional $10.1 billion in that update that was to be given to states by Commonwealth taxpayers for project blowouts. Are state governments so bad at managing infrastructure projects? Or is that actually the cost of doing business on public infrastructure projects that are controlled by the CFMEU? Of that $10.1 billion blowout, $5 billion was for my Victorian state government, with not one extra kilometre of road built for all that taxpayer funded money. These cost blowouts followed payments of $6.77 billion for construction blowouts last November, after Catherine King's short, sharp 200-day review of the infrastructure pipeline saw that Commonwealth taxpayers had to find another $6.77 billion for cost blowouts. Is it because Labor governments can't manage projects, or is it because they are complicit in CFMEU controlled projects blowing out costs? Every Australian family and small business, every taxpayer, is paying more taxes to cover the increased costs of delivering these cost blowouts. It is appalling, yet there is silence from the Labor Party. There is silence in the face of Indigenous construction workers being bullied, intimidated and harassed. There is silence from the feminists in the Left when the misogyny that is endemic in the CFMEU is laid clear. There is silence from the feminists in the Greens. Why? Because somehow they owe the CFMEU, and this is how this union works. It is a quid pro quo relationship: 'I'll donate to you and I'll make sure you get preselected, as long as you stay silent when we do our business on building sites, when we drive up the costs, when we make it impossible for building businesses, mum-and-dad businesses, whether they're Indigenous or not, to actually turn a profit and keep people employed.' It's an absolute indictment, and I'm hopeful that everyone in this Senate will actually support our measures to bring some integrity back into the construction sector. There were independent senators who bought Tony Burke's lines who now know they were sold a pup. Now, this bill is an opportunity for them to rectify that mistake and for the Greens and the Labor Party to realise that an administrator is not enough, that there does need to be a regulator in charge of this industry, which, historically, has lent itself to lawlessness, thuggery and corruption. It doesn't matter who's in charge. It's time to actually stand up and do the right thing—the right thing for the workers involved, the right thing for the businesses involved, the right thing for taxpayers. New investments in the Bruce Highway, for instance, have seen heavy restrictions. Road works are needing to be fixed, and the damaged roads are unlikely to be completed next month as they can't actually get the project built because of go-slows and cost. It's just not good enough that, when the Prime Minister undertook a full review of infrastructure needs only a year ago, the government failed to identify new investments to improve the safety of the Bruce Highway. And now they are wanting to deflect attention. Labor had to cancel $2 billion from Greater Western Sydney infrastructure following the infrastructure review last year, stripping promised and contracted funding from the Cardinia and Yarra Ranges shires to seal residential roads in the Dandenongs. There are all projects that had to be cancelled or delayed as a result of billions and billions of dollars of cost blowouts thanks to the CFMEU. Future funding for regional roads has been put at risk by construction cost blowouts, with the Albanese government promising to reduce Commonwealth funding for regional roads from 80 per cent down to 50 per cent. As was pointed out in Jane Halton's 2023 review of the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure, reducing the Commonwealth funding split for regional roads will result in fewer regional projects being prioritised by states and territories. So, if you ever had any doubt that this Labor government doesn't care what happens outside capital city boundaries, it is evidenced in its own infrastructure national partnership agreement review, which blatantly states, if you change this funding arrangement to fifty-fifty, the states and territories will not invest in regional roads. So road toll will continue to rise and the cost of goods will continue to rise, as it costs more and more in time and maintenance for our truckies to actually deliver the same amount of goods. That is the reality of infrastructure funding under Anthony Albanese. This bill represents a sensible return to regulating a lawless industry that Labor seems intent on continuing to fulfil, enable and facilitate. Despite the minister's tough words, once again we see Labor failing to deliver on the cost of living, for the regions or for Jewish Australians, with their response to the Gaza war, but delivering for one stakeholder, the only stakeholder that really matters, and that's the CFMEU. 09:30 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The problem we have with this government is that it seems unable to admit when it got it wrong. They've got it wrong on budget spending, which has added fuel to inflation around our country. They've got it wrong on energy policy, where their intransigence on nuclear energy is pushing up the price of power and leaving Australia behind in the race to build data centres and catch up with the information economy. And they clearly also got it wrong here when it came to abolishing the cop on the beat, the regulator to deal with misconduct in the construction sector. Obviously, this has been a problem that has bedevilled Australia's construction sector for decades upon decades. It goes way back to the seventies and eighties, and Bob Hawke had to deal with this when he was in government. But at least then we had a prime minister that was willing to stand up to the thugs and some criminals that have often beset our construction sector. He took them on. Instead, when Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister he, very differently from Bob Hawke, rolled over to the criminals and thugs in the construction sector. It should not have been news to anyone, least of which the Prime Minister of the land, that there were elements of criminality and thuggery in our construction sector. This has been a longstanding problem. In the last couple of decades, the CFMEU has been found guilty over 2,000 times—I'm told over 2,600 times since 2003—and paid $24 million in penalties. It's a shocking rate of law-breaking that is hard to compare to any other organisation in this country, certainly no other organisations that are welcome in polite society, as the CFMEU were for the Labor Party and the Greens. They were happy to take donations from the CFMEU, who regularly broke the law, and, worse, they were happy to then change the law of the land in response to the CFMEU's requests to take away this oversight and control over their law-breaking activities. The ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, was clearly working. It was working to at least help rein in some of this blatant breaking of the law. The ABCC actually had over a 90 per cent success rate in prosecutions, and they weren't short of work, as I've mentioned. They were doing their job—and doing a job for all of us and our country. But Anthony Albanese came into government, and he got the request from his donors in the CFMEU and then went to remove this cop on the beat that was reining them in. We've seen the shock from the new minister for workplace relations and others who said: 'Wow, we didn't know there was all this criminality in the sector. What a shock—what a surprise!' It's even become impossible for the former defenders of the CFMEU to defend the indefensible, and we've seen multiple revelations, mainly from the good work in the Nine media network to expose rampant criminality—not just thuggery, not just bullying, not just harassment that we all knew occurred—across the CFMEU. It became too much of a stench for even this Labor government to ignore. Instead of just admitting they got it wrong and re-establishing the ABCC to get this cop on the beat going again, they are instead putting in place only a limited control, a temporary control, on the CFMEU in response to the public outcry. I think it would be much better to go back to what was working. That's what this bill does, and that's why I'm happy to support the efforts of my colleague Senator Michaelia Cash to just re-establish and go back to what was working. It's very simple. Put it back in place. It had been in place for many years. It works. We can just reintroduce this legislation. There is no need for heaps of new committees or drafting of new laws. It's all ready to go. Here is one we prepared earlier that works. Let's just do that. This bill obviously is to re-establish the ABCC. There are two Cs in that name, but, in the rest of the time I have available here, I'd like to concentrate on three Cs here. The three Cs that bedevil our construction sector are criminality, impacts on cost of living, and conflicts of interest. As I said, we have seen terrible examples of criminal behaviour from CFMEU officials, including cosy relationships with bikie gangs and outright criminals. That is why we have supported the government's efforts to place the CFMEU into administration. But to me it does not seem to be a strong enough action here, especially when you see the administrator that has been appointed already comment that the level of criminality is much, much worse. I've found his name now. This is Mr Mark Irving KC. He's admitted that the union's corruption is much worse than initially reported. What extra steps are being taken, given that information, to rein this in? Another step we could do is pass this legislation and get it back into place. This exposure of criminality should not come as any news to people that have been following this. There have been many examples of the CFMEU's misconduct in recent years. There has been much speculation on its influence over, or with, bikie gangs and others. And, now that it's all been confirmed, the government is just acting too late. That belated action from the government has also had a real cost on all Australians, not just those that might be directly affected by the criminal behaviour of this organisation. The rampant thuggery, bullying, threats and intimidation that exist in this industry have ruined the productivity and performance of our construction sector, and this has a real and direct impact on Australians in many, many ways. Perhaps the one that is most felt by Australians today is the fact that we don't have enough homes for people. I'm astounded that I now live in a country where there are large tent cities in our major capitals. It is incredibly sad when you walk or run around our major cities and you have to go past people in the most dire circumstances who do not have a roof over their head. I never thought I would live in such a country. I live in Australia; Australia would never get to that position. We're a prosperous and wealthy nation. Why can't we provide homes to the Australians that live here? There's always an element of homelessness, of course. Bob Hawke did try and say, 'Get rid of homelessness.' We're probably never going to get there. People are often in sometimes unfortunate, desperate and very tragic circumstances. But it is clear that many of these families living in tents, who otherwise often have jobs and have lives that are functional, in any other normal time would be able to have a house. There are simply not enough houses for Australians. Some people are the victims of that shortage and have nothing but a sheet of plastic to put over their head every night. There are a lot of reasons for that, but the situation is not helped by the shocking underperformance of our construction sector, unable to build things at a reasonable cost. We have actually been building fewer and fewer homes over the last few years, despite the increased demand and the increased population growth we have. We've crashed to below 170,000 homes being built a year, despite bringing in 500,000 people a year in net terms. It's just not enough homes being built, as well as needing to replace homes that are knocked down from time to time that are old and condemned. It's just not enough. We should, therefore, be seeking to increase and uplift the performance of the construction sector so we can build more homes without them costing so much. It's pretty hard to build a home now for less than $250,000 or $300,000. It's ridiculous. It's crazy. That is why we've got this housing shortage now in our country. It's not helped by the fact that we have in this industry, the construction sector, a situation where the people building the homes, the people who have to hire all the contractors, the subcontractors, the chippies, the sparkies, the concreters and everybody else to build a home, often live in fear at the moment. If you talk to many of these small businesses, they are in fear of the CFMEU and the retaliatory bullying tactics that could be inflicted on them if they have the temerity to employ people that are not approved by the CFMEU just to get something built or get a job done. That clearly has impacts on being able to get jobs done. If you've only got a small menu of suppliers and contractors to deal with because of the CFMEU's corruption and criminality, you're going to have fewer homes built. You're going to have a lot more delays in construction. You're going to increase the cost of home building in this country, and that is what we see in front of us. So passing this bill would help alleviate this situation. We have a situation right now where the government are coming in and waxing lyrical about their rent-to-buy scheme. They think it's going to be the panacea or solution. It's clearly not. It's clearly not going to build enough homes. We have to lower the costs and make it easier for all businesses, the myriad thousands of builders across our country, to get things done. Our housing crisis is not going to be solved by spending more taxpayer dollars from Canberra. It's going to be solved when we remove the red tape and constraints that are holding back the many thousands more people who actually know how to build homes. The Labor Party might be good at some things. I don't know. I struggle to think of them. But I don't think they're good at building homes. I don't think I'm good at building homes. I don't think Senator Cadell is good at building homes. I don't think any of us are good at building homes. The people who are good at building homes—surprise, surprise!—are builders. So why don't we help them? Why don't we help those businesses take this anchor and weight that is the CFMEU' crushing anvil off their heads and off their businesses and help them do what they do best for the Australian people and fix this crisis that is in front of us? On the cost of living, the other aspect is our infrastructure challenges. It's not just our homes, of course. In my state of Queensland, I don't understand what's happening with the Bruce Highway. I drive the length of that, from Rocky to Brisbane, five or six times a year at least. That's the length of it. I drive parts of it many more times throughout the year. I've never seen it like this. It's never been a great road. No-one has ever written poems as an ode to the Bruce Highway. But it's been workable. You could drive it. Some parts of the Bruce Highway have been good. The coalition helped fund the Gympie Bypass. That's going to be an excellent road when it opens in about a month. It's a small section. Now north of Gympie you get these potholes in the road. If you're in a little hatchback, you're taking your life in your hands, particularly at night when you can't see these things. They're as big as a tyre, these potholes. You're going to lose your car in them. You'll bottom out. This is a national highway. It's not some rural road. It's the No. 1 national highway linking our major towns, and it's been left in a state of disrepair. I don't know all the answers to that. The Queensland government won't let us meet with the main roads department anymore because they like to play politics with people's lives on the roads rather than just get the information out there. But at least partly it can't be helped by this situation in our construction sector where, again, every construction project and every road project seems to come back 50, 60 or 100 per cent more in costs than what it was originally costed at. The Rocky Ring Road was originally costed at $1.1 billion and it ended up coming back at $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion. A lot of contractors blame the Queensland government's union-aligned so-called best-practice industry conditions or something—I can't remember what the 'C' stands for—for that result. It has not helped. People's lives are hurt by this. There are lives being lost on the Bruce Highway because we just can't simply build something like a road anymore in this country. What is happening to our nation? It's crumbling before our eyes. Finally, I want to finish on the other C: I want to highlight the conflicts of interest. This government has taken millions and millions of dollars from the CFMEU in donations to the Australian Labor Party. Since Anthony Albanese has been leader, it's over $6 million. It's hard to believe that the government won't agree to pay that money back or give that money to charity or something. Obviously, they don't want to give it back to the CFMEU, but that's tainted money now. It's come from an organisation that's been exposed as being criminal and as being engaged in criminal conduct. How could any self-respecting political party continue to hold those funds when they've got such a taint to them? Give them back. If you're really fair dinkum about trying to fix the mess in our construction sector, give that money back and work with the coalition to get a strong cop on the beat back into the construction industry. 09:45 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I really should coordinate better with my coalition and party colleagues when we sit here, as most of my talking notes were very similar to Senator Canavan's. When I get up here and talk about this bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2), I want to focus on that second part: reducing building costs. Many people sitting in here will say, 'Why do I care about the coalition beating up on a union? You know, this is politics. This is normal. It doesn't affect me. It doesn't worry me. It doesn't do anything like that.' But it's far more than that. This is about what Senator Canavan said: the very fact of being able to afford housing. Housing is such a big debate in here. We hear government ministers stand up and throw barbs at the Greens in their corner and at us for not passing their bills that will put more money into the housing market and, no doubt, will make it easier for some 10,000 people to buy a home, but it will just give them a comparative advantage over the 10,000 people who were going to buy a home anyway but will no longer have that advantage. So it's just choosing who gets the home—nothing more. It's not building more homes and putting more people in homes. That is what this comes down to. If you are in a major city where there are these apartment blocks and where there is heavy union influence, you are paying too much for your unit. The estimates are that the cost to get into your unit are 30 per cent higher, so you are paying more. That's a real cost to your pocket. That is a real cost for people trying to get into their first home, to get into their unit or to build these things. It is a housing supply thing. But what's not seen is the number of projects that don't go ahead and the number of builders who decide not to go ahead with a proposal and a development because it is no longer viable because of these costs. When they are saying, 'No, I won't go ahead with this apartment block,' or, 'No, I won't go ahead with this land development,' or, 'I won't go ahead with these things that would house people, these bedrooms that we would put people in at night,' it means more people stay homeless, and it means more people bid higher again. It means that, on top of the higher construction costs, people have to pay more for a lesser supply of housing out there. If you're at home and you're concerned about the cost of housing, this has a direct impact on you. If we limit supply and we raise the cost of that supply, we will build less. It is simple economics, and the control of major projects that the CFMEU has shown over time has had that effect. Putting some more cash in the hand of others simply feeds this beast of industry, this beast of corruption, this beast of greed. What we need to do right across the spectrum is build more, build more quickly and develop more, and people who build bedrooms, create land and create homes are the solution, yet they are demonised in here. Now, I will demonise some people straight after that. There are people in this industry who paid the bribes and the kickbacks and then relied on consumers to pay higher prices so that they could pay the union officials for the access and the right to sites. That is wrong. What this legislation is seeking to do is to bring in a policeman—a body that can try and catch some of that, but it will not catch all of that. When we were talking about the bill to bring in the administrator, I spoke of seeing firsthand a video of a site manager being assaulted by union officials on a site in the Hunter Valley. I went to the developer and said, 'Do you want me to raise this?' and he said, 'No. I am told my building will never pass inspection if I cause a problem. I am told I will have safety breaches on my site every week if I raise this.' The point of the piece was that he would no longer have a problem on site if he didn't raise a problem with the assault of his site manager. I'm not sure what his site manager thought about that, but that is the deal that had to be done. If that is not basic corruption and criminality, I don't know what is. And we heard from other speakers here that over 2,000 breaches have been found and over $24 million worth of fines have been levied. If this was in America, this would be a RICO case. This would be a criminal organisation, not a union. But, here, we had the perverse case of this government removing the policeman only to deal with the consequences of it months later. I spoke on that bill that night about it not being a problem of a union; it was a problem of the wrong people creeping into that union and not being dealt with. When you get criminals coming in, when you get corruption coming in, and you don't have the leadership strong enough to say no—a leadership so weakened that they say, 'Yes, come on in and create this thing'—that is what's wrong. When you don't have a policeman, this makes it worse. Imagine watching a football game—I'm talking real football, rugby league, here, Senator Ciccone—where you take the referee off the field. When you take the referee off the field and say, 'Have at it,' you don't have a game; you have a farce. You have arguments. You have fights. You have everything wrong going on. And that is what we have here. They took the referee off the field in the ABCC. You at home might be saying, 'Why should it matter to me?' You pay more for everything. Government is not great—we heard the senator—at building houses. Of course they're not. They're not great at doing anything. I went into my new office. I'm a new senator. I've only been here two years. They gave me a big, beautiful, empty space and said they'd develop it and put walls in and all these sorts of things over time. So I don't have an open space to allow people into our office, other than the front door, and then they've got access to everywhere. Just a mere 18 months after I came here, they got that done. I have a mate who's a shopfitter and does this professionally. They walked into our beautiful open space, looked up at the high ceilings—it's a heritage building—and said: 'This is an expensive shopfit. This is $250,000 to $300,000.' I said, 'Wow, that's expensive.' Of course, under our disclosures, all the expenses that go to our offices are disclosed. We don't have a say in it. Every senator will know here that they come in, they do what they do and it goes on your expense account, but you don't actually choose the contractor or the project. But what happened when our budget finally happened? It's a lovely office. It has probably five or six internal walls, a slight refit of a bathroom and a few other things—a lot of data and cabling and a bit of security; I get that. But what did it cost? Our budget as a government is $800,000 for what a professional shopfitter says is $250,000 to $300,000. I have no doubt that will come up on my expense report as an extravagant office that I've asked for. But that is the process of government here. It is the process of involvement and red tape and everything we do and the cost being levied by the rules of those in power. I'm talking about not just unions but big business that paid these bribes because it was cushy. The ABCC should be able to come down on all of those people and say that is wrong. So, when you're at home and you're paying these extra expenses and you can't get a home, and we're bringing on all these people, and people are saying no to developments and no to bedrooms so more people remain homeless, that is a real problem. And then we look at the infrastructure side of things. When they build your roads, when they build your dams, when they build your water infrastructure, when they build all of that, it's the same thing—30 per cent higher costs. So, if you're looking at $100 billion infrastructure pipeline—I think that's the number for it—you're talking about $30 billion in extra costs because of these rules, because of these kickbacks, because of these problems. That is half the cost of running the NDIS for a year. It is two-thirds of the cost of Medicare for a year. I think the Greens have costed dental for elders and stuff like that at the PBO for putting a senior and child dental benefit scheme in. The cost of extra infrastructure is three times the cost of a senior and child dental benefit scheme. That is the thing you don't get because of these actions. This is the money we have to tax taxpayers more to do these things. So, at home in mum-and-dad land, you're not only paying extra for the homes, the buildings and the construction you get; you actually have to pay more tax to compensate the government for the extra cost in infrastructure. One thing for sure, coming off the supermarket inquiry, is that supermarkets will always get you, but the government will always get you too. We don't miss out on a tax dollar when it's there to be had. If we're paying more for stuff, we know where we can get it: from your pocket. This is what happens. This is a bad situation that has got out of control because this government took the policeman off the beat. They took the umpire off the field, and everyone suffers. It's not just a coalition opposition beating up on union; it's standing up for the basic economic principles of not allowing standover and bullying tactics. I go back to the union links and their actions in this regard to organised crime. It is hush money being paid by corporations to the unions for access. It is donations being made to organisations that make decisions about the rules. It is the very worst of corrupt practice, when the powerless, the home buyers and the small contractors, are run over by the powerful, which are the big corporations willing to pay kickbacks and the unions willing to take them. That is fundamentally why we're here, to protect the little people, to protect those that don't have the power. This bill and bringing back the ABCC is not a fix all; it is a step in the right direction. Reducing building costs; getting more people in houses; getting your houses cheaper; getting developers to say yes to the projects that are marginal, so there are more choices for you to go and buy; greater supply—that is the housing policy we have here. Greater supply is what's needed in housing. More money into housing can just pump up everything if we're not getting the supply right. The actions here have done that. Let's go back to the integrity bit. If we want to vacate the field, if we want to remove law, if we don't want to stand up and say, 'We set the rules,' and if we create a vacuum, other people will fill that vacuum with their power. We've seen it in countries when there is a coup where there is a vacuum in power. Bad elements come in. Chaos creates opportunity for bad people. That is what's happened here. Within months of removing the ABCC, the stories came out. It is human nature. Human nature loves chaos, and it was created when we took the players off the field. Bringing it back will create some form of intimidation, some form of barrier, to going out and rampantly doing this. As I said, it won't fix all. It will still have the powerful running over the powerless. In the debate on the appointment of the administrator, I remember hearing Senator Scarr tell a story that has had the most impact on me of any speech I've heard in this place at any time. It was about a poor worker, a young guy, who worked for an organisation that didn't pay the right amount of money or didn't do the right thing by the union. He got another job and wore a T-shirt from his previous employer to a site. He was locked in a shed, bullied mercilessly and threatened. He went home, put himself in his bedroom and made sure he never woke up. He took his own life because he wore a T-shirt to a union site. Nothing has struck me in this chamber as much as that story. Does anyone deserve to lose their life for wearing the wrong T-shirt to work? Don't ever think that union's power didn't get too far—let's not even call the CFMEU a union, because a union represents workers and does the right thing. It became a crime body. Don't think it didn't have too much power and wasn't abusing that power. That story in itself is enough to say it is wrong. We've put them in custody for a couple of years to have a look at what they've done; I get that, and that is something. But, when they get out, haven't we got the same animal back on the streets? Without the policeman to enforce it, without the rules to contain it and without the ability to say, 'You are doing the wrong thing,' the vacuum will create chaos again. That's why this bill is so important. This bill is important so that that story never has to get retold; this bill is important so that people can afford houses; and this bill is important so that you get the infrastructure you need, the government can spend money on better things and we can all move on. 10:00 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales The Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) sets out to do exactly what it says, which is restore integrity and reduce building costs in an industry which is incredibly important for Australia. The construction industry accounts for about 10 per cent of Australia's GDP, but we also rely upon it to build new hospitals, roads, airports, transport infrastructure, schools and homes. We need to recognise that the construction industry is in great trouble right now. We've seen labour productivity in the industry fall by 18 per cent over the past decade. So, for a job that would have taken you 100 workers to complete in six months, say, in 2014, you now need 18 extra workers—more workers, less output. We've also seen some 3,010 construction businesses enter external administration in the year to 1 July 2024, which is up 30 per cent from a year earlier. In fact, construction businesses now account for one-quarter of the insolvencies that are taking place at a record level in Australia. We also see that housing targets are not being met. The necessary increase in the supply of residential housing is not even close to being there. The National Housing Accord sets a target of 1.2 million new homes over the next five years. To take the New South Wales share as an example, that is 377,000, which means New South Wales needs to be building approximately 75,000 new homes per year. But there were only 43,000 new homes commenced in New South Wales in the year to March 2024. If you look back to the period of 2013 to 2018, New South Wales was building 67,000 new homes per year on average. It was pretty close to the target of 75,000, but right now it's languishing at 43,000 homes. The other big problem, of course, is that inefficiency, low productivity and failures in the construction sector—business failures, insolvencies—are pushing up the costs of infrastructure, meaning major projects like the Western Sydney airport, new hospitals and schools and highway upgrades are costing much more than they should. This is because this is a sector which, since this government has come into office, has been characterised by a lack of competition and an abuse of market power. There has effectively been a monopolistic provider of labour to the construction sector, and that has been the CFMEU. Unsurprisingly, when a single player enjoys market dominance, they tend to abuse their market power. We have no problems recognising this in other sectors. Whether it's in retail, with the supermarkets; in electricity and gas, with a couple of major players; or in banking and finance, with the four major banks, we recognise that when market power is concentrated the case for the abuse of market power is rife. We often either create a special regulator or give enhanced powers to the ACCC or other regulators to police those sectors. That is why the coalition government first established the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission: to tackle lawlessness, corruption, thuggery and intimidation in the sector which were caused by the dominance of a single player and a single union—the CFMEU—which exerted a stranglehold over providers and was able to use its market power to intimidate the purchasers of its services. That body, the ABCC, had a 91 per cent success rate in prosecuting union misconduct and was also highly successful in curbing intimidation, thuggery and corruption in the sector. Unsurprisingly, the CFMEU, which saw its own powers trimmed by this body and saw it could no longer use its market power to get its own way and to dictate terms, lobbied for the abolition of the ABCC. That's why the Albanese government—which has taken $6.2 million in CFMEU donations since Anthony Albanese became the opposition leader, in 2019—abolished the ABCC as one of its first acts in office. This was a quid pro quo. The CFMEU made quite clear that their continued support for Labor, not only at the 2022 election but with their continued donations, was contingent upon their interests being looked after, and that's what has happened. Wind the clock forward two years, and, as a result of the media expose that was too large and too significant to ignore—and full credit to the Nine media group for exposing intimidation, corruption and thuggery in the building sector, as they did—Labor has been forced into appointing an administrator into the CFMEU. The administrator has said that corruption was worse than expected, more entrenched, and that the problems are going to take longer to fix. Why is this such a problem? Some of the biggest buyers of construction services are Labor state and federal governments, and they've been handing over millions of dollars of taxpayer money in inflated costs to the CFMEU, leading to big cost blowouts, which we have all heard about, on infrastructure projects. But we've also seen, in the private sector, the CFMEU effectively allowed to exercise a veto so that big private civil construction companies do not get to decide who they employ; the union does—the CFMEU gets to do that. The result of this for residential building is that workers are fleeing to the union dominated projects, where wages are higher because the CFMEU demands as much from the Labor government, and we're seeing smaller construction players in the residential sector, by and large, go to the wall, as well as worker shortages. As a result, residential construction, particularly for detached residential dwellings, is almost flat. It's largely unviable commercially, at least in New South Wales, to build detached dwellings, simply because the costs are too high and the labour is too scarce. The problem with the government's approach of appointing a CFMEU administrator is it's not going to fix the problem. If you talk to anyone in the private sector, they are still intimidated. They fully expect that, once this period of administration is over, the CFMEU is going to return stronger than ever, more bent on revenge than ever, more likely to abuse its market power than ever. And, indeed, they are telling the private sector that explicitly and implicitly. No-one in the private sector is prepared to look at renegotiating enterprise bargaining agreements or look at touching any of the special privileges the CFMEU enjoy on their sites or touching the veto they exercise over their choice of subcontractors. They are concerned that in a year or two the CFMEU will be back, and, if they haven't played ball in the meantime, the CFMEU will extract their revenge. The Hawke government was brave enough to take on the BLF because of the problems it was causing the construction sector. The Howard government was brave enough to take on the Maritime Union of Australia in the late 1990s and early 2000s because of the stranglehold that union militancy was exacting on our waterfront. Given the importance of the construction sector to the national economy and given the fact we all pay a tax, either directly through our taxes or indirectly as purchasers of these services, any Australian who buys a home, who seeks to do a renovation or who wants to construct a granny flat is paying the inflated costs that are the result of union militancy running rampant in the construction sector and all the flow-on effects. We all have an interest in fixing this issue, and that is why this bill is the only genuine solution to the continued abuse, corruption, intimidation and misuse of market power in the construction sector. That is why I support this bill. (Q uorum formed) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The time for the debate has expired. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 10

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 10 10:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2024. The omnibus bill makes a range of changes to our criminal law investigation and enforcement apparatus. It is a bill that has received appropriate scrutiny through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and as a result of the scrutiny of that bill there are some minor changes that will now take place. Following that scrutiny, the government worked with the coalition to settle the amendments that will be made to the bill and otherwise improve the bill. We welcome that sensible approach, and in light of the amendments, as accepted by the government and recommended by the PJCIS, we are pleased to support the bill. In terms of the bill itself, there are five schedules. The first schedule relates to the seizure of digital assets. The first schedule amends the Crimes Act, the Proceeds of Crimes Act and the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act to enhance the legal framework relating to the seizure of digital assets. The proposed amendments are going to expressly clarify that a warrant may authorise the seizure of digital assets and that an executing officer is able to access a person's digital wallet and transfer its contents as a means of, in this case, 'seizing' the digital asset. It's 2024. Technology has rapidly advanced, as have our criminals. They are increasingly sophisticated and they are now using cryptocurrency as a way of storing and distributing the proceeds of illicit activities. In fact, evidence before the PJCIS has made it very clear that this is an issue that is frequently encountered by the Australian Federal Police. Indeed, the AFP made the point to members of the PJCIS that it had restrained more than $41 million in cryptocurrency across the 2022-23 financial year alone. In fact, in one large-scale disruption of a money-laundering operation in 2023, the AFP executed 13 warrants and charged 10 alleged offenders with approximately $215 million in criminal assets restrained to date, including over $30 million in cryptocurrency. There is no real argument about the scale of the problem or the need to have adequate powers to issue search warrants for and to seize digital assets such as cryptocurrencies. Currently, under the Crimes Act, police are permitted to seize certain items discovered in the course of executing the warrant. To lawfully do so, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the item is evidential material in relation to the offence and seizure is necessary to prevent concealment, loss, destruction or its use in committing an offence. Unfortunately, these thresholds just don't cut it, and again this refers to the advancement of technology. We're in 2024, so these technologies just don't cut it in the age of digital assets and cryptocurrency. By way of illustration, where large sums of physical cash are found during a search warrant, it maybe relatively easy for an executing officer to believe on reasonable grounds that the funds are tainted property—that is, the proceeds of crime—and that seizure is necessary, but the same cannot be said of digital assets like cryptocurrency. The mere holding of large amounts of a digital asset is unlikely on its own to be suspicious. There would need to be a level of analysis to develop some understanding of the source of those funds and the reason for holding digital assets that presently have a large value. Among other reasons, this is because there are sometimes legitimate reasons to hold digital assets that have a large value. For instance, the value of the asset may have changed significantly since it was obtained, noting that cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile and changes in their value are therefore common. On the other side of the ledger, if police cannot take immediate action, that then means that the risk is high. Unlike physical assets such as cash, criminals can remotely and near instantaneously—this is where there is a huge problem—move a digital asset beyond the reach of law enforcement via an online transaction. To deal with those issues, schedule 1 of the bill proposes to lower the threshold for lawfully seizing digital assets. To seize those assets, an officer must reasonably suspect that the digital asset is evidential shall material and that seizing the digital asset is necessary to prevent the digital asset's concealment, loss or destruction or its use in committing an offence. We would say that the revised threshold is appropriate given the unique challenges created by the discovery of digital assets in the course of executing a search warrant. In relation to schedule 2, digital currency exchanges, schedule 2 of the bill relates to the Proceeds of Crime Act and its interaction with digital currency exchanges. The Proceeds of Crime Act gives law enforcement agencies broad powers to monitor, freeze, restrain and forfeit proceeds and instruments of a crime. This includes investigative and freezing powers in relation to financial institutions. The proposed amendments to the bill that we have before the Senate will extend those investigative and freezing powers in relation to certain digital currency exchanges. Importantly, this expansion of the Proceeds of Crime Act retains the existing safeguards. These existing safeguards include independent oversight by a magistrate, limitations on the time during which orders made under the act can operate and powers to vary a freezing order in appropriate cases. When you look at the amendment to the act but also the fact that we are retaining the existing safeguards, you see that the net effect of this is to ensure that freezing and monitoring orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be applied to Australian based cryptocurrency exchanges in the same way as to traditional financial institutions. Again, these are appropriate changes and we welcome them. Schedule 3 to this bill deals with what are known as Commonwealth penalty units. Schedule 3 to the bill will increase the value of a Commonwealth penalty unit to $330. In other words, $330 will be the value of one Commonwealth penalty unit. What a penalty unit does is to set the maximum financial penalty that can be awarded by a court for an offence. Ordinarily, the value of a penalty unit is indexed every three years in accordance with CPI. The value of a penalty unit at the time that the coalition left office in May 2022 was $222. This is now the third time in less than two years that the Albanese government has increased the value of penalty units, so there's been a 49 per cent increase in the value of Commonwealth penalty units over an 18-month period. On 1 January 2023, the value of penalty units increased from $222 to $275, and then, in July of 2023, they increased it to $313. When the changes in schedule 3 of this bill—the measure we are discussing—come into force, they will lift it to $330. The government explains the rationale for the latest increase as follows: The current penalty unit amount does not act as an effective deterrent for the most serious offending. The reality, of course, as we all know, is that this is actually a revenue measure for the Albanese government. While we do not object in principle to increases in maximum penalties imposed by courts for those convicted of a crime, there is a slew of regulatory offences, such as a failure to lodge a business activity statement on time—let's be clear about this: it is something of which small businesses should be aware—for which the ATO will impose a penalty equivalent to one penalty unit every 28 days. While we agree with the bill we are debating here in the Senate, it should not go without comment that the Albanese government has slugged small businesses. We all saw the front pages of the newspapers yesterday, which showed the record number of small businesses in Australia that are going insolvent because of the regulatory burden that has been placed on them by the Albanese government—the costs, complexity and confusion. A business that has to close employs no-one, and we now have a record high number of small businesses in this country that have closed their doors because of the regulatory burden imposed on them by the Albanese government. So, as I said, this extends further than the bill that we're talking about. Effectively, the Albanese government has slugged small businesses with a 49 per cent increase in penalties for late paperwork, and these poor people don't sleep at the best of times. They work eight days a week, 25 hours a day. They never sleep. They don't pay themselves super, and under the Albanese government they're not paying themselves a salary. Now, for late paperwork, there is a 49 per cent increase in the penalty unit that can be applied. Schedule 4 amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to clarify the functions of the Communications Access Coordinator in the Attorney-General's Department and create the position of Communications Security Coordinator within the Department of Home Affairs. Essentially, this change reflects changes to the administrative arrangements under the current government. While there are no concerns about the specifics of the measure in this schedule, this is symptomatic of a broader concern, which relates to the concentration of national security operational functions in the Attorney-General's Department, the same department that exercises oversight of those functions. I am sure Senator Paterson would agree that this is a model that raises legitimate questions. Schedule 5, information sharing with state and territory oversight bodies, deals with information-sharing arrangements under, again, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. It's going to amend the arrangements that apply to state-level bodies which oversee state based integrity agencies. I note that this is not the integrity agencies themselves—that is very important to note—like the ICAC in South Australia. It is the oversight bodies for those state agencies—so it is a fundamental difference; it is the inspectors that are meant to ensure the state integrity agencies exercise their powers appropriately. New evidence before the PJCIS made clear that limitations in the legislations are causing difficulty for state based oversight bodies to discharge their functions. These limitations arise because, under the TIA Act, the oversight bodies are only able to receive information for a permitted purpose or for an eligible purpose, but the definitions of these terms do not capture all of the functions that the oversight bodies are meant to perform. So the changes in schedule 5 were welcomed by the PJCIS, with one minor recommendation. That has now been addressed, and, as such, we welcome the straightforward changes. It's just worth commenting on two additional changes in the bill. In addition to the matters considered by the PJCIS, the government proposed two additional amendments and has worked with the coalition on those two issues. The first change pushes back the sunsetting arrangements for the security provisions in the Criminal Code by 18 months. The secrecy provisions are currently due to sunset on 29 December this year. What this amendment will do is push back this date to 29 June 2026, and we have no objection to this. It is in no-one's interest for Commonwealth secrecy offences to lapse without a replacement being ready to go, and it's clear the Attorney won't be in a position to pass his proposed changes to Commonwealth secrecy provisions before the 29 December deadline. The second change relates to a particular definition in the Criminal Code: hors de combat. This is a term that, roughly speaking, describes a person who cannot legitimately be targeted in military operations. The government have told us they're replacing the existing definition to address a longstanding drafting error, dating back to the 2000s. The Attorney-General's office advises us that the gist of the error is that the definition uses the word 'and' when it should use the word 'or'. We have been assured that the changes avoid a potential unintended consequence but do not otherwise change the intended operation or effect of the definition. I am relying on the advice provided to us by the Attorney-General's office about the intent and the effect of the change and support it on the basis of the assurance that we have been provided. As such we are pleased to support the bill. (Time expired) 10:27 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. That is perhaps one of the most inspiring long titles for a bill we've had come before the house! This is a miscellaneous bill that makes a number of some modest, some slightly less modest changes to legislation. It includes expressly authorising police when executing search warrants issued under the 1914 Crimes Act or the 2002 Proceeds of Crimes Act to also seize digital assets such as cryptocurrency, including by accessing a person's digital wallet and transferring its contents to a state account. This is a timely and important change. As we have seen in multiple reports, aspects of organised crime have changed some of their financing—in some cases, much of their financing—into these crypto assets, and it makes no sense, if we are to have the Proceeds of Crimes Act, for those assets to be beyond the reach of police when they're executing search warrants. Without this power, of course, that fund can simply be transferred or it can remain in the wallet and not be accessible by the proceeds of crime legislation. The bill also extends the investigative and freezing powers under the 2002 Proceeds of Crimes Act that currently apply to financial institutions to also extend them to digital currency exchanges. For the same reasons as the earlier amendments are supported, the Greens also support these amendments. It makes sense and reflects the changing nature of organised crime and how money is hidden and laundered through digital currencies. I will just pause to note that we often hear the AFP talk up the numbers of proceeds-of-crime seizures and the like. They talk around $20 million. Sometimes they talk, over a decade, in the hundreds of millions. I think we should acknowledge that when we're talking about the scale of organised crime, much of it around drugs, that is a tiny fraction of the problem. If anyone thinks proceeds-of-crime legislation is the primary way in which we're going to deal with the scale of the problem of financing for organised crime, they haven't been watching. These changes will make a marginal change. There will be instances where some funds that have been obtained through organised crime will now be able to be seized, but this is in no way a systemic solution to the scale of organised crime, much of which lies in addressing the completely broken way we deal with drugs and addiction in this country. The bill also seeks to increase the value of the Commonwealth penalty unit. It increases it from the recently upped $313 per unit to now $330 per unit. Thankfully, there were some amendments in the Federation Chamber that clarified that the increases to the penalty unit clause only take effect from the commencement of this legislation, rather than from 1 July. The concept was that the bill, as initially drafted, having come from the Attorney-General's office, would retrospectively increase the penalty units for criminal offences. It's remarkable that retrospective increasing of criminal penalties ever got through the AG's office. But, thankfully, that's now been remedied through an amendment in the Federation Chamber. While the Greens recognise it's standard practice to increase Commonwealth penalty units over time so that they keep pace with inflation, what we have seen from both this government and the former government have been aggressive, repeated increases in the value of a penalty unit. We know that people are doing it extremely tough right now. We know that there's a cost-of-living crisis. We know that individuals, in particular, are finding it hard to make ends meet. So I think the government owes the public an explanation for why, from 2017 to now 2024, the value of a penalty unit has increased by 54 per cent and the bulk of that, under this government, while inflation over the same time is less than half of that, just over 20 per cent. So how is it that the cost of a penalty unit, which is meant to be broadly indexed to inflation, has increased by 54 per cent while inflation has increased by less than half of that? The bulk of that happened under this government's watch. The explanation we got in the second reading contribution by the Attorney in the other place did not explain that. Perhaps that's because there is no adequate explanation for it other than it's a revenue gouge disguised as an inflationary measure. But I think the public deserve an explanation, as this chamber deserves an explanation, from the government about that aggressive increase in penalty units. I want to be clear from the Greens perspective that the way in which penalty units and fines operate in the criminal justice system at a Commonwealth level—and it's reflected in most of the states and territories, save for New South Wales, and I'll speak to that briefly—create a two-tiered justice system. It means that, if you're wealthy and you have financial resources, the fine is often almost negligible. It doesn't impact on your life. It doesn't impact on your lifestyle. Although it may be unpleasant to pay a fine of hundreds or thousands of dollars, people who are wealthy roll on as though little, if anything, happened, whereas, for people who are trying to survive on Centrelink payments or a Commonwealth benefit or pension, if they get a fine in the hundreds or thousands of dollars it's financially disastrous for them. It means they have trouble affording the next trolley of groceries in the supermarket. It means that they're wondering whether they'll pay the energy bill or the phone bill. They're wondering if they can defer the rates notice. They're wondering if they can afford the rent. That's the difference. When we have this one-size-fits-all fines system, those who are wealthy just brush it off and get on. They can commit offences, with almost no impact on their life. But those who are financially struggling are doubly penalised with these fines that could be absolutely financially disastrous to them. That's not a justice system; that's an injustice system. And it's gotten worse with this legislation that is, again, ramping up the size of penalty units. That is why I move a second reading amendment that's been distributed: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that the bill seeks to increase the value of the Commonwealth penalty unit; (b) recognises that set financial penalties produce unfair and uneven impacts when they are not levied according to income, so that people on high incomes can easily afford to pay a fine that would be financially crippling to someone on Commonwealth income support such as Jobseeker or the aged pension; and (c) urges the Government to explore a fairer system for fines that would reduce penalty amounts for those on Commonwealth income support, and increase penalty amounts for those earning over $180,000 a year". If the criminal justice system strives to be at least slightly fair, then fines should have the same effective impact on people whether they're wealthy or not. And the way you do that is by looking to countries like Norway, which has its fine system graduated against income. Under their fines system, the wealthier you are, the higher the fine you pay for the same offence. Thankfully, we have seen some changes in Australia. After some years of struggle in New South Wales and some active negotiation with the then government, action was brought by the Greens a few years ago—and, indeed, at that time it was a coalition amendment that went to the New South Wales parliament. There's now a provision under the New South Wales Fines Act so that somebody on a government support payment has a right to apply to have their fine halved on proof that they're on a Commonwealth support payment. That at least produces a measure of equitable impact under the fines system in New South Wales. That's been in operation now for a number of years and has been a really important measure to produce increased fairness in how fines operate in New South Wales. We have a federal Labor government, and one of the ideological pillars of Labor is meant to be some kind of approach to equity. But, instead of even following what we managed to get in New South Wales, we have a bill here now from federal Labor that just wants to ramp up fines. We know who that's going to hurt most: not a billionaire or a millionaire but somebody who has the least. Again, I ask for an explanation from the minister. Why is it you're choosing to do this? Why have you increased fines by—together with the increases under the coalition between 2017 and 2024—54 per cent, more than double inflation? Do you recognise what an impact that has, particularly on people who are struggling to get by financially? The bill also makes changes to information-sharing provisions in the Telecommunications (Intercept and Access) Act 1979 to make it simpler for state based oversight bodies to receive intercept information and intercept warrant information from agencies within their jurisdictions. This is an outstanding issue. This has been a long-running concern, particularly for state oversight agencies such as the New South Wales ICAC, police oversight bodies and corruption bodies in states and territories. It's a useful change, but I think it will require close monitoring both by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and by this chamber. There's an outstanding issue, in that stored communications or telecommunications data accessed by state based integrity agencies should be disclosable to the oversight bodies for those agencies. Fixing this was, indeed, also a recommendation of the PJCIS report on this bill. That recommendation read: 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. I further note that this bill was amended in the Federation Chamber to stop the secrecy provisions from sunsetting, and, to this, I note that the sun never sets on any additional power that's granted to a Commonwealth security agency. I do look forward to the government responding to these issues of substance on the bill. I particularly look forward to an explanation from the government as to why it thinks it's legitimate to so aggressively increase fines, knowing that those who will be most harmed are those with the least. I look forward to the chamber supporting our second reading amendment that would finally say that the criminal justice system should actually be graduated for fairness and that, if you're a millionaire, a fine should actually have an impact on you and a similar impact on you to if you're surviving on JobSeeker. The only way you can do that is if you graduate fines based on income. We surely should be moving towards that. 10:41 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Well, I certainly won't be supporting the Greens' second reading amendment on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. It astounds me, with all due respect to Senator Shoebridge, who I served with on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, that he made that blithe argument—and I'll call it a 'blithe' argument—around calibrating fees based on someone's income without once referring to a fundamental principle of our justice system, which is that everyone should be treated equally before the law—not once! Not once did Senator Shoebridge actually make the point that everyone should be treated equally before the law. He just went into a blithe recitation saying, 'Well, the fine system can have uneven impacts in terms of this and that. We should just abandon it,' and said—for the first time under any Commonwealth law that I'm aware of—we should start to treat people differently under our justice system based upon their individual circumstances in terms of the application of penalties in our justice system. For the first time, Senator Shoebridge is proposing a change to our system of laws, our rule of law, whereby people would be treated differently based on their individual characteristics. We have a system based on rule of law, which means that everyone who attends before our court system is treated equally. That is a fundamental principle. If you go to many of the courts around our country, you will see the statue of Justitia, typically portrayed as a woman with a sword, a scale of justice and a blindfold. Why does she have a blindfold? Because it doesn't matter who appears in our court system—it doesn't matter their religion, their ethnicity or their background or whether they came to this country a year ago or they've been here as part of our oldest living community, our First Nations people—everyone should be treated equally in our justice system. The law should be treated equally and applied to everyone equally. We have a system of rule of law, not rule of men, which says everyone should be treated equally, yet, in that blithe—and I'll call it 'blithe'—contribution to the debate, Senator Shoebridge would tear that principle down. It's just symptomatic of the radical, extreme policies we hear in this place from the Greens again and again and again. Rule of law says everyone should be treated equally before the law—a fundamental principle of our system of justice—and yet, in that 10-minute contribution, Senator Shoebridge would tear away that constitutional and legal principle going all the way back to John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and even beyond that. It's a fundamental principle of our system. It doesn't matter if you're a king or a serf. We're all treated the same before the law. That's a fundamental principle that Senator Shoebridge would tear down with that blithe contribution. It's very, very disappointing, and another radical, extreme proposition put by the Australian Greens. This is what I believe. It doesn't matter who you are—a millionaire, someone who's on the age pension—it doesn't matter what your ethnicity is, how long you've been in this country, or whether or not you're a new Australian or you can trace your heritage back thousands of years. It doesn't matter. When you attend a court, the judge applies the law equally to everyone. That's a fundamental principle of our justice system, and it's certainly a hill I'd be prepared to die on. I think the way that Senator Shoebridge presents that amendment would lead to all sorts of injustices and open the door up to people being treated differently, based on their individual circumstances, in our laws. It is fundamentally flawed, Senator Shoebridge. Senator SCARR 282997 I will take the interjection, Senator Shoebridge. What particularly disappoints me in that contribution is that not once did you weigh up the principle of equality before the law. You didn't actually once weigh that principle up. You didn't give it any consideration at all in terms of what a fundamental change to our justice system that would constitute—not once. It's very atypical of you, Senator Shoebridge. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Scarr, can I just interrupt you for one second. It is the right of all senators in this chamber to be heard in silence, so I would appreciate respect across the chamber. It is quite disruptive. Senator Scarr, you have the call. Continue your contribution. Senator SCARR 282997 The basic proposition is that our laws should not differentiate between Australians on the basis of their individual characteristics, whatever those characteristics are. They should treat everyone equally. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. That is a basic, fundamental proposition underpinning our justice system. In my view, we depart from that proposition at great risk to our justice system. I say, through you, Acting Deputy President Cox, to all the members of this chamber: do not support this extreme amendment being put forward by the Greens. Whilst it is put in a blithe way, as if this is simply a natural progression in terms of our justice system, it is far, far more profoundly dangerous than that, because it tears at one of the fundamental principles of our justice system—that everyone should be treated equally before the law. There are some other fundamental flaws with respect to what the Greens are proposing in terms of this radical amendment. The penalties which are set under our laws are maximum penalties. They're maximum penalties. Of course, we—those in the coalition supporting the principles of the rule of law—respect that our judges, our justices, need to have discretion when they apply the law to the individual circumstances of a case. They do that, in terms of how they apply the law, and they should continue to do that. We don't take issue with that principle. We support that issue. But what Senator Shoebridge's amendment would seek to do is change the law in its application to different categories of people based on their particular attributes. That is a pathway leading to great danger, and it would diminish the rule of law in this country. It's a fundamental principle, and I call upon all senators to defend our system and to defend that concept. In the court where I was admitted, the Supreme Court of Queensland, where I was admitted as a lawyer, to my profession, back in 1994, I walked past the statue of Justicia. She is blindfolded. She has a sword, the scales of justice and a blindfold. That blindfold means that our principle of justice is blind as to the particular attributes of those appearing before the courts. Everyone is, or should be, treated equally in our courts. Everyone should be treated equally in our courts—that needs to be the fundamental principle that underpins our system of justice. The penalties included in our laws are maximum penalties, and so judges and justices can consider the individual circumstances of the case. And they should consider the individual circumstances of the case when they set the penalty that applies in an individual case. When they set the penalty to apply in an individual case, they should apply the rule of law—principles of common law and statute law—that apply to the individual case. It is not for me, as a senator in this place, to impose my view on what a judge should apply in a particular case. It should be up to judicial discretion. Again, it's a principle of the rule of law—everyone being treated equally before the law and the law being applied equally to everyone in our community. It's absolutely a fundamental principle of the rule of law. The other point I would make with respect to this proposition is that, whilst I accept the comments Senator Shoebridge made around the increase in the amount of penalty units over the course of the last few years, the fact of the matter is that those penalty units are the same in our legislation and in our criminal justice system. The maximums that apply—and they are maximums—apply equally to everyone. I would hate to see this country move away from that principle of equality of law. I would hate to see us in this chamber start to look deeply into laws and say, 'How do we tweak this law to apply to that category of people?' or, 'How are we going to tweak that law to apply to another category of people?' We would cease to be the society we are if we moved down that path. I think one of the strengths of our society is that, it doesn't matter if you're a millionaire or an age pensioner, it doesn't matter what your ethnicity is, it doesn't matter what your religion is, it doesn't matter whether you can trace your heritage back for thousands of years in this country or you're a new Australian, when we enter into that courtroom we're all treated the same. We're all treated equally. That's how our laws should respond. Senator Shoebridge 169119 Rubbish! That's not how it works. Senator SCARR 282997 I note Senator Shoebridge says, 'Rubbish.' I know, Senator Shoebridge, under your philosophy, under the Greens' philosophy— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Shoebridge on a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 Senator Scarr is misrepresenting my interjection. I said, 'That's not how it works.' We know that's not how the criminal justice system works. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Shoebridge, that is not a point of order. Senator Scarr, before I allocate the call to you, I remind all senators to continue their contributions through the chair instead of across the chamber to assist in the contributions being respectful. Senator SCARR 282997 Through you, Acting Deputy President, I note that Senator Shoebridge referred to my propositions as 'rubbish'. It doesn't surprise me that he did so, because the radical, extreme Greens party doesn't have respect for the fundamental principles underlying our Australian democracy. They have a different philosophical view. My concern is to defend some of the fundamental democratic principles of our country's judicial system, our justice system, against the attack from the radical, extreme Greens. I'll continue to do so. Senator Shoebridge can interject and take issue with my point of view. That's fine. I accept Senator Shoebridge has a different philosophical disposition. It's a radical disposition. It's an extreme disposition. He seeks to undermine the rule of law in this country. It's his right to come into this place— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Shoebridge on a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 Senator Scarr is now falsely seeking to impugn my motives and seeking to attack and make personal reflections on another member. I would ask him to withdraw them and to desist from them. It's contrary to the standing orders. He knows it's contrary to the standing orders. He says he respects the rule of law, and he's flouting the standing orders right now. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Scarr, I invite you to withdraw the comments impugning Senator Shoebridge's motives. Senator SCARR 282997 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Thank you. Senator SCARR 282997 From my perspective, when the Greens—and I'll speak generally—put forward resolutions like this, they are actually providing an insight into their radical, ideological philosophy. Far from impugning anyone's motives, in many respects what is proposed in this second reading amendment is entirely consistent with their philosophical perspective. The motivation aligns with the political disposition of the Greens party. It's radical, it's extreme and it seeks to attack some of the fundamental principles underpinning our justice system. Far from impugning anyone's motives, I'm making the observation that this amendment is entirely consistent with their radical, ideological, philosophical disposition, which I fiercely contend with. It baffles me somewhat to hear people being particularly sensitive about that. However, let's move on. I believe that our justice system, which treats everyone equally before the law, has served us extremely well and that, every time an Australian enters into our court system, justice should be blind as to their individual attributes: their income, their religion, their ethnicity or their connections with people of power. It shouldn't matter if I, as a senator, or someone who is a constituent of mine enter into a court subject to our justice system; we should be treated equally. We should be treated the same. There should be no distinction made based on our personal attributes, and that is the fundamental philosophical point at stake in terms of this amendment. There are those—the Greens, with their radical, extreme ideology—who would like us to be judged in our legal system based on our personal attributes, disconnected from the offence which has been committed or is alleged to have been committed. I would hope that the vast majority of senators in this place agree with the current system—that we are all equal before the law and that Lady Justice is blindfolded as to the personal attributes of those entering into our courts. It doesn't matter if you're a senator or if you're someone sitting in the public gallery today; we are all treated equally before the law. That is a fundamental principle which must be fiercely defended. On that basis, I beseech all the senators in this chamber to vote against this ill-considered, radical, extreme amendment put forward by the Greens. 10:57 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to move the second reading amendment standing in my name to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. I want to take this opportunity to remind the Senate that there is a committee in this building called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This committee, which I am a member of, does the job of scrutinising legislation and regulations that come through this place and checks for human rights compatibility. It is a committee whose work you should all be paying far more attention to, considering it is your individual responsibility to your constituents to represent their rights. This includes their inalienable human rights. This country has agreed to be bound by these obligations, and that is what you all committed to upholding when you became members of parliament. Unfortunately, we know that human rights are something the colony of so-called Australia has little respect for, no matter who is in government. The culture in this place is one of impunity for human rights violations, with human rights being, at best, selectively applied, depending on political whims. Respecting human rights does not just mean simply pointing at some words on a piece of paper which you choose to ignore, explain away or break with at any time. It is a practice that needs to be applied in our every action. From where we are now, it's about a significant shift in culture. The government and the Attorney-General consider this bill, which proposes to expand the powers to search, seize and freeze digital assets like cryptocurrency, compatible with human rights. This is strange, considering the human rights committee brought to the attention of the Senate the fact that the legislation being amended was never scrutinised for human rights compliance in the first place. This includes the following: the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Crimes Act, the Telecommunications Act. When questioned by the human rights committee on the human rights compatibility of the expansion of the rights contained in this bill, the Attorney-General's answer was, 'Well, we already have this power, so what is the problem in expanding it to another area?' and, 'This is a necessary move to stop criminals.' This raises the fundamental question: how can we justify expanding powers under laws that may already violate basic human rights? Most people in this country are probably not aware of the full extent of the hugely expansive powers police have across the country in the name of our safety. One of the key issues is the right to privacy. Whistleblower and antisurveillance advocate Edward Snowden stated: Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. Under this bill, law enforcement agencies could search for and seize digital assets remotely, meaning cops could search through a person's computer or smartphone even if the device belongs to someone else. That means the police can access your smartphone because it was once used by someone that they are investigating, even if you had no involvement. This bill also lowers the threshold for seizing digital assets. Currently, a cop must reasonably believe that the property they're seizing is linked to a crime. With the changes in this bill, the need to only 'reasonably suspect it' is the difference between belief and suspicion, but it's huge in legal terms of safeguarding peoples' rights. Suspecting something doesn't require much proof and could lead to serious overreach and unnecessary seizure of personal property, which could have devastating consequences, especially for innocent individuals. Let's not forget the Proceeds of Crimes Act—which I think the colony should be criminalised for because you are accepting the proceeds of crime as it's stolen land and you benefit from the proceeds of stolen land. But that's another speech for another time. In relation to this bill, this Proceeds of Crime Act has provisions that allow for the freezing or confiscation of assets even if the person is acquitted of a crime. Think about that. You could be cleared of wrongdoing in a court yet still lose your property. This flies in the face of the right to a fair trial, another fundamental human right. Additionally, there is a need to scrutinise the powers being granted to integrity agencies under this bill. It expands their ability to receive and use intercepted communications for oversight purposes. While this may sound good on the surface, there's a risk of privacy breaches when agencies gain increased access to personal communications without clear, strong safeguards. Are we confident these measures are proportionate to the task of ensuring integrity, or are we simply broadening the scope for surveillance without adequate checks? Are we giving in to a path to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four? This government would do well to get its priorities in order and act in the best interests of the people as first priority. Why are we seeing constant further expansion of policing and surveillance instead of bills and actions that implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody? Why aren't we seeing a national effort to measure all our existing legislation against minimum human rights standards and seeking ways to facilitate the rights of communities as self-determined by them? These are rights all of you are obliged to uphold in each of your offices and portfolios, and you must do so as a priority. The bottom line is that, before we expand any of these powers through any legislation, we must first ensure the laws they build on are fundamentally sound from a human rights perspective. Human rights are not a joke. Human rights are something we all should have in this country, and this parliament and this government should not play with people's basic human rights. This means conducting a full foundational human rights assessment of the Crimes Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. What's the point of having a committee in this place—taxpayers' money—where we sit around, talk about human rights and only get given certain legislation that the government decide that we can look at? We go through it with expertise from human rights lawyers around that table and we identify breaches of human rights in the legislation that comes before us. Then we write a report. Then we send it to the government, and the government just come up with all the reasons why they want to continue to breach human rights. Talk about a waste of time. Talk about a waste of taxpayers' money. Talk about denying basic human rights for every person in this country. It's shameful. Why have committees for the sake of committees? It's got to do something, right? Surely. Anyway, maybe I'm just in the wrong place; I don't know. But I'm not going anywhere, so you will have to put up with it! Until this is done, it is reckless to move forward with these bills that haven't been scrutinised by the human rights committee. Expanding powers in areas that continue to breach human rights is a breach of human rights. Giving more powers to the cops to go through peoples' phones, giving more powers to the cops to take peoples' assets—it's disgusting. What are you saying? Who runs this country, the cops or the government? There are serious systemic problems within the police force. We know that. They target innocent people too. So, unless those human rights issues are dealt with, we cannot pass this bill. Stop the genocide. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I just advise you that Senator Shoebridge has moved the second reading amendment, so if you would foreshadow it. Senator THORPE 280304 I foreshadow. 11:08 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move my amendment on sheet 2979. I want to quickly take 60 seconds. I won't take longer than the minister's time, because I know he needs to say things, but I want to explain quickly to the Australian people what my amendment will do. It will bring the mechanism for financial penalties in the Parliamentary Privileges Act into line with financial penalties in the majority of legislation, replacing hard numbers with a mechanism to adjust for inflation as well. A penalty unit was established as a way of ensuring financial penalties remained in check with inflation as per the Crimes Act. We use penalty units in tax legislation and occupational health and safety legislation, but apparently the Parliamentary Privileges Act of 1987—I reinforce that this was back in 1987, Australians—is locked into financial penalties of up to $5,000 for a person and $25,000 for a corporation, with no adjustment for inflation. The average punter stares down the barrel of penalty units for a financial penalty. Why not a penalty for the people that mislead parliament? By voting down this amendment, the major parties are seeking to limit accountability for their ministers and, quite frankly, I thought we were turning over a leaf here and leading by example. So I just don't know why you won't vote this through. We should be held accountable like everybody else in society, and that is the way it needs to go down. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll just inform the Senate that it's my understanding that that amendment is a committee stage amendment. 11:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I want to thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. The bill will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in the Crimes Act 1914, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. These amendments are required to support the proper administration of regulatory, law enforcement and oversight processes. The amendments to the Crimes Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act, and consequential amendments to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act, in schedule 1 of the bill will modernise law enforcement search and seizure powers for cryptocurrency and other digital assets. These amendments are necessary because of the evolving nature of crime and the tools that criminals are using, including things like cryptocurrency and other digital assets. These amendments are intended to keep pace with those actions of criminals and ensure that law enforcement bodies have the powers that they need. Similarly, the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act in schedule 2 of the bill will modernise law enforcement powers in relation to information-gathering powers and freezing orders to apply them to cryptocurrency exchanges and the accounts they administer, and that's for the same reason I outlined before. The amendments to the Crimes Act in schedule 3 of the bill will increase the value of the Commonwealth penalty unit to ensure that financial penalties for Commonwealth offences remain an effective deterrent to unlawful behaviour. The amendments to the Telecommunications Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act in schedule 4 of the bill will provide certainty that the Attorney-General's Department is responsible for carrying out the telecommunications access functions through the Communications Access Coordinator and that the Department of Home Affairs is responsible for carrying out certain telecommunications security functions through the Communications Security Coordinator. The amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act in schedule 5 of the bill will support improved oversight of state and territory integrity agencies and their use of interception powers. Amendments to the Criminal Code in schedule 6 will extend the sunsetting date of the secrecy offence in section 122.4 to 29 June 2026 to ensure that sensitive Commonwealth information continues to be protected while the government considers and implements two recent reviews of Commonwealth secrecy provisions. Amendments to the Criminal Code in schedule 7 will retrospectively amend the definition of 'hors de combat' in the dictionary of the Criminal Code to correct a drafting error and to confirm consistency between Australian domestic law and international law in relation to war crimes obligations, reflecting the original legislative intent when the provision was introduced in 2002. In conclusion, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2024 will support the proper administration of regulatory and oversight processes, assist law enforcement agencies, deter criminal behaviour to enhance the protection of the Australian community and ensure Australia is able to uphold its international obligations. As I've said already in this speech—and I note we're about 45 seconds from the 11.15 am cut-off, so I might as well reiterate the point—as Australia has evolved into a modern digital economy, law enforcement agencies are seeing an increase in criminals' use of digital assets, including cryptocurrency, to facilitate their offending and as a means to hold and distribute the benefits derived from their offending. Investigations involving digital assets have been associated with a variety of crime types, including the purchase of drugs; child exploitation material and firearms, through dark-web markets; ransomware and cyber-related offences; and money laundering and financing terrorist organisations. It's therefore imperative that law enforcement agencies have the appropriate tools available to continue efforts to address some of the evolving and unique issues and complexities that arise in the search for and seizure of digital assets. Debate interrupted. COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 20 Report 20 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the 12th report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee Report no. 12 of 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Gerard Rennick Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 9 October 2024 at 7.13 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral). (b) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and 3. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Cyber Security Bill 2024 Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024 Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Help to Buy Bill 2023 [No. 2] Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 [No. 2] National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024. 4. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 10 October 2024 Appendix 1 S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Hear from education stakeholders Possible submissions or evidence from: Education experts, approved authorities, unions, state/ territories, parents and carers groups. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Education and Employment Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Week of 28 Oct, week of 11 Nov Possible reporting date: 14 November (signed) Nick McKim Appendix 2 S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Stakeholders and interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): October Possible reporting date: 14 November 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and: (a) in respect of the Cyber Security Bill 2024, the Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024 and the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024, the bills not be referred to a committee; (b) the provisions of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024; and (c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 November 2024". I will speak briefly to this amendment, particularly in relation to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill. We would like that to report by 14 November. I understand there is some disagreement about that. I would just point out to the chamber that there has been extensive consultation. The Harris review was handed to the former government in 2021, but its recommendations were not implemented. Since coming to government there's been a further range of consultations with community groups and industry. The response to these recommendations was released in February this year, with drafting having been completed in the intervening period. The reforms have been open to scrutiny for a number of years now. Pushing consideration off to next year will only delay these much-needed reforms. It's also noted that Senator McKenzie has been calling for these reforms to be implemented as soon as possible. So we would urge the Senate to allow for the inquiry into this amendment bill to report by 14 November 2024, rather than seeking to delay it until next year. 11:17 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania To Senator Gallagher's amendment, I move: At the end of the motion, add: "but, in respect of the Cyber Security Bill 2024, the Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024, and the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 February 2025". Briefly, I want to say that we all understand, or at least all of us in the Greens understand, what is going on here. This is where the establishment parties, the so-called parties of government in this place, get together and effectively collude to refer really critical pieces of legislation to the closed shop of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which, of course, has no crossbench members on it and—barring a brief period of time when Mr Wilkie had the balance of power in the House of Representatives—hasn't had any crossbench members on it for many decades. We all know how this goes. The bills disappear into the smoky back room of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There might be the odd rough edge rasped off those bills through negotiations between the major parties, but they effectively come out unchanged because the intelligence and security apparatus in this country always gets what it wants out of the major parties. Then, those bills, having possibly had one or two of the roughest edges rasped off them, if we are lucky, come into this Senate and, once again, the establishment parties collude to ram them through. So rights and liberties continue to get eroded because we remain really the only so-called liberal democracy in the world that doesn't have a charter of rights or a bill of rights. The ongoing series of well over 200 pieces of legislation that have passed through state, territory and Commonwealth parliaments in the last 20 years continue to get watered down and erode the fundamental rights and freedoms that many Australians, including ancestors of mine, fought and died to protect and enhance. That's because the major parties are not prepared to stand up to the intelligence and security apparatus in this country. We want this legislation to be examined in public by the legal and constitutional affairs committee, which does have a crossbench member—and a very capable one, I might add—in the form of Senator Shoebridge. That is what we should be doing with legislation like this that erodes fundamental rights and freedoms, and that is why the Greens are moving this amendment. The PRESIDENT 112096 For the benefit of all of us, I understand that's an amendment to (a). 11:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I thank Senator McKim for moving the motion. We're in the third-last sitting week of parliament, and Minister Burke suddenly pulls out of nowhere three bills, one of which is 100 pages long, another of which is 56 pages long and another of which is 20-odd pages long. Without any prior consultation, without any prior notice, he pulls out these three bills three weeks out from the end of the sitting calendar this year and now wants to send them off to another secret committee, a secret committee dominated by the war and security parties, who have never seen a war they haven't wanted to join or a secret they haven't wanted to hide or a whistleblower they haven't wanted to put in jail. That's the committee that's going to look at these three bills, almost 200 pages of super-secret legislation making it harder and nastier for anyone who wants to actually tell the truth about what's going on in this place. That's what we're seeing. We've got a rudderless government which can't seem to bring in any effective measure to deal with what people actually want addressed—cost of living, housing and trying to pay grocery bills. And what have they been spending their time doing? Working up some secret deal with the coalition to whack 300 pages of pro-security, pro-ASIO, pro-secrecy legislation to a secret committee populated by the war parties. Nothing changes in this place. People don't want to see another secret hatchet job between Labor and the coalition trying to give increased secrecy powers to the security agencies in this country. They'd like a government that is open and honest about how they're actually going to fix the real problems Australians are facing, problems about being able to pay the grocery bills, to afford unreasonable rents and to sort out housing, but there's nothing like that from the government. Instead, Minister Burke has been working in some dark, smoky room to produce hundreds of pages of super-secret legislation that he now wants to send to a secret committee. If you wanted to have proof positive about how out of touch this Albanese government is with what people want this parliament to be doing, here it is. They have no serious solution to housing, no serious solution to the cost of living and no serious solution to things that millions of Australians want this government to address. Instead, they've been working on hundreds of pages of secret legislation with a secret deal with the coalition to go to a secret committee to do another job on Australians. That's the Albanese government 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim to Senator Gallagher's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 28 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:30 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move an amendment to part (b) of the motion: Omit "14 November 2024", substitute "31 January 2025". The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024—53 pages of legislation—which was handed to the parliament at midday yesterday, makes the biggest change in three decades to the slot-management system, the access, into Sydney airport, our busiest airport in this country. I want to take this opportunity to thank the crossbenchers, who last year worked with me to set up an inquiry into the Qatar Airways decision, which unmasked the government's lack of action around competition in the aviation sector and around these very longstanding, protected relationships, which, the Prime Minister and Alan Joyce notwithstanding, go back a long time and have had a significant impact on the reliability and price of aviation for everyday Australians. I believe the significance of this change requires a longer inquiry. I appreciate that the government wants to get this through before going to an election and I don't want to stand in the way of changing a regulatory environment that is costing Australians each and every day, but I do believe that it is this chamber's responsibility to give the committee and stakeholders a chance to have an authentic and genuine engagement with the material, with the bill, and to provide, once again, the Senate and the government with sensible recommendations, as we did with the Senate bilateral air services agreements inquiry last year. I'm not seeking an endless inquiry. This is a Labor government-controlled legislation inquiry. I know that right now senators and committees are very pressed for time. This will require more than two hearings to do it justice and to get it written and reported on in time for our next sitting date. If there are more submissions than we expect or there are more complexities than we've already uncovered in the brief time we've had the legislation before us, it won't allow us the opportunity to extend the inquiry. That is why I've set the reporting date at 31 January: it's so that the report can be delivered in time for the legislation to appear before the Senate and be debated and moved prior to heading to an election. I know that the crossbench and the Greens supported the setting up of that bilateral air services agreements committee. It handed down an incredibly sensible array of recommendations. The Harris review has been around for a while. My initial reading of this bill is that it doesn't implement the Harris review recommendations, as the government is running around and saying. It actually only implements a couple of them. So there is some sensible work that can be done by senators, in conjunction with stakeholders, to ensure that the problems with getting access into Sydney, from right around the country, can actually be addressed. So I implore the crossbench and I implore the Greens to reconsider their position on extending the date. It's great to see the chamber has realised this is an issue Australians care about and that we're prepared to now have an inquiry, but let's make it an inquiry that doesn't hold the bill up unnecessarily prior to an election and that actually allows us to do our job and provide sensible recommendations, as this Senate and this particular committee have done in the past. I commend my amendment. 11:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'd like to thank Senator McKenzie for all her work in shining a light on the shambles that is the slot system at Sydney Airport. This was a focus of her airlines inquiry. Clearly, it's not working. It's disappointing that it's taken the government this long, given the impact that it has—particularly here in the ACT, where we're getting absolutely price gouged to fly 45 minutes to Sydney, which, I'm told, comes down largely to the slot hoarding system. Clearly, there's a need for reform. I thank the government for bringing this forward. My view is that this can be dealt with in the time that has been proposed, given the urgency of it. This is only one very small part of a broader package of reform that needs to happen, and I'm comfortable that the Senate can deal with those stakeholders and work to have something in place, should the Senate like the legislation that's being proposed this year. I'll be supporting the shorter reporting date, but I do thank Senator McKenzie for all her work. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the amendment moved by Senator McKenzie to Senator Gallagher's amendment of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. 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. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:43 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now move to Senator Gallagher's amendment. The question is that Senator Gallagher's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be adopted. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Rearrangement 25 11:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion No. 530 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 25 NOTICES Postponement 25 11:44 The PRESIDENT 112096 Does any senator wish for the question to be put on any of those notifications? If not, we will proceed. BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 25 11:44 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Sheldon for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 26 11:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Kovacic for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 26 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 26 Reference 26 11:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move: That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 March 2025: (a) the role, governance and accountability requirements of Aboriginal Land Councils and/or similar governing bodies, including native title representative bodies and prescribed bodies corporate, across Australia, their respective members and how these are maintained; (b) the scope of services funded by the Australian Government and delivered by Aboriginal Land Councils or similar governing bodies and Aboriginal organisations, and how they are impacting the communities they act on behalf of; (c) how services are delivered, their effectiveness and whether other opportunities exist to provide greater community-led benefit to Traditional Owners; (d) how Traditional Owners are consulted in making decisions that impact on the entire community; (e) how Aboriginal Land Councils and/or similar governing bodies and Aboriginal organisations assess applications for funding and develop and any reasons for delays; (f) how the future of the Aboriginal Benefit Account funding will benefit communities; and (g) any other related matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price, as moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. 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. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BUSINESS 27 BUSINESS Rearrangement 27 11:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move the motion as amended: That on Thursday, 10 October 2024: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm: (i) Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024, (ii) Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, and (iii) Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024; (iv) (b) Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm for the purposes of the bills only. 11:52 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The Greens are disappointed that the government is moving to guillotine these bills through the parliament. We are concerned that the Senate has not had enough time—a reasonable amount of time—to consider in detail the Future Made in Australia piece of legislation. We are only halfway through the second reading speeches. There will be amendments, and the government wants to ram this through. The Senate has a duty to properly consider bills before ramming them through, so we will be asking for the question to be put separately on each of these bills, because we are worried that the government wants to ram things through simply because they are not prepared to negotiate properly. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, I just remind you you can only ask for the matter to be split up if you intend to vote differently on each one. If that's your intention, that's all fine. Is that your intention? Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I'm just flagging—there might be other people who have problems with this as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Well, they can rise and speak. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U What I'm saying is that we have concerns with Future Made in Australia and the naval bill, two things that the government wants to ram through this place without giving it reasonable consideration. The PRESIDENT 112096 You've had a minute to explain your opposition. You wanted them all put separately. I have come back to you and said that's only possible—so I'm still not understanding what it is the Greens are seeking. Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM If I could assist, the Greens will be asking that the question be put separately on the Future Made in Australia cognate bills and the bills that have just been included by amendment by Senator Gallagher on the naval matters, but the Greens wish to vote against both of those. The PRESIDENT 112096 That means that we will do (i) and (ii) together and (iii) and (iv) together. 11:55 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 We request that (iii) be put separately so that Future Made in Australia is put on its own as opposed to with (iv). The PRESIDENT 112096 We're putting (i) and (ii) together, (iii) on its own and then (iv). The question is that the motion in respect of paragraphs (i) and (ii) be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion in relation to paragraph (iii) be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are out of order! Senator Thorpe, take your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I've asked you to take your seat. If you're going to be disruptive, leave the chamber.    

The Senate divided. [12:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)

23 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 40 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. 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. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion on paragraph (iv), relating to the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 and the Australian Naval Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 16 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

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

 12:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 Before we move on, Senator Thorpe, I'm going to ask you to withdraw the comments you made in relation to me. But, before I ask you to do that, I'm going to explain to you that there is no need for you to seek the call on behalf of other senators. If I miss seeing a senator seek the call, it is the role of the Clerk to remind me. Senator Thorpe 280304 I wasn't seeking the call. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. I'm simply asking you to withdraw the remarks you made about me. Senator Thorpe 280304 I need to know what remarks you're talking about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I am not in the habit of repeating offensive remarks made by senators in this place. So I would ask you to withdraw the remarks. Senator Thorpe 280304 I don't know what I said. Senator Wong 00AOU You said she was out of order. Senator Thorpe 280304 She was out of order? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, come to order and withdraw the remarks. Senator Thorpe 280304 If I don't? The PRESIDENT 112096 Then I'll have to move that you no longer be heard. Senator Thorpe 280304 What does that mean? The PRESIDENT 112096 If you seek the call, you will not get the call until you withdraw the remarks. Senator Wong, are you seeking the call? Senator Wong 00AOU Senator Thorpe, I'm on my feet, actually, and I have the call. First, I would just say to you that you accused the President of being out of order. We cannot tolerate the President's authority being undermined in that way. I'm flagging with you that there are procedures which now can be undertaken if you refuse to obey the direction of the President. I'm inviting you to do the right thing and do as the President asks. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, please be respectful in your language and wait until I call you. Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 I withdraw my comments that you were offended by. I withdraw my comments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Days and Hours of Meeting 30 12:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the days of meeting of the Senate for 2025 be as follows: Autumn sittings: Tuesday, 4 February to Thursday, 6 February Monday, 10 February to Thursday, 13 February Budget sittings: Tuesday, 25 March to Thursday, 27 March Winter sittings: Tuesday, 6 May to Thursday, 8 May Monday, 12 May to Thursday, 15 May Monday, 26 May to Thursday, 29 May Tuesday, 3 June to Thursday, 5 June Monday, 23 June to Thursday, 26 June Spring sittings: Tuesday, 5 August to Thursday, 7 August Monday, 11 August to Thursday, 14 August Monday, 1 September to Thursday, 4 September Monday, 8 September to Thursday, 11 September Monday, 13 October to Thursday, 16 October Monday, 3 November to Thursday, 6 November Monday, 24 November to Thursday, 27 November. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 30 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 30 Reference 30 12:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Australian High Commission project, Honiara, Solomon Islands. And I table a statement in relation to the work. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 30 DOCUMENTS Department of Defence 30 Order for the Production of Documents 30 12:09 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on 18 October 2024: (a) milestone and/or progress reports relating to the Schools Pathways Program; (b) correspondence between the Department of Defence and the Defence Minister's office and/or Defence Industry and Capability Minister's office relating to the Schools Pathways Program and/or the SUBS in Schools Technology Challenge; and (c) correspondence between the Department of Defence and the Department of Education and/or Education portfolio agencies and/or education stakeholders regarding the Schools Pathways Program and/or the SUBS in Schools Technology Challenge. Question agreed to. Department of Social Services 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 12:09 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Liddle, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 16 October 2024: (a) the number of government consultations undertaken by the Department of Social Services (DSS) that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term; (b) the subject matter of the consultations that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term; (c) the number of non-disclosure agreements signed by community sector organisations and other stakeholders as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by DSS since the start of the parliamentary term; (d) the number of community sector organisations that refused to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by DSS since the start of the parliamentary term; and (e) the number of breaches of government non-disclosure agreements that have been legally pursued since the start of the parliamentary term and actions taken by DSS. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 655, standing in the name of Senator Liddle and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) 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. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 32 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 32

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 32 12:23 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:23]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 27 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:25 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Thorpe, I understand you foreshadowed in the second reading debate that you were moving an amendment. Now is the moment at which you might do that if you still wish to proceed that way. 12:25 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move the motion standing in my name on sheet 2966: Omit all words after "That", substitute: "(a) the Senate notes the significant human rights concerns raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) in relation to this bill, which remain unresolved, including recommendations that foundational human rights assessments be conducted of the: (i) Crimes Act 1914, (ii) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and (iii) Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, with particular focus on the right to privacy; (b) the Senate calls on the PJCHR to exercise its function under section 7 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to examine laws for compatibility with human rights and examine the above Acts that the bill seeks to amend and report to both Houses of the Parliament on their compatibility with human rights; and (c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the PJCHR has presented a report of its examination of the above Acts to the Senate". The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:27]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 33 12:30 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2979 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 90 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 8 — Penalties imposed by the Parliament Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 1 Subsection 7(5) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (5) A House may impose on a person a fine: (a) not exceeding 50 penalty units, in the case of a natural person; or (b) not exceeding 250 penalty units, in the case of a corporation; for an offence against that House determined by that House to have been committed by that person. (5A) The Consolidated Revenue Fund must not be appropriated for the purposes of paying a fine imposed under subsection (5). 12:31 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia These amendments seek to change the existing penalties in the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Essentially, these amendments would replace the existing penalty units and penalties, roughly triple the existing $5,000 penalty for individuals and quadruple the existing $20,000 penalty for bodies corporate. Amendment (2) also says that any such penalty cannot be paid out of consolidated revenue. The potential second-order effects of that change are not clear to us. It is not immediately apparent which other acts would interact with this particular amendment, and the circumstances in which those interactions may or may not occur—for instance, how would this particular amendment interact with a fine paid by a person who receives an allowance or a subsidy from the government? In terms of changes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act, these are things that I'd say all parties in the Australian Senate obviously take very, very seriously. The reason is that it is an act which entrenches parliamentary sovereignty and regulates the relationship between the branches of government. It is the reason, as we all know, that we're all able to stand in this place and say whatever we need to say in support of our constituents, the reason that the witnesses before our committees are able to speak freely, without fear of being called before the police or the courts, and it is also fundamental to our democracy. So, when changes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act are being put forward, we do need to very seriously consider them. We need to very seriously consider the implications of them but also what the interactions with other pieces of legislation will be. And we can't make any apologies for being cautious in this regard. On this particular issue, the decision to have a specific listed penalty instead of penalty units wasn't actually a drafting error; it was deliberate. The penalties were set in 1987. Just five years later, in 1992, we changed the Crimes Act to introduce the penalty unit regime, including a mechanism to convert fixed penalties into penalty units. But, at that time, we specifically excluded penalties that were not handed down by the courts—for those who are interested, that is subsection 4AB(2) of the Crimes Act. That was debated at the time. It was considered by the parliament. It is quite clear that it was a deliberate decision to treat penalties handed down by the parliament differently. It might also be unsurprising that we would treat penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act differently because they are the result of what is a fundamentally different process. A person receiving such a penalty has not been convicted by a court. They don't have all the usual protections that apply in judicial proceedings, such as the presumption of innocence, rights around procedural fairness and the ability to appeal or ask for a review of a decision. Penalties handed down under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which senators would be aware does include penalties of imprisonment, are decided by the houses of the parliament themselves, according to procedures they determine, and are fundamentally unreviewable by any other body. So, when it comes to a proposal—in this case, it is amendments to a piece of legislation that is now in committee stage before the Australian Senate—to lift the penalties that can be imposed by this place, we do need to proceed with caution. As I said, in this regard, we have not had the time yet to actually properly analyse what could be the flow-on effects from these amendments. On that basis, the opposition won't be supporting them. 12:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will also not be supporting the amendments. The government is not currently proposing any changes to the penalties that may be imposed by the houses under section 7 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has imposed a financial penalty in living memory, so, from the government's point of view, we don't believe that the case for the amendments has been made out in practice. If there were a future circumstance where the financial penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act were considered inappropriate, the houses may enforce the observance of their privileges and immunities and punish people found guilty of contempt, including a commitment to prison. Question negatived. 12:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—Please note my support for that amendment. 12:37 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—Mine too, please. 12:37 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—On behalf of the Greens, I ask the same. 12:37 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania by leave—I would like my support noted as well. 12:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2961 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 90 (after line 10), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 8 — National Anti-Corru p tion Commission Hearings 1 Subsection 73(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. 2 Subsection 73(3) Omit "may", substitute "must". This bill amends the NACC Act, and I have a couple of questions about the NACC. During the committee process into what is now the NACC Act, the committee heard overwhelming evidence from experts that the discretion of the NACC commissioner to hold public hearings should not be curtailed. In fact, the committee heard evidence from commissioners from state integrity commissions that it should be the case that there should be a presumption towards having public hearings. This was put forward to ensure that we have public trust in the NACC and ongoing recognition of the work that it's doing, that it is seen as an institution that not only is important but is undertaking continuous work and that there is some sort of visibility of what is happening. We see that the Labor Party sided with the coalition to set up the legislation in a way that we have no real oversight of what is happening in the NACC. There's a presumption towards having private hearings. Yes, they report from time to time, but we've seen recently, since the NACC was established, some real concerns being raised, particularly in relation to the robodebt matter. I acknowledge that the inspector-general, which I thank Senator Shoebridge and members of the crossbench for pushing so hard for, is considering this matter. Public confidence has clearly been shaken, and public confidence in the NACC is incredibly important. This amendment would ensure that we do have public hearings—that the NACC is able to hold them and hold them not just when they think there are exceptional circumstances. Minister, has the government reconsidered the unnecessary limit on the ability of the NACC to conduct public hearings to only where there are exceptional circumstances? 12:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The short answer, Senator Pocock, is no. I will outline at this moment the government's position on this amendment: we won't be supporting the amendment. The reality is that the National Anti-Corruption Commission does have the discretion to hold public hearings under the existing law. The commissioner can hold the hearing or part of a hearing in public if satisfied that it is in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. The commissioner may consider a number of factors outlined before deciding to hold a public hearing, including the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct and any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would likely be caused if the hearings were held in public. Also, they can consider the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct. From the government's point of view, this provides an appropriate balance between the benefits of public hearings and the potential for prejudice to subsequent criminal prosecutions, reputations, safety, privacy, wellbeing or confidentiality. 12:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister; I appreciate your response. Does the government accept that failure to reconsider the unnecessary condition of exceptional circumstances—it was pointed out during the very extensive hearings that this as an incredibly high bar and witnesses said that, if you go with this, there will basically never be public hearings—is out of line with what experts presented to the committee and, most importantly, out of line with community expectations when it comes to the National Anti-Corruption Commission? 12:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm very much aware that there are members of the public and experts—a range of people—who have supported broader public hearings than what are being provided for, but I'm confident that the government has made the right decision in allowing public hearings to occur if the National Anti-Corruption Commission believe that's necessary and, importantly, if they're satisfied that, firstly, it is in the public interest to do so and, secondly, exceptional circumstances justify doing so. As I said, we believe that provides an appropriate balance between the benefits of public hearings that can arise in some circumstances and be made available in some circumstances and the potential to prejudice subsequent criminal prosecution, reputations, safety, privacy, wellbeing or confidentiality. 12:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, does the government accept that the change proposed in this amendment would improve public confidence in the NACC? 12:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not sure that I would accept that. I know that there are people who express that view. There are people who express different views. We think that we've struck the right balance. 12:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, do you really think that the majority of Australians are happy with the NACC holding all of their hearings in private and that having more transparency is not a good thing? 12:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, the commissioner does have the discretion to hold a public hearing. Senator Pocock, with respect, I think the way that you're presenting the argument suggests that there's no power to hold a public hearing. That's not the case. The commissioner is independent of government. We have confidence in them to make the right decisions based on the evidence before them as to whether a public hearing is warranted, taking into account the public interest and the exceptional circumstances that would justify doing so. 12:44 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I accept that you are incredibly skilled at this. When you say that the commissioner has the ability to have a public hearing, yes, that is correct, but the parliament, as you've outlined, sets out the circumstances in which that may happen. Currently, we have a NACC where you have to meet an incredibly high bar. Numerous witnesses warned the committee that this will essentially mean that there are almost no circumstances that meet all of the criteria. Whilst it may be possible, the practical outcome is that it's very rare and very unlikely to happen. It seems to me that we actually need to be building up trust in our institutions, and I'm hearing from so many people I represent, who say, 'We want more transparency not less.' What's the argument for this? I accept you say that you've struck the right balance, but why aren't we allowing the commissioner—if we trust them so much, and I think there should be a high level of trust in the commissioner—to have a neutral presumption and that it's totally up to the commissioner? If the commissioner thinks that this is in the public interest, then they can hold a public hearing. That to me aligns with the rhetoric I hear about trust in the NACC and the independence of the NACC. If we really believed that, we would say: 'We trust you. We believe we have put very good people in there who are well qualified to do that job, and it's up to you. If you think it's in the public interest to hold a public hearing, you do it.' But that's not what we've done. We've said: 'We trust you. We should be saying to Australians, "The NACC is doing important work," which we believe it is, but also, even if you think it's in the public interest, you have to also meet all these other criteria, including exceptional circumstances.' I'm just interested why, on the one hand that you think they're independent, that we trust them and that it's up to them, but on the other hand that we're almost hamstringing them a bit? They're hamstrung to actually make a decision because they have to meet these criteria. Those things don't seem to square to me. 12:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Pocock. I can't add a lot more to what I've said already to explain the government's reasoning here. I accept that there is an issue around public confidence in government. That's not unique to Australia, unfortunately. But that's one of the reasons why it took the Albanese government to actually create a national anticorruption commission in Australia. We called for it for years when the coalition were in power. They refused to do so. We now have one, and that's a good thing. The commission have the discretion to hold public hearings where they're satisfied that it's in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. This body has only been in operation for a relatively short time. I dare say that there will come a point where the commission decides that those factors are satisfied and that it should have a public hearing. I think that just because it hasn't had one yet isn't necessarily an indicator that it won't in the future, so the discretion exists for the commission to hold public hearings if it satisfies those criteria. 12:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I just want to go back into the public confidence, if I might. Quite frankly, I've got this problem from the military people with the commissioner that you have picked. We've heard about the veterans royal commission for three years. We've heard about the cover-up stories that have been going on in Defence, let alone what's going on at the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. By the way, this was an assistant inspector-general of the Australian Defence Force. You want the military to have confidence in having him there in the first place when you're not running public hearings? One of the reasons that we ended up at that royal commission for veterans was because of the cover-up that has been going on for years in the Defence Force. You tell me how military members are supposed to have confidence while this is all going on behind closed doors because they don't have the right to come out in public. This is how they've been treated for the last 20 years in the military. How do you expect the Australian people to have confidence in a system that failed veterans when it's a man that's been in and out of that uniform and part of the Defence Force for years? You explain that public confidence to me. 12:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. I understand that you aren't supportive of the commissioner who was appointed to this role. I respect your right to have those views. Obviously the government doesn't share those views in relation to the commissioner, and we have confidence that he will make the right decisions based on the factors that have been held there. I should also make the broader point about trust in democracy and trust in government. This is not the only measure this government has taken in order to try and rectify that problem. There is an issue there around public confidence. It's one of the reasons we created the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We've pursued much broader reform as well when it comes to the powers of the Ombudsman, privacy commissioners and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Right now, Senator Farrell is trying to negotiate a package of reforms on electoral funding but we haven't yet been able to get agreement from either the coalition or the Greens on the package being put forward. There are a range of things this government has done that go to that point about public confidence in democracy, and we intend to pursue those further. 12:50 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, if you want to get a resolution by negotiation, you need to talk to people, and that's what this government has refused to do time after time—and that includes on urgent and necessary reform to the electoral process, just as it included on appropriate amendments to the NACC legislation. Your government negotiated with the coalition amendments to the NACC legislation to shut down public hearings and to put in place this artificial test of exceptional circumstances that this amendment by Senator David Pocock is trying to address. Do you not now acknowledge that, with public confidence in the NACC falling, with open questions about the decision not to investigate the robodebt scandal and having all that done behind closed doors with no public hearings, it was wrong to shackle the NACC and put in such an artificially high test for transparency and daylight? 12:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. 12:51 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I think the lack of reflection we got from the minister in that answer sums up what's wrong in the public's eye with this duopoly of secrecy between Labor and the coalition. They had a federal election and thought something was going to change. They had a federal election where, before that, we had the Prime Minister talking about transparency and pointing out the outrageous behaviour of the former government in secretly appointing ministries. We had this rhetoric from Labor in opposition, but as soon as they came in it was like they'd adopted Scott Morrison's speaking points on transparency. They were captured by office and have become almost indistinguishable from the coalition when it comes to issues of transparency, like starving the FOI system—in fact, the backlogs in the FOI system have grown under this government with an Attorney-General who railed against it when he was in opposition. We have a prime minister who, when he was the opposition leader, talked about the need for sunlight and a national anticorruption commission that would finally address public concerns about secrecy and corruption at a federal level, only to whack through legislation under a deal with Peter Dutton that put in this ridiculous test of 'exceptional circumstances' before we can have a public hearing of the NACC. Minister, what happened between Labor in opposition, where you supported Senator Waters's bill for a national anticorruption commission that had an open discretion for public hearings, where you supported Senator Waters's bill for an open discretion allowing a national anticorruption commission to decide if it would have public hearings, and Labor getting into government and suddenly siding with Peter Dutton to put in an 'exceptional circumstances' test? Is it that, now you're in government, you no longer support sunshine and transparency? Is that what happened, Minister? 12:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We traversed the issues that Senator Shoebridge has just asked about extensively in the original debate for the NACC; I don't intend to go over that again. I understand Senator Shoebridge wants to use the chamber to get up and deliver Greens political party talking points, and he's got a right to do that. I understand it suits the Greens political party's political agenda to suggest the NACC is ineffective. The reality, though, is that, according to the most recent statistics from the NACC, as of 9 October this year they were conducting 31 preliminary investigations and 29 corruption investigations, including six joint investigations, they were overseeing or monitoring 19 investigations by other agencies, they had six matters before the courts and they had 465 referrals pending assessments. So, unfortunately for Senator Shoebridge and the Greens political party, the facts don't bear out what they're saying. The NACC is actively investigating a broad range of potential corruption and misconduct activities, as it should. 12:55 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, all up, how many hearings have there been? Senator Shoebridge 169119 Public hearings. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Well, you can ask about the other hearings, those behind closed doors. How many public hearings have there been? 12:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, there have been no public hearings to date. Senator Waters 192970 Imagine that! Senator WATT 245759 Well, the Greens are objecting to that, and you can have a crack at the independence of the NACC's commissioner, who has the discretion to decide this. It's your right to impugn the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, if that's what the Greens political party wants to do, but I've already said in this debate that they retain the discretion to hold those public hearings at a future point if the commissioner decides that it's in the public interest to do so and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. 12:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales That was an unworthy contribution from the minister, but you would expect nothing more from this minister. The Greens have made it clear that we want a national anticorruption commission that has the support of the public. The public can look to it and have confidence in its integrity, its processes and its decision-making. We said in the course of the debate that if, in another crooked deal with the coalition for secrecy, you put it all behind closed doors, you will undermine confidence in the NACC, and what has happened? Well, 12 months on, we've seen public confidence in the NACC seriously undermined. Does the government really believe that the secret decision by the NACC not to investigate robodebt has not damaged the public's confidence? Do you really believe that has had no damage? 12:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Unlike the Greens political party, I'm not going to be using this chamber to undermine confidence in the National Anti-Corruption Commission. 12:57 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, it's not just the Greens. Pretty much the entirety of the crossbench wants to build and support public confidence in the National Anti-Corruption Commission. As happens time after time when there are votes on transparency in this place, we see the whole of the crossbench pretty much unite to try and get some transparency. There's a bunch that our collective disagrees on—we'll probably disagree on something later this afternoon—but what you'll find time after time with the crossbench is that we have collective support for transparency and openness. From the Greens' perspective, we think that's how you have public confidence in institutions. We think that's how you get public support for the NACC. So I ask you again, Minister: On reflection, don't you think that having the first major decision of the National Anti-Corruption Commission be to reject an investigation into the robodebt scandal, and having that happen in secret, has been a blow to public confidence in the NACC? Don't you at least accept that? 12:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't intend to take lectures from the Greens political party about transparency, especially when you look at the fact that the Greens party doesn't even allow public coverage or media coverage of its national conferences. We know that the Greens like to come in and lecture the Labor Party about how the world should be. We also know that the Greens political party doesn't uphold the same standards in their own backyard. 12:59 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I have just one question really. Minister, is this about maintaining corruption and keeping it in house? 12:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No. 12:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, do you have any explanation that you can give to the chamber and the public about why under your government there's been such a huge increase in the value of penalty units? To assist, between you and the coalition, but it's overwhelmingly been under your government— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Senator Shoebridge, I need to interrupt you to advise senators that the time for the consideration of the bill has expired. After the question before the chair is put, the questions on the remaining stages of the bill will be put. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The question before the chair is that the Senator David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie Network amendments on sheet 2961 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [13:04]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Chandler)

18 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

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

 Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 39

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024

First Reading 39 13:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Third Reading 39 13:08 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. 13:08 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to table the second reading speech I was going to give on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Leave not granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Could I have the reason please? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I don't believe senators have to provide a reason for denying leave, Senator Roberts. 13:08 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I also seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech into Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator COX 296215 I seek leave to make a one-minute contribution. Leave not granted. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 40

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 40 13:10 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I will now deal with the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill and a related bill. I have got a lot of senators on their feet for a guillotine. 13:10 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I seek leave to make a one-minute contribution on this AUKUS related naval nuclear power bill. Leave not granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that these bills be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [13:15]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

 27 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 16 NOES 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. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

 13:17 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments to the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, starting with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The first question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheets 2574, 2576, 2578, 2580, 2581, 2582 and 2916 and amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2583 be agreed to. Australian Green s ' circulated amendments— SHEET 2574 (1) Clause 107, page 96 (after line 28), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In performing the Director-General's functions, the Director-General must have regard to the advice of the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. (2) Page 96 (after line 31), after clause 107, insert: 107A CEO of ARPANSA to advise Director-General (1) The functions of the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency include advising the Director-General on the performance of the Director-General's functions. Note Other functions of the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency are set out in section 15 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. (2) Before advising the Director-General, the CEO must request the following to advise the CEO about the performance of the Director-General's functions: (a) the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council; (b) the Radiation Health Committee; (c) the Nuclear Safety Committee. _____ SHEET 2576 (1) Clause 5, page 10 (line 29), omit ", storing or disposing of". (2) Clause 12, page 16 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraph (c). (3) Clause 12, page 16 (line 12), omit ", storing or disposing of". (4) Clause 32, page 34 (after line 10), after paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) if the licence authorises a regulated activity for the purposes of a radioactive waste management facility—the condition set out in subsection (2A); (5) Clause 32, page 34 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) A licence of a kind referred to in paragraph (1)(aa) is subject to the condition that the licence holder must take all reasonably practical steps to ensure the management, storage and disposal of radioactive waste under this Act is in accordance with the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. _____ SHEET 2578 (1) Clause 5, page 10 (line 17), omit the definition of Osborne designated zone. (2) Clause 5, page 11 (line 23), omit the definition of Stirling designated zone. (3) Clause 10, page 15 (lines 10 to 19), omit subclauses (2) to (4), substitute: (2) A designated zoneis an area in Australia that: (a) is, or is a part of, a selected site (within the meaning of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012); and (b) is prescribed by the regulations. (3) The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 applies as if a reference in that Act to a facility included a reference to a facility at which a regulated activity occurs. (4) The regulations may modify the operation of: (a) this Act; and (b) the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012; to the extent that the modification is necessary to apply the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 to: (c) a facility at which a regulated activity occurs; or (d) another area at which a regulated activity occurs. (4) Clause 143, page 117 (line 3), omit "(1)". (5) Clause 143, page 117 (lines 8 to 19), omit subclause (2). _____ SHEET 2580 (1) Page 107 (after line 14), at the end of Part 5, add: 123B Reports on Director-General's functions (1) The Director-General may prepare reports about matters relating to the Director-General's functions. (2) If the Director-General prepares a report under subsection (1), the Director-General must give the report to the Health Minister as soon as practicable after preparing the report. (3) The Health Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting daysof that House after receiving the report. _____ SHEET 2581 (1) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 27), after the definition of corporate Commonwealth entity, insert: Defence Minister means the Minister administering section 1 of the Defence Act 1903. (2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 16), after the definition of function, insert: Health Minister means the Minister administering the National Health Act 1953. (3) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 5), after the definition of issuing officer, insert: Joint Ministers means the Defence Minister and the Health Minister. (4) Page 12 (after line 17), at the end of Division 2, add: 5A Functions or powers of Joint Ministers If this Act gives a function or a power to the Joint Ministers, the function or power is to be performed or exercised by both Ministers jointly. (5) Clause 104, page 95 (line 1), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (6) Clause 105, page 95 (line 4), omit "Minister is", substitute "Joint Ministers are". (7) Clause 105, page 95 (line 6), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (8) Clause 105, page 95 (line 12), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (9) Clause 105, page 95 (line 16), omit "a Minister", substitute "the Joint Ministers". (10) Clause 105, page 95 (line 20), omit "Minister gives", substitute "Joint Ministers give". (11) Clause 105, page 95 (line 20), omit ", the Minister", substitute ", the Joint Ministers". (12) Clause 105, page 95 (line 25), omit "Minister gives", substitute "Joint Ministers give". (13) Clause 107, page 96 (line 17), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (14) Clause 109, page 97 (line 13), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (15) Clause 109, page 97 (line 16), omit "Minister is", substitute "Joint Ministers are". (16) Clause 110, page 98 (line 23), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (17) Clause 113, page 99 (line 24), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (18) Clause 113, page 99 (line 27), omit "Minister determines", substitute "Joint Ministers determine". (19) Clause 114, page 100 (line 5), omit "Minister's", substitute "Joint Ministers'". (20) Clause 114, page 100 (line 12), omit "Minister's", substitute "Joint Ministers'". (21) Clause 115, page 100 (line 17), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (22) Clause 117, page 101 (line 26), omit "Minister's", substitute "Joint Ministers'". (23) Clause 117, page 101 (line 35), omit "Minister's", substitute "Joint Ministers'". (24) Clause 122, page 106 (line 4), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (25) Heading to clause 123, page 106 (line 7), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (26) Clause 123, page 106 (line 8), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (27) Clause 123, page 106 (line 11), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (28) Clause 123, page 106 (line 16), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (29) Clause 123, page 106 (line 17), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (30) Clause 123A, page 107 (line 3), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (31) Clause 130, page 110 (line 22), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (32) Clause 130, page 110 (line 24), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (33) Clause 130, page 110 (line 24), omit "is", substitute "are". (34) Clause 130, page 110 (line 29), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (35) Clause 140A, page 115 (line 4), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (36) Clause 140A, page 115 (line 19), omit "Minister directs", substitute "Joint Ministers direct". (37) Clause 140A, page 115 (line 20), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (38) Clause 140A, page 115 (line 21), omit "appoints", substitute "appoint". (39) Clause 140A, page 115 (line 22), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (40) Clause 140A, page 115 (line 28), omit "Minister determines", substitute "Joint Ministers determine". (41) Heading to clause 141, page 116 (line 2), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (42) Clause 141, page 116 (line 3), omit "Minister may", substitute "Joint Ministers may". (43) Clause 141, page 116 (line 3), omit "Minister's", substitute "Joint Ministers'". (44) Clause 141, page 116 (line 6), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (45) Clause 143, page 117 (line 11), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". (46) Clause 143, page 118 (line 15), omit "Minister", substitute "Joint Ministers". _____ SHEET 2582 (1) Clause 6, page 13, (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph (b). (2) Clause 6, page 13, (line 11), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment; and (e) to ensure public confidence and trust in relation to the nuclear safety of Australia's nuclear-powered submarine enterprise, including through the following: (i) ensuring that relevant and meaningful information relating to AUKUS submarines is available to the public; (ii) providing opportunities for public involvement and participation in decisions relating to activities that may impact communities; except where it is necessary to limit the provision of such information for reasons of national security, defence operational capability or the protection of confidential technology and learnings; and (f) to protect workers, other persons and communities against harm to their health, safety and welfare through the elimination or minimisation of risks arising from regulated activities; and (g) to ensure the provision of advice, information, education and training in relation to nuclear safety; and (h) to ensure appropriate scrutiny and review of actions taken by persons exercising powers and performing functions under this Act. _____ SHEET 2583 (1) Heading to Subdivision C, page 111 (line 15), at the end of the heading add: "and international instruments". (2) Clauses 132 to 135, page 111 (line 16) to page 113 (line 4), omit the clauses, substitute: 132 Interaction with other laws and international instruments (1) Where this Act confers a power, discretion, duty or function on a person, the exercise of the power or discretion or the performance of the duty or function must be in accordance with the following: (a) the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998; (b) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987; (c) the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; (d) a WHS law (within the meaning of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011); (e) Australia's obligations under any relevant international instruments. (2) For the purposes of this section, a relevant international instrument is any of the following: (a) the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007; (b) the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at London, Moscow and Washington on 1 July 1968; (c) the Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Vienna on 10 July 1974; (d) the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna on 3 March 1980; (e) the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency, done at Vienna on 26 September 1986; (f) the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident, done at Vienna on 26 September 1986; (g) the Convention on Nuclear Safety, done at Vienna on 20 September 1994; (h) the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, done at Vienna on 5 September 1997; (i) the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Technology for the Separation of Isotopes of Uranium by Laser Excitation, with annexes, agreed minute and exchange of notes, done at Washington on 28 October 1999; (j) the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, done at New York on 13 April 2005; (k) an international instrument prescribed by the regulations. Note 1: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2024 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org). Note 2: The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is in Australian Treaty Series 1973 No. 3 ([1973] ATS 3) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 3: The Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is in Australian Treaty Series 1974 No. 16 ([1974] ATS 16) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 4: The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material is in Australian Treaty Series 1987 No. 16 ([1987] ATS 16) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 5: The Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency is in Australian Treaty Series 1987 No. 15 ([1987] ATS 15) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 6: The Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident is in Australian Treaty Series 1987 No. 14 ([1987] ATS 14) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 7: The Convention on Nuclear Safety is in Australian Treaty Series 1997 No. 5 ([1997] ATS 5) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 8: The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management is in Australian Treaty Series 2003 No. 21 ([2003] ATS 21) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 9: The Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Technology for the Separation of Isotopes of Uranium by Laser Excitation, with annexes, agreed minute and exchange of notes, is in Australian Treaty Series 2000 No. 19 ([2000] ATS 19) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). Note 10: The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism is in Australian Treaty Series 2012 No. 13 ([2012] ATS 13) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au). (3) Heading to Subdivision D, page 113 (line 5), omit the heading, substitute: Subdivision D — Application of Act to certain foreign persons _____ SHEET 2916 (1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 16), after the definition of function, insert: high level radioactive material means material which has a thermal energy output of at least 2 kilowatts per cubic metre. (2) Clause 8A, page 14 (line 7), after "spent nuclear fuel", insert "or high level radioactive material". (3) Clause 8A, page 14 (line 10), after "spent nuclear fuel", insert ", or high level radioactive material,". (4) Clause 8A, page 14 (line 12), after "spent nuclear fuel", insert ", or high level radioactive material,". A division having been called and the bells being rung— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 I seek a separate vote on 2583, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 We would have to do that by leave, and I'm going to lock the doors. Senator Roberts 266524 Okay. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Roberts, for the ease of the chamber, you might be able to have your position recorded after the division, if that would assist on that particular amendment.    

The Senate divided. [13:19]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

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. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:20 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria (In division) So we're going to have nuclear waste from the UK and the US dumped in this country— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senators, it is quite disorderly to be shouting across the chamber during a division. Senator THORPE 280304 Shame! It won't be near the Prime Minister's house. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Thorpe! 13:22 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland ():  Could I have my vote recorded as opposing 2583, please? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 You may. Thank you for that. Thank you for being so helpful to the chamber in that regard. The next question is in relation to amendment (4) on sheet 2583 moved by the Australian Greens. The Greens opposed clause 136 in the following terms— (4) Clause 136, page 113 (lines 6 to 10), to be opposed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that clause 136 stand as printed.    

The Senate divided. [13:23]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

 27 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 15 NOES 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:26 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I will now deal with the committee of the whole amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe, are you seeking the call? Senator Thorpe 280304 I seek leave to have my committee of the whole amendments on sheets 2627, 2632 and 2633 considered. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Leave is granted to consider all of those amendments together with this first question. For your information, Senator Thorpe, that will change the flow of questions somewhat, but I'm advised by the clerk that we will do it in the right order. The question will change a little bit. Senator Ciccone? Senator Ciccone 281503 Just one clarifying question: which sheets are we including? I think the senator mentioned only a couple, so we just want to get clarity around which ones. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 My understanding, Senator Thorpe, was that you were seeking to add in, by leave, a further set of amendments, the numbers of which you just kindly read out, in addition to the amendments that have already been circulated in your name. We will move all of those as a job lot, but we do have a question about a clause standing as printed, so we will deal with that one first. Senator Thorpe, for the ease of the chamber, could you please read out those numbers again. Senator Thorpe 280304 It's only because the government is trying to rush this through that everyone is confused— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Thorpe, this is not for you to make a contribution; this is for you to read the numbers, please. Senator Thorpe 280304 My apologies. It is sheets 2627, 2632 and 2633. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 They will be moved in addition to 2718, 2719, 2517, 2918, 2502, 2633 and 2502—no? Senator Thorpe, could you confirm that you are not moving amendment 2634? Senator Thorpe 280304 I can confirm that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you. Senator Thorpe 280304 I seek leave to withdraw circulated amendments on sheets 2502, 2517, 2634, 2718 and 2719. Leave granted. Senator Thorpe 280304 I also seek leave to consider amendments on sheet 2918. Leave granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 We will now deal with Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheets 2516, 2629, 2630, 2631, 2919, 2920, 2627, 2632, 2633 and 2918. SHEET 2516 (1) Clause 6, page 13, (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph (b). (2) Clause 6, page 13 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: ; and (e) to promote the nuclear safety of all activities relating to AUKUS submarines; and (f) to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment; and (g) to promote public confidence and trust in relation to the nuclear safety of Australia's nuclear-powered submarine enterprise, including through the following: (i) ensuring that relevant and meaningful information relating to AUKUS submarines is available to the public, except where it is necessary to limit the provision of such information for reasons of national security, defence operational capability or the protection of confidential technology and learnings; (ii) providing opportunities for public involvement and participation in decisions relating to activities that may impact communities; and (h) to protect workers, other persons and communities against harm to their health, safety and welfare through the elimination or minimisation of risks arising from regulated activities; and (i) to promote the provision of advice, information, education and training in relation to nuclear safety; and (j) to ensure appropriate scrutiny. _____ SHEET 2629 (1) Clause 18, page 20 (lines 5 and 6), omit ", so far as reasonably practicable,". (2) Clause 18, page 21 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: Exception (7) Subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) do not apply if the person exercised due diligence and took all reasonably practicable precautions. Note 1: For the purposes of subsection (2) and (3) a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (7) (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Note 2: For the purposes of subsection (4) and (5), a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (7) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). _____ SHEET 2630 (1) Page 108 (after line 18), after clause 129, insert: 129A Liability of the Commonwealth for contraventions of nuclear safety duties by Commonwealth contractors For the purposes of Division 2 of Part 2, any conduct engaged in by a Commonwealth contractor that is undertaken to discharge obligations under a contract referred to in subsection 29(2) is conduct also engaged in by the Commonwealth. _____ SHEET 2631 (1) Clause 29, page 31 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add: (3) A person is not a Commonwealth contractor if: (a) the person is a subcontractor for a contract with a person referred to in paragraph (1)(d); and (b) the contract relates to a regulated activity. _____ SHEET 2919 (1) Clause 123A, page 107 (after line 6), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) The Director-General must cause a copy of the report under subsection (3) to be published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the report is tabled in a House of the Parliament. _____ SHEET 2920 (1) Clause 140A, page 115 (after line 21), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) The Minister may appoint a person to the advisory committee if the person is any of the following: (a) a person with skills, knowledge or experience in one or more of the following fields: (i) health; (ii) nuclear safety or nuclear radiation; (iii) radioactive waste management; (iv) emergency management; (v) a field prescribed by the regulations; (b) for each community that is, or may be, affected by a regulated activity—a person who has been chosen by the community to represent the community on the advisory committee. (3B) The Minister must not appoint a person to the advisory committee if the person is a defence staff member. _____ SHEET 2627 (1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 17), after "Australian submarines.", insert: The Minister must ensure that the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples is obtained prior to certain additional designated zones being prescribed by the regulations. The seeking of consent must be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2) Clause 3, page 3 (line 32), after "authorised under a licence.", insert: It is a condition of a licence that regulated activities must be conducted consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (3) Clause 10, page 15 (after line 14), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purpose of paragraph (2)(c), the Minister must: (a) consider whether prescribing the area that is proposed to be a designated zone could reasonably be expected to impact the interests of the Indigenous Peoples who are the traditional owners of any lands and waters in the area; and (b) if the Minister considers that prescribing the area could reasonably be expected to impact those interests—ensure that the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been obtained. Note: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2024 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org). (2B) Subsection (2A) does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003. (4) Clause 32, page 34 (after line 10), after paragraph 32(1)(a), insert: (aa) the conditions set out in section 32A; (5) Page 35 (after line 23), after clause 32, insert: 32A Regulated activities to be conducted consistent with UNDRIP (1) A licence is subject to the condition that the licence holder must take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that regulated activities authorised by the licence are conducted in a manner that promotes the principles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2) A licence is subject to the condition that the licence holder must ensure that a decision about the conduct of regulated activities authorised by the licence that could reasonably be expected to impact the interests of Indigenous Peoples who are the traditional owners of any land and waters which may be affected by the decision must not be made unless the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been obtained. Note: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2024 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org). _____ SHEET 2632 (1) Clause 31, page 33 (after line 22), after subparagraph (2)(a)(i), insert: (ia) that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence; (2) Clause 31, page 33 (after line 23), after paragraph (2)(a), insert: Note: In having regard to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(a)(ia), the Regulator may take into consideration any or all of the matters in section 38A. (3) Clause 35, page 36 (lines 27 to 30), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) the Regulator believes on reasonable grounds that the licence holder is not a fit and proper person; or Note: In having regard to whether the licence holder is a fit and proper person for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the Regulator may take into consideration any or all of the matters in section 38A. (4) Page 40 (after line 10), at the end of Division 2, add: 38A Fit and proper person considerations (1) In having regard to whether a person is a fit and proper person for the purposes of this Act, the Regulator may take into consideration any or all of the following: (a) whether the person has: (i) contravened relevant legislation; or (ii) held a licence, accreditation or other authority that has been suspended or cancelled under relevant legislation; (b) if the person is a body corporate—whether a director or former director of the body corporate or a related body corporate has: (i) contravened relevant legislation; or (ii) held a licence, accreditation or other authority that has been suspended or cancelled under relevant legislation; (c) if the person is a body corporate—whether a director or former director of the body corporate or a related body corporate is or has been the director of another body corporate that has: (i) contravened relevant legislation; or (ii) held a licence, accreditation or other authority that has been suspended or cancelled under relevant legislation; (d) the person's record of compliance with relevant legislation; (e) if the person is a body corporate—the record of compliance with relevant legislation of each director or former director of the body corporate or a related body corporate; (f) whether, in the Regulator's opinion, the conduct of regulated activities under a licence will or will not be in the hands of a technically competent person; (g) whether, in the Regulator's opinion, the person is of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity; (h) if the person is a body corporate—whether, in the Regulator's opinion, each director and former director of the body corporate or a related body corporate is of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity; (i) whether, in the previous 10 years, the person has, in any Australian jurisdiction, been: (i) convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty or other behaviour the Regulator considers would make the person unfit to hold a licence; or (ii) subject to a finding of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct; (j) if the person is a body corporate—whether, in the previous 10 years, any director or former director of the body corporate or a related body corporate has, in any Australian jurisdiction, been: (i) convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty or other behaviour the Regulator considers would make the person unfit to hold a licence; or (ii) subject to a finding of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct; (k) whether, during the previous 3 years, the person was personally insolvent; (l) if the person is a body corporate—whether, during the previous 3 years, a director or former director of the body corporate was personally insolvent; (m) if the person is a body corporate—whether the person or a related body corporate applied to take the benefit of a law for the relief of insolvent debtors or compounded with the person's or body corporate's creditors; (n) for an individual—whether the person is or was a director of a body corporate that: (i) is the subject of a winding up order; or (ii) has had a controller or administrator appointed during the previous 3 years; (o) for a body corporate—whether the body corporate or a related body corporate: (i) is the subject of a winding up order; or (ii) has had a controller or administrator appointed during the previous 3 years; (p) whether the person has demonstrated to the Regulator the financial capacity to comply with the person's obligations under the licence or the proposed licence; (q) whether the person is in partnership with a person whom the Regulator does not consider to be a fit and proper person in connection with conducting regulated activities authorised, or sought to be authorised, by a licence; or (r) if the person is a body corporate—whether a related body corporate is in partnership with a person whom the Regulator does not consider to be a fit and proper person under this section, in connection with conducting regulated activities authorised, or sought to be authorised, by a licence, (s) any other matters the Regulator considers appropriate. (2) In this section: director has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001. related body corporate has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001. relevant legislation means: (a) this Act and the regulations; and (b) legislation of any other Australian jurisdiction relating to radiation control or protection; and (c) legislation (including legislation that has been repealed or legislation of another jurisdiction) prescribed by the regulations. _____ SHEET 2633 (1) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 17), after the paragraph beginning "Regulated activities", insert: There are nuclear safety duties that apply to any person that is a party in the naval nuclear power supply chain. For example, they must ensure nuclear safety and report nuclear safety incidents. (2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 26), after paragraph (c) of the definition of investigation area, insert: (ca) an area in which a nuclear supply activity is conducted; (3) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 13), after paragraph (c) of the definition of monitoring area, insert: (ca) an area in which a nuclear supply activity is conducted; (4) Clause 5, page 10 (after line 9), after the definition of nuclear safety incident, insert: nuclear supply activity has the meaning given by the regulations. (5) Clause 5, page 10 (after line 18), after the definition of paid work, insert: party, in relation to the naval nuclear supply chain, has the meaning given by the regulations. (6) Clause 5, page 11 (line 28), omit "or 24(1)", substitute ", 24(1) or 25A(1)". (7) Heading to Part 2, page 19 (lines 1 and 2), omit "when conducting regulated activities". (8) Clause 17, page 19 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "People who are authorised", insert: There are nuclear safety duties that apply to any person that is a party in the naval nuclear power supply chain. (9) Page 29 (after line 17), at the end of Division 2, add: Subdivision D — Nuclear safety duties applying to persons in the naval nuclear power supply chain 25A General nuclear safety duty (1) A person who is a party in the naval nuclear power supply chain must, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure nuclear safety in relation to a nuclear supply activity. Civil penalty provisions (2) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1). Note 1: It is not necessary to prove a person's state of mind in proceedings for a contravention of a civil penalty provision, except in limited circumstances (see section 94 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Note 2: Under subsection 82(5) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty imposed for a contravention of a civil penalty provision must not be more than that specified for the provision (or, for a body corporate, not more than 5 times that specified). Civil penalty: 10,000 penalty units. (3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if: (a) the person contravenes subsection (1); and (b) a nuclear safety incident occurs; and (c) the contravention caused or contributed to the nuclear safety incident. Note 1: It is not necessary to prove a person's state of mind in proceedings for a contravention of a civil penalty provision, except in limited circumstances (see section 94 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Note 2: Under subsection 82(5) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty imposed for a contravention of a civil penalty provision must not be more than that specified for the provision (or, for a body corporate, not more than 5 times that specified). Civil penalty: 20,000 penalty units. Offences (4) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the conduct results in a contravention of subsection (1). Penalty: (a) for an individual—imprisonment for 12 years or 700 penalty units, or both; or (b) for a body corporate—28,000 penalty units. (5) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the conduct results in a contravention of subsection (1); and (c) a nuclear safety incident occurs; and (d) the person is reckless, or negligent, as to whether the conduct would cause or contribute to the nuclear safety incident. Penalty: (a) for an individual—imprisonment for 25 years or 1,400 penalty units, or both; or (b) for a body corporate—57,500 penalty units. (6) Strict liability applies to paragraph (5)(c). 25B Duty to report nuclear safety incidents (1) A person who is a party in the naval nuclear power supply chain must report, in accordance with subsection (2), any nuclear safety incident that occurs in relation to a nuclear supply activity. Note 1: A person covered by this subsection may also have a duty under another law. Note 2: For the definition of nuclear safety incident see subsection 21(2). (2) The report under subsection (1): (a) must be given to the Regulator immediately after the person becomes aware of the incident; and (b) must be in writing, or may be given orally but must be confirmed by written notice given to the Regulator as soon as practicable after being given orally; and (c) must be in the approved form (if any); and (d) must contain the information (if any) prescribed by the regulations; and (e) must be given to the Regulator in the manner (if any) prescribed by the regulations. Civil penalty provision (3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1). Note 1: It is not necessary to prove a person's state of mind in proceedings for a contravention of a civil penalty provision, except in limited circumstances (see section 94 of the Regulatory Powers Act). Note 2: Under subsection 82(5) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty imposed for a contravention of a civil penalty provision must not be more than that specified for the provision (or, for a body corporate, not more than 5 times that specified). Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units. Offence (4) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the conduct contravenes subsection (1). Penalty: (a) for an individual—imprisonment for 6 years or 350 penalty units, or both; or (b) for a body corporate—14,000 penalty units. (5) Strict liability applies to paragraph (4)(b). _____ SHEET 2918 (1) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 16), after the definition of function, insert: high level radioactive material means material which has a thermal energy output of at least 2 kilowatts per cubic metre. (2) Clause 8A, page 14 (line 7), after "spent nuclear fuel", insert "or high level radioactive material". (3) Clause 8A, page 14 (line 10), after "spent nuclear fuel", insert ", or high level radioactive material,". (4) Clause 8A, page 14 (line 12), after "spent nuclear fuel", insert ", or high level radioactive material,". The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Thorpe on sheets 2516, 2629, 2630, 2631, 2919, 2920 and, by leave, on sheets 2627, 2632, 2633 and 2918 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [13:34]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Could I have my name recorded as supporting 2518 and supporting 2519, please? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 16913 Senator Roberts, I'm informed that those two amendments were not in the vote that we did just then. 13:37 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I move my committee of the whole amendments on sheet 2978: (1) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 6), after the definition of licence, insert: low level radioactive material means radioactive material (within the meaning of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012) that is not high level radioactive material (within the meaning of that Act). (2) Clause 8A, page 14 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (3) This section has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with section 8C. (3) Page 14 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision A, add: 8C Prohibition on receiving and storing radioactive waste (1) Nothing in this Act is taken to authorise the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine, unless: (a) for an AUKUS submarine not operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—arrangements have been made for any low level radioactive material to be removed from Australia by the operator of that AUKUS submarine to a suitable radioactive waste management facility outside of Australia within 12 months; or (b) for an AUKUS submarine operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—the site of a suitable long-term radioactive waste management facility has been identified and gazetted. (2) The Regulator must not issue a licence in respect of the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine unless paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies. (4) Clause 21, page 24 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute: (ii) releases radioactive material into the environment, or could have resulted in a release of radioactive material into the environment; or (5) Clause 21, page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the clause add: Definitions of serious illness and serious injury (7) In this section: serious illness has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8). serious injury has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8). (8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the meanings of serious illness and serious injury for the purposes of subsection (7). (6) Clause 109, page 97 (after line 25), after subclause (3A), insert: Qualification for nomination (3B) The Minister must not nominate a person for appointment as Director-General or Deputy Director-General unless the Senate agrees to the nomination by resolution of the Senate, agreed to by an absolute majority of Senators. (7) Clause 123A, page 106 (line 29), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) the release radioactive material into the environment. (8) Clause 123A, page 107 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) If the Director-General becomes aware that a nuclear safety incident has occurred: (a) the Director-General must notify the Minister about the incident as soon as possible; and (b) the Minister must notify the Prime Minister about the incident as soon as possible after the Minister has been notified about the incident; and (c) the Prime Minister must notify the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the relevant State and Territories about the incident as soon as possible after the Prime Minister has been notified about the incident. (2A) If the Minister and Prime Minister are notified of an incident under subsection (2), the Minister and Prime Minister must issue a joint public statement about the incident within 24 hours of both being notified. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the amendments circulated by Senator Lambie on sheet 2978 be agreed to. Senator Lambie's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 6), after the definition of licence, insert: low level radioactive material means radioactive material (within the meaning of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012) that is not high level radioactive material (within the meaning of that Act). (2) Clause 8A, page 14 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (3) This section has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with section 8C. (3) Page 14 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision A, add: 8C Prohibition on receiving and storing radioactive waste (1) Nothing in this Act is taken to authorise the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine, unless: (a) for an AUKUS submarine not operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—arrangements have been made for any low level radioactive material to be removed from Australia by the operator of that AUKUS submarine to a suitable radioactive waste management facility outside of Australia within 12 months; or (b) for an AUKUS submarine operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—the site of a suitable long-term radioactive waste management facility has been identified and gazetted. (2) The Regulator must not issue a licence in respect of the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine unless paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies. (4) Clause 21, page 24 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute: (ii) releases radioactive material into the environment, or could have resulted in a release of radioactive material into the environment; or (5) Clause 21, page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the clause add: Definitions of serious illness and serious injury (7) In this section: serious illness has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8). serious injury has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8). (8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the meanings of serious illness and serious injury for the purposes of subsection (7). (6) Clause 109, page 97 (after line 25), after subclause (3A), insert: Qualification for nomination (3B) The Minister must not nominate a person for appointment as Director-General or Deputy Director-General unless the Senate agrees to the nomination by resolution of the Senate, agreed to by an absolute majority of Senators. (7) Clause 123A, page 106 (line 29), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) the release radioactive material into the environment. (8) Clause 123A, page 107 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) If the Director-General becomes aware that a nuclear safety incident has occurred: (a) the Director-General must notify the Minister about the incident as soon as possible; and (b) the Minister must notify the Prime Minister about the incident as soon as possible after the Minister has been notified about the incident; and (c) the Prime Minister must notify the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the relevant State and Territories about the incident as soon as possible after the Prime Minister has been notified about the incident. (2A) If the Minister and Prime Minister are notified of an incident under subsection (2), the Minister and Prime Minister must issue a joint public statement about the incident within 24 hours of both being notified.    

The Senate divided. [13:39]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

14 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to have my committee of the whole amendments on sheet 2962 and 2963 considered. Leave granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the amendments circulated by Senator Pocock on sheets 2962 and 2963 be agreed to. Senator Pocock's circulated amendments— SHEET 2962 (1) Page 119 (after line 14), at the end of Part 6, add: Division 5 — Review 147 Review of operation of Act (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act. (2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 5 years after this Act commences. (3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review. (4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. SHEET 2963 (1) Clause 140A, page 115 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (7) Subject to subsection (8), if the advisory committee gives the Minister advice under subsection (2) the advisory committee must cause a copy of that advice to be: (a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after giving the advice to the Minister; and (b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister. (8) The Minister may direct the advisory committee that subsection (7) does not apply if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security and to deal with an emergency. (9) The Minister must: (a) table a copy of each written instrument made under subsection (3) in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after making the instrument; and (b) table a copy of each written direction made under subsection (4) in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after making the direction.    

The Senate divided. [13:43]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

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. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:45 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Thorpe, could you let us know if, in amongst the amendments that you moved, you moved the amendment on sheet 2628? Senator Thorpe 280304 No. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I'll put that question now—I beg your pardon. The question now before the chair is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and that the bills be now passed. Senator McKim. Senator McKim JKM As a point of order, I'm seeking clarification on Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 2628. If that wasn't put, can I ask for an explanation as to why that is not being put by you. I believe Senator Thorpe wishes that question to be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Indeed. Senator Thorpe, you have the right to have that question put. Senator Thorpe 280304 I'm scared to get in trouble, because I always get in trouble— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 You have the call, Senator Thorpe. 13:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to have the question put on my amendment on sheet 2628, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 It was circulated early enough, so you didn't need to seek leave. The question is that clause 135 stand as printed. Senator Thorpe opposed clause 135 in the following terms— (1) Clause 135, page 111 (lines 1 to 4), to be opposed.    

The Senate divided. [13:48]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

 26 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 15 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. Leave not granted. 13:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek to ask whether Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheets 2518 and 2519 have been moved, and, if not, whether Senator Thorpe is going to move them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 They were withdrawn. As it's the desire of the chamber, I will put the question that the amendments on sheet 2518 and sheet 2519 be agreed to. Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments— SHEET 2518 (1) Clause 6, page 13 (line 9), omit "enterprise; and", substitute "enterprise.". (2) Clause 6, page 13 (lines 10 and 11), omit paragraphs (c) and (d). _____ SHEET 2519 (1) Page 92 (after line 17), after Division 1, insert: Division 2A — Register 99A Register of Nuclear Power Safety (1) The Regulator must establish and maintain a Register of Nuclear Power Safety setting out details in relation to the following matters: (a) designated zones (if any) prescribed by regulations made for the purpose of paragraph 10(2)(c); (b) nuclear safety incidents reported under subsection 21(1); (c) licence applications made under section 28; (d) decisions by the Regulator to issue, or refuse to issue, a licence under subsection 31(1); (e) if a licence is issued under subsection 31(1): (i) the conditions of the licence under subsection 32(1); and (ii) variations (if any) to the conditions of the licence under subsection 34(1); and (iii) a decision (if any) to suspend the licence under subsection 35(1) or (3); and (iv) a decision (if any) to cancel the licence under subsection 35(1); (f) prohibition notices issued by the Regulator under subsection 78(2); (g) convictions for an offence against a provision of this Act; (h) directions given by the Minister to the Regulator under subsection 105(1); (i) any other information prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Register must be kept by electronic means. (3) The Register must be published on a website maintained by the Department. (4) The regulations must make provision for, or in relation to: (a) the details to be set out on the Register in relation to the matters referred to in subsection (1); and (b) the correction of information that is included in the Register, including how a person may seek the correction of information that is about the person; and (c) arrangements for notifying the public about new entries to the Register; and (d) any other matters relating to the administration or operation of the Register. (5) The Minister may exempt certain information from inclusion in the Register if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security and to deal with an emergency.    

The Senate divided. [13:52]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

 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. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 24 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 57 13:54 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I'm about to put the final question but, before I do, I want to check if any other senator is wanting to deal with anything. Senator Pocock, you just got there in time. 13:54 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I again seek leave again to make a one-minute statement. Leave not granted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [13:56]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

 26 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 15 NOES 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. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.

 13:58 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The Senate will now proceed, for about a minute, to senators' two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 58 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS National Security 58 13:58 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Yesterday we read disturbing media reports which revealed that a Palestinian man, Mr Fayez Elhasani, was granted a visa to come to Australia despite once hosting political members of the terrorist organisations Hamas and the politburo of Palestinian Islamic Jihad at his Gaza art institute. Today it has been brought to my attention that in August last year Mr Elhasani apparently made disturbing remarks at the second international Al-Aqsa conference in Iraq regarding his son, who was killed while serving in the military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The following is a translation of a post on the Facebook page of the conference organisers, the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine: 'His mother encouraged him to wage jihad against the usurping entity, and today his son is being raised on the same path and the way of jihad until the liberation of Palestine.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 I'm feeling culturally unsafe. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, in what way? Senator Thorpe 280304 Because we need to free Palestine and there's a genocide going on. The PRESIDENT 112096 Please continue, Senator Paterson. Senator PATERSON 144138 As I was quoting: 'The mother encouraged him to wage jihad against the usurping entity and today his son is being raised on the same path and the way of jihad until the liberation of Palestine.' This is concerning because it suggests that Mr Elhasani was fully aware of his son's involvement— (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 58 14:00 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Recent research from Finder reveals that 42 per cent of Australian mortgage holders were struggling to meet their home loan repayments in August. It's the highest level of mortgage stress in many years. The average owner-occupier mortgage now has risen to $634,000, a 9.3 per cent increase from 2023. Meanwhile, yesterday's latest building activity data shows the government's housing agenda is making things worse. Between 2023 and 2024, home-building commencements dropped 8.8 per cent to the lowest level in a decade, with just 158,690 new starts. Why is Labor's housing policy making a bad situation even worse? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I reject the assumption at the end of that question—that it is making the situation worse. I would say that what's making the housing situation worse is not having agreement in this chamber around a range of policies that could be implemented to support the construction of new housing, support people from renting into housing and support investments in other housing options. That's the handbrake. That's the block that's happening at the moment. We as a government are doing everything we can to ensure that, for the areas that the federal government has control over, we are moving them all in the direction of additional supply of housing. We acknowledge that those who have mortgages are under stress. That's what happens when you have interest rate increases during a period of high inflation, which is why we have also been looking at ways to support people who are in that position with effective cost-of-living relief. We have been putting in place agreements with the states and territories around housing and homelessness. We have agreements on a social housing accelerator. We have put in a billion dollars to help support enabling infrastructure because local governments tell us that not having that infrastructure is a handbrake for them on getting more housing developed. We have the states and territories agreeing to review their planning requirements, to accelerate the capability to get more housing supply in the system sooner. We've made announcements about the Housing Australia Future Fund. We have the Help to Buy and Build to Rent bills that are stuck here. We have the home owner guarantee scheme. That's been very popular. It's supported over 100,000 people into homeownership. On every single level and every measure you look at, we are doing what we can to increase the supply of housing in this country. It was not a problem that occurred overnight. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, can you confirm that, to keep Labor's promise of 1.2 million new houses, one new house needs to be built every 2.2 minutes? Will Labor ever meet this target? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We are proud to have a housing target that includes the plan to build 1.2 million homes. We have set that target and we are putting in place the policies to meet that target. Obviously, working with the states and territories is really important here but also so is training more tradies. Part of the issue we have is around workforce. We're funding more apprenticeships and growing that workforce, looking at how we can cut red tape, which is the work we are doing with local government, doing planning reform, providing incentives to state governments to get homes built quickly, delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade and working with the states and territories on how to reduce homelessness. I would say to those opposite that this was a problem a decade in the making because of the distinct lack of interest from those opposite in housing. They didn't even have a housing minister for a substantial period of time. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators, yesterday was extremely disorderly when senators were attempting to ask their questions and when ministers were responding. I am going to go back to rulings of Senator Ryan and Senator Brockman that questions and answers be given and heard in silence. Senator Bragg? 14:04 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Under Labor, the prospect of owning your own house has become the preserve of the rich. Barrenjoey data shows that the share of Commonwealth Bank home loans for owner-occupiers earning more than $200,000 has doubled in the past few years, but the share going to borrowers on less than $100,000 has almost halved. Minister, won't your government's business-burdening industrial relations changes—green and red tape—make a bad situation even worse? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh! Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you very much for that question and for reminding us what the coalition would do if they were to win government again on the industrial relations front. They want to wind back workers' entitlements. They want to wind back wages growth. They want to make workers working in jobs in construction and others more insecure, and we disagree with that. It will be a point of disagreement. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senators, I asked for silence when senators were asking their question and when the minister was answering; that is what I expect. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING In terms of the beginning of that question, I've dealt with the IR component of that question. In terms of the first bit, why would we have invested in the Social Housing Accelerator? Why would we be investing in the Housing Australia Future Fund? Senator Bragg 256063 What about lending? What about mortgages? Those are all big-government solutions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Bragg, which part of my statement did you fail to understand, particularly when the Senate was silent when your question was asked? You are being disrespectful to me and to this chamber. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I couldn't disagree stronger with Senator Bragg on the fact that our policies are only around housing for the rich. Social Housing Accelerator, Housing Australia Future Fund, Commonwealth rent assistance—we are about housing for all, housing for everybody. (Time expired) Grocery Prices 60 14:07 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. We've heard this week about how the government has helped Australians with tax cuts and other cost-of-living relief whilst helping with the inflation challenge with back-to-back surpluses and paying down Liberal debt. Another area of focus for the government is cracking down on dodgy supermarket practices, including tackling shrinkflation. Minister, can you please explain how the Albanese Labor government is working to ensure that Australians get a fair deal when they do their weekly supermarket shop? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question and for focusing on those key cost-of-living issues affecting Australians. The government believes that Australians deserve a fair deal when they do their weekly supermarket shop. Last week, we announced a crackdown on dodgy supermarket practices, including tackling shrinkflation, where customers are charged the same for less product. We don't want to see ordinary Australians, families and pensioners being taken for a ride by the supermarkets, and we're taking steps to make sure they get a fair go at the check-out. We have provided the ACCC with a $30 million boost to crack down on market conduct, including misleading and deceptive pricing practices. We've commenced consultation on a mandatory food and grocery code. We've commenced work with the states and territories to revitalise national competition policy, including on planning and zoning for supermarkets. We have supported CHOICE to release its second Albanese government funded price-monitoring report, giving Australians accurate data on where to get the cheapest groceries. These are real commonsense reforms that will make a difference to Australians when they're doing their shopping, and it's backed by the ACCC. These aren't the thought bubbles and political bluster that come from the unholy alliance that we've been seeing developing between the Australian Greens and the coalition. Whilst undertaking these reforms to make the system fairer, we're also providing immediate cost-of-living relief in the form of tax cuts and power bill relief. It always wakes you up, though, doesn't it, because it's so uncomfortable. We're reducing health costs for Australians with cheaper medicines and increasing bulk-billing and free urgent care clinics across the country, with 76 more of those to come. We're working hard to get the budget and the economy in order after a decade of mismanagement by the coalition—back-to-back surpluses, less of Australia's money spent on Liberal debt and bringing down inflation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia It's good to hear that the government is working closely with the ACCC to ensure a fair go for Australians. Today, in the House, the Treasurer introduced mergers and acquisitions reform to drive competition across our economy. Why is this important? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thanks, Senator Smith. That was an important announcement today. The Treasurer continues the Albanese Labor government's work with the ACCC today with the introduction of a bill to enact historic reforms for a more competitive economy. Under the new system, we'll set clear thresholds to determine whether a merger needs ACCC approval, and there are also powers to ensure all the high-risk mergers are looked at. This new approach will also ensure that the ACCC is notified of every merger in the supermarket sector. Reviewing every supermarket merger is part of the decisive action our government is taking to help Australians get fairer prices at the check-out. We want to make sure that supermarket mergers don't come at the cost of Australians, families and pensioners getting a fair price on their groceries. The government thanks ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb for the work she does in promoting competition and ensuring that consumers get a fair go. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The Albanese Labor government has repaired the budget in order to provide the cost-of-living relief Australians need and deserve. What challenges has the government faced in providing cost-of-living relief to Australians, and what risks have emerged that threaten the delivery of services that Australians need and deserve? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Smith. We've seen in this chamber, during the course of the last two years, attempts to frustrate the government in ensuring that Australians were able to get the cost-of-living relief that they deserve. We've seen it when it came to providing energy bill relief and when it came to providing cheaper medicines and even investments in cheaper child care. Today, we saw it with that unholy alliance that I spoke about earlier with the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals voting together against a future made in Australia. It is very difficult to explain to our constituents why you would vote against a future made in Australia, but there you go. Of course, we know that those opposite have already foreshadowed that, if they were to form government, they would cut $315 billion out of the budget, hurting pensioners and hurting all of those that rely on important government services. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 61 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. I refer the minister to media reporting regarding the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister is currently the chair of the government staffing committee? If so, has the government staffing committee considered any matters relating to potential breaches of the ministerial staff code of conduct in the Deputy Prime Minister's office? 14:12 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for that question. No and no. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Can the minister confirm what role the Prime Minister's chief of staff has in the employment of the Deputy Prime Minister's staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act and whether the Prime Minister's chief of staff has any authority or has acted to make any employment arrangements on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister or his office? 14:13 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Birmingham for his first supplementary question. In respect to the chief of staff of the Prime Minister, he is on the staffing committee. I don't recall any circumstances in which the issues that you've referred to have been discussed at the staffing committee, but I'll take that question on notice and come back to you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Can the Special Minister of State confirm that he is still the minister delegated to administer the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act and the ministerial staff code of conduct? If so, what action has the minister taken to ensure that any actions taken by the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's chief of staff in relation to the matters reported in the media today are compliant with the act and compliant with the code? 14:14 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Birmingham for his second supplementary question. It has been a very long-standing practice in this place that particularly special ministers of state don't start going into specific details about employment relations. It's important— Senator Hughes 273828 Sorry? Senator FARRELL I0N Well, that has been the long— Senator Reynolds 250216 That is the biggest piece of rubbish I ever heard. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Cash I0M Really? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator Birmingham on a point of order? I am sorry, Senator Birmingham. I do need your side— Senator Reynolds 250216 Bunch of hypocrites. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! I am not sure who that was but I am going to ask them to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, you stand and withdraw. I think it was you. Senator Reynolds 250216 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Reynolds. I have Senator Birmingham on a point of order. I expect it to be heard in silence. Senator Birmingham H6X Thank you, President. The point of order goes to matters of direct relevance. The question was quite tightly worded, asking the minister in terms of actions he has taken to ensure himself of compliance with the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act and the ministerial staff code of conduct, not to go into the details of any matter, but ministerial action to ensure compliance. The PRESIDENT 112096 I thought the minister was being relevant but I will continue to listen carefully, Senator Birmingham, noting your concern. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. As I said, I don't make a practice of commenting publicly about these issues and the actions that I take. In this particular job, you come across a lot of information about both staff and members of parliament. If I was called upon to release information about all of those issues from time to time— (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 62 14:17 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. The robodebt tragedy was only possible because income support recipients were, and still are, trapped on poverty payments. This made them acutely vulnerable to the actions of the government and its departments. Will Labor take seriously your duty as a government and raise the rate of income support above the poverty line, or will you condemn income support recipients to the whims of a future government? 14:18 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank senator for her question. You talk about robodebt. Which party was the party that pursued the issue of the abuse of the robodebt system? It was the Labor Party. We successfully prosecuted that case to the point where the former government eventually threw in the towel and accepted that that system was an illegal system and repaid money to the people that had been abused as a result of that system. In government, we continue to deal with this issue in a comprehensive and systematic fashion and that means that we continue to look after all of the people who rely on the social security system in this country to receive the appropriate payments. But the reality is the whole robodebt fiasco was dealt with by this government. We prosecuted it in opposition and we have dealt with it in government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary? 14:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The ability of Services Australia to pursue years-old debts underpinned the robodebt scheme. Will this government finally act on the royal commission's recommendations to legislate a six-year limitation on debt recovery? 14:20 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for her first supplementary question. The government is aware of the report, obviously, and in due course we will respond to the recommendations in accordance with the advice that we received. Can I say this: in terms of the social safety net, just in the last budget alone around 1.1 million individuals on low or no earnings—including access to more than 51,000 recipients aged 55 years and over—received a higher rate. Around 4,700 single people with significant barriers to work received a higher rate of JobSeeker. We've been increasing Commonwealth rent assistance for around one million low-income householders, who benefited from a 15 per cent— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland It is now over a year since the final report of the royal commission. Will this government commit to real justice and transparency for victims of the scheme and release the sealed chapter of the robodebt royal commission report? 14:21 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Allman-Payne for her second supplementary question. This matter, of course, is appropriately being dealt with by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance, and they will respond shortly to the report. In terms of the sealed section, that is an issue that the Attorney-General is dealing with, and he will, at the appropriate time, make a statement about that issue. Broadband 62 14:22 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. The NBN is a piece of critical infrastructure designed to provide reliable and affordable internet across the country. How does the NBN assist in supporting all Australians, regardless of where they live? 14:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank Senator Grogan for her question— Senator Paterson 144138 I get stopped in the street every day. Are you going to privatise the NBN? Senator McALLISTER 121628 and I want to congratulate Senator Grogan for her tireless support— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. It is a shame that I have to remind senators to listen in silence to the response from the minister. Please continue, Minister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I do want to congratulate Senator Grogan for her tireless support in levelling the playing field for regional Australians. We know how important it is to have fast, reliable and affordable broadband for all Australians but particularly those Australians that live in regional Australia, because the NBN allows Australians to work remotely and run their businesses more productively. I'm thinking about people like Brant and Angie Bettridge, whose Mt Wilga cattle farm operates some 550 kilometres west of Rockhampton, in regional Queensland. Before Brant and Angie connected to the NBN, they had little to no mobile service or internet connection and would record all their cattle numbers with a notebook and pencil. Connecting to the NBN has meant that Angie and Brant can now run their banking, their payroll and their admin over the internet. As Angie said: 'We wouldn't be able to run our farm today without the NBN. It's as simple as that. Gone are the days of the notebook and the pencil.' This government is supporting families and businesses like Brant and Angie's right across Australia. There are 8.6 million active premises already connected to the NBN, with over 12.4 million ready to connect. Our fixed wireless upgrades are on track for completion by the end of the year, with 2,300 towers upgraded. It means faster speeds and less network faults, and this week we have introduced legislation to ensure that this critical infrastructure asset remains publicly owned, as it should be, Senator Grogan. I'm sure you will agree. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:24 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia That's excellent information, Minister. Thank you so much. We know the Albanese Labor government's approach is different from the previous government, but can you outline for us what the emerging risks are to the NBN remaining affordable and reliable for all Australians? 14:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Again, I thank Senator Grogan for her question. It really took less than 24 hours for the opposition to show Australians why they can't trust them with our publicly owned assets. Senator Hume was first out of the gate, saying, 'It was always the plan that the NBN would be privatised.' She was asked whether she would support the legislation to keep the NBN in public hands, and she refused. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Watt! Senator Hume, when you've finished! Senator McALLISTER 121628 That's right: Senator Hume was asked to confirm her position on if she would support legislation to not sell the NBN, and she refused, saying it wasn't that simple. We then had another Liberal member backing in Senator Hume—solidarity forever!—confirming that it has always been in contemplation that the NBN would be privatised. Lastly, we saw the shadow minister for communications trying to mop it all up on Radio National, but he wouldn't commit to supporting our bill either. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, I'm not sure which part of my instruction to be silent when ministers are answering you failed to hear or follow, but you are being disrespectful. Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We know that the NBN makes a real difference in the lives of Australians through faster, more reliable internet access. If the bill before the parliament that you've referred to does not pass, can you tell us what price regional Australians will pay, and how do we prevent that from happening? The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm just waiting for silence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Seriously, Senator Henderson. The PRESIDENT 112096 And Senator Hume and Senator Watt. If you can't listen in silence, please leave the chamber. 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Grogan, for that question. Public ownership is the best way to deliver an NBN that continues to be affordable and ensures that Australians have access to high-speed internet. This is important for regional Australians who rely on the NBN to run their businesses and remain connected while living, sometimes, in very remote locations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, when I call your name, you are not in a debate with me, and you don't call back. I have asked you respectfully to be quiet, and you've completely ignored me. You are being disrespectful. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The government's bill will ensure, of course, that the NBN remains in public hands, but those opposite are refusing to support it, and you have to ask the question why. Why is that? Well, it's because we know that they actually want to sell it, just like they sold Telstra. That's the risk, and it's one that is reinforced by all of the comments that have been made this morning. Privatising this asset will mean that people like Angie and Brant will be paying a higher price for a worse product. If those opposite truly support regional Australia, they will support our bill. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! I expect Senator Tyrrell to be able to ask her question in complete silence. Senator Ciccone 281503 Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, I don't need 'hear, hear' because you were one of the senators being disorderly. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting to call Senator Tyrrell. Order! Senator Tyrrell, please ask your question. Tasmania: Health Care 64 14:29 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is to Senator Gallagher, representing the minister for health. Tasmania spent $182 million on locum doctors and agency nurses in 2023-24, which is triple the cost from three years ago. I know that relying on locums is not a sustainable solution and that the fix for Tasmania's lack of health professionals needs a multipronged approach. One element that could be tweaked is reviewing the modified Monash model, as this makes it easier for Tasmanian medical practices to hire health professionals. Will the government commit to a review of the Monash model classifications in Tasmania to allow us to attract more health professionals? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and for the work she does around health care and healthcare provision in Tasmania. And Senator Tyrrell is right. The health workforce is under a huge amount of pressure in Tasmania but also around the country—in particular GPs, who are the first point of contact for many, either for getting a health check or if they have a health problem. I know that Senator Tyrrell frequently engages with the health minister on the matters that relate to Tasmania. I'm not here to commit to a review of the Monash model, as the senator has asked me today, but we have done a range of things to invest in the health workforce since we came to government. The health workforce delivers all of the health care, so when you're looking at measures like trying to increase the bulk-billing rate and all of those things we need health professionals to be able to do that. The health minister has been very clear about the pressures on the GP workforce, as has the college and others. It's not just a matter of incentivising. The bigger problem we've got to fix is the supply of GPs more broadly. Whilst it is a significant issue in Tasmania, there are also quite a number of other areas around the country where this is an issue too. How you can support and incentivise the primary healthcare model is something that this government is focused on. We're looking at a range of ways to do this. One of them is how we make sure that we've got more doctors coming through the system. We're also looking at scope-of-practice issues for nurse practitioners and others, but they can't do all of the work of a medical professional. We remain committed and indeed happy to work with Senator Tyrrell on ideas to support Tasmanian health— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Medical practices in Tasmanian regional towns are suffering due to the modified Monash model. The medical practice at Lilydale is only 100 metres outside the 'medium rural town' boundary and the practice in New Norfolk falls inside the 'regional centre' boundary. This makes it harder for these practices to recruit medical practitioners. If there is no review of the model, would the government consider case-by-case assessments to help practices in regional areas? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. In general, the health minister's door is always open to representations and ideas to support the delivery of primary health care around the country, including in Tasmania. I note today in the local paper—in the Mercury, I think—there was a story about some improvements in GP numbers and bulk-billing in Tasmania, which is hugely welcome and I imagine driven by some of the measures we've been talking about, including tripling the bulk-billing rate. But I acknowledge that there is much more work to do. When looking at some of the incentives and programs, we have to look at the whole of the country not just one particular aspect, because incentives do change behaviour—this underpins the Monash model. I think the focus is on supply and getting more doctors into the system, but I'm happy to work with Senator Tyrrell on ideas she might have. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Another issue with the modified Monash model is that each area's economy is not considered as part of the model's classification process. Could population data and economic status be linked to the modified Monash model to make it more relevant to small regional towns where there are pockets of disadvantage? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I do thank you, Senator Tyrrell. A number of aspects of our health system, including some of the items through MBS, are targeted based on demographics and taking into consideration some of the factors that Senator Tyrrell has raised. Also, the Working better for Medicare review was handed down this week. It did consider the Modified Monash Model. It's been handed this week, so the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be considering the recommendations and consulting on them. So it may be in that context, Senator Tyrrell, that you could have further discussions on what might be possible in the good state of Tasmania. Small Business 65 14:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Earlier this week, COSBOA and CommBank released a report saying small businesses are living through 'the toughest operating environment in recent memory'. We saw data confirming that quarterly insolvencies are now at an all-time high. But, despite that tremendous pressure on small and family businesses across Australia, the government is planning to hit those businesses with $13.9 billion in new costs through its AML/CTF legislation. This isn't our assessment of those costs; these are the costs listed in the government's own explanatory materials. How will these small and family businesses be able to afford to pay for your legislation? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Cash, for the question. As we all know, small businesses are a very important part of our economy—in fact, the engine room of our economy. I think you would have heard Ms Collins acknowledge the pressures on small businesses right now, which is why the government's policies are targeted at improving the long-term resilience of small businesses and providing practical support for those small businesses experiencing challenges. Our most recent budget helped to ease the pressure on Australia's— Senator Cash I0M President, I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. This question is about a $13.9 billion cost that, on the government's own analysis, it will impose on small business through its own piece of legislation. It is a specific question about the $13.9 billion hit on small business. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I remind you that you don't need to repeat the whole question. The minister is being relevant. You talked about the operating environment for small businesses. You went to the issue of insolvency and a number of matters. The minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Cash, you used an acronym. I assume you were referring to the anti-money-laundering arrangements. It took me a little while to— Senator Green 259819 The stopping crime bill. Senator Cash I0M It's stopping small business— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green and Senator Cash, order! Arguing across the chamber while a minister's on her feet is incredibly disrespectful. Senator WONG 00AOU This is about money laundering which facilitates serious crime. Senator Cash I0M You're going to wipe out small businesses in the process. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Cash, this is about money laundering which facilitates serious crimes. We have taken action to both protect Australians and combat organised transnational crime. I appreciate that that is an additional level of regulation, but it is regulation with a very important public policy purpose, which is to counter one of the ways in which criminal activities are funded. The gravamen of the question appears to be— The PRESIDENT 112096 The senators shouting out across the chamber need to stop. I have said today that questions and answers need to be heard in silence. If you can't manage that, please leave the chamber. Senator WONG 00AOU Is the logic of the question that the government shouldn't act on money laundering that facilitates criminal behaviour? Is that the logic of the question? Senator Cash, I am surprised, given your tough-on-crime rhetoric, that you would even ask me such a question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 14:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Experience with similar legislation in New Zealand shows that small real estate agencies had to pay between an additional $30,000 and $60,000 each to just comply with the law. There are similar experiences amongst small law firms, small accountants and others brought into the regime. This is real money paid by real men and women who just want to run a business. How many businesses does the government expect will be driven to the wall by its legislation? 14:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you. I'm advised of a number of things, which I will, in the interests of assisting the Senate, outline. First, we are committed to working closely with small businesses and other stakeholders on these reforms, and there have been two rounds of consultations and meetings with industry stakeholders. The second point I would make is Australia has been singled out by the global Financial Action Task Force as one of only three jurisdictions in the world who do not meet Financial Action Task Force requirements, which puts us at risk of being greylisted, which would have negative economic impacts, including a reduction in credit rating, and consequences for foreign direct investment and international banking connections as the country is perceived to be high risk. These are the risks that we are trying to deal with. We obviously will— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Seriously! You've asked your question, now listen in silence. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU There are obviously very substantial risks to the economy if we don't do this, very substantial benefits to criminals if we do. Again, we will work through this with small business— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, your running commentary is also unhelpful. Senator Wong 00AOU She's briefing. The PRESIDENT 112096 She needs to brief in silence. Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Minister. Is the government really arguing that a $13.9 billion regulatory cost is reasonable, in particular when it's on small businesses, and will you review and act to reduce these costs so that small businesses in Australia don't have to continue to close as they are doing under this government? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! Minister Wong. 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The information I have is that the impact analysis estimates upfront costs of $28,000 a year and an annual ongoing burden of $33,000 for new regulated small business with turnover of up to $2 million. The cost of introduction of reforms is—your point—over 10 years, $13.9 billion. The cost of money laundering to Australia is estimated at over $60 billion a year. I am very surprised that the one of the people in this chamber who talks so much about being tough on crime is actually coming into here and saying that we shouldn't act on money laundering. Tough on workers but not tough on criminals who use money laundering—that's Senator Cash. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I don't know how many times, I have to call you, Senator O'Neill, and you, Senator Cash, and, more recently, Senator Ruston. You are being disrespectful. Energy 67 14:43 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. Minister Bowen recently stated that electricity prices fell 17.9 per cent in the 12 months to August. He said, 'It is a good step forward and an indication that our reliable renewables energy plan is working.' He quoted the ABS August CPI indicator, stating that this was 'the largest annual fall for electricity on record'. He neglected to repeat the next sentence from that report, which states, 'The combined impact of Commonwealth state and territory rebates drove the annual fall in electricity prices.' Has Minister Bowen misled the Australian people on the underlying cause of reduced electricity bills? 14:44 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The short answer is no. Our government understands that energy prices are, in fact, a very serious issue for households and for businesses, and it is why our No. 1 priority is delivering cost-of-living relief, and that includes cost-of-living relief that is targeted towards costs associated with electricity. So every Australian household is receiving $300 in energy bill relief. The truth is that the alternative plan, the plan put forward by the coalition, is a plan that would absolutely guarantee higher prices for those households. Now, in the medium term there is work to be done because over the last decade there were 22 failed energy policies, none of which landed, that saw gigawatts of electricity leaving the system, and that dispatchable capacity was not replaced. And so, on coming to government, our policies have been aimed at stabilising that system and restoring confidence from investors so that we can actually see investment resume in the kind of electricity system that we know offers the least-cost option for consumers in the future. That, of course, is a reliable renewable plan. It does mean that wholesale energy prices are now considerably lower than when the coalition left office, and over the medium term it will mean that the Albanese government's plan is the only plan that will continue to see those prices delivered for consumers. Now, the coalition has of course taken a different approach. They voted against energy price relief. They want to wind back the rebate that's going out to Australian families and businesses right now and, as you know, they're advocating for nuclear energy. That will add hundreds to Australian bills but will supply less than four per cent of the energy that households and businesses need. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, your running commentary is really disrespectful. Senator Babet, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Minister, you've just said there that the cost of power has come down under your government's leadership. Can you advise what change in electricity prices would have occurred without using taxpayer money to temporarily—and artificially, in my opinion—reduce electricity bills? 14:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I do have those numbers here somewhere in my folder! I can tell you the consequence of the Commonwealth rebates and what prices would have been. For example, in Victoria, the year-on-year change for an average standing offer was a 23 per cent reduction. Had the rebates not been in place, it would have been down six per cent. In Western Australia, the consequence of the relief that was put in place by the Australian government saw an estimated 13 per cent reduction, but, had the bill relief not been in place, it would have been a two per cent increase. In Tasmania, there was a 14 per cent reduction as a consequence of our measures. Had those measures not been in place, the reduction would have been only three per cent. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Minister, the Australian Bureau of Statistics noted in the same report that I referred to earlier that, excluding rebates, electricity costs for households would have increased 16.6 per cent since June 2023. Is a 16.6 per cent increase an indication that your so-called 'renewable energy plan' is working or not working? 14:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As everyone here understands—I think even those opposite understand it—we inherited an absolute mess in the energy system when we came into government. The average wholesale price when we came to government was $286 a megawatt hour. Retail prices had increased up to almost 20 per cent, which those opposite shamefully sought to hide, taking active steps to hide on the eve of an election. The truth is that a driver of that—a significant driver—was a lack of investment, caused by uncertainty driven by policy dysfunction, denial and chaos within the government of those opposite. Another driver, of course, was our exposure to international energy prices, international gas prices, which were going up as a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So we are responding to that mess. We are responding to the mess that was left by those opposite. (Time expired) Australian Public Service 68 14:49 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, governing the financial resource management of government departments, has no provision to impose civil or criminal penalties. In 2024, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit tabled an inquiry report and found: NDIA officials failed to disclose years of secret gifts and hospitality received from global IT giant Salesforce despite the company securing lucrative government contracts and massive variations. Minister, will the government commit to closing this corrupt loophole—affecting approximately $80 billion of taxpayer money spent each year on government tenders—by amending the PGPA Act to implement civil or criminal penalties for breaches of this act? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We have enacted the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and, if there are concerns of corrupt conduct in the National Disability Insurance Agency, they should be referred to the appropriate body for investigating that. In terms of the Public Service more broadly, around gifts or anything received during a role as a public servant in dealings with others, there is a requirement to disclose those matters. The PGPA Act is there, of course, to provide legislative rules around appropriate conduct in a whole range of areas. I think departments take those responsibilities seriously, in terms of reporting through annual reports and attending estimates to be accountable for decisions that they may have made or, if they haven't provided appropriate transparency, to be held responsible for that. If they are, as Senator Payman says, corrupt dealings, then that is a matter for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That would not be dealt with through the PGPA Act. I have no plans at this point to amend that act to incorporate the penalties that Senator Payman has outlined. The appropriate avenue and authority for investigating corrupt conduct in public office is the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia The National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is intended to stamp out the sort of corruption which contributed to last year's $18 billion blowout across Defence projects, has not been able to punish people for the corruption, as the PGPA Act gives it no avenue to do so. Why is it that a government elected when the public was crying out for leadership on integrity has so comprehensively failed to enact anything more than a toothless, Victorian style anticorruption commission? (Time expired) 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't agree with that at all. I don't agree with that assessment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and I don't agree with that in terms of assessment about integrity measures that we are putting in place across the Australian Public Service. We have made amendments to the Public Service Act to improve integrity and transparency since coming to government. Those amendments have passed this place, with the support of senators. We have sought to strengthen the independence of the Public Service. We have resourced the Public Service appropriately so that it is able to do the job that we ask it to do, because the quality of the delivery of work through the Public Service matters. If they don't have enough workers to do the work, we rely on contractors and others to do that. I think concerns have been raised about the quality of the delivery of public service. We've put a range of integrity measures around procurement processes across the APS as well, and there is more to do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia The previously mentioned blowout is nothing compared to the mother of all rorts, and that's the AUKUS submarine deal, with costs expected to reach at least $368 billion over the coming decades. This program will be a burden on taxpayers and the budget. It's a deal that is more political than strategic. How can the minister justify shipping billions of dollars of taxpayer money overseas to multinationals during this cost-of-living crisis? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU With respect, I don't believe that's a supplementary question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. Senator Payman, that was not a supplementary question. It needs to be related to your primary and your first supplementary question. I will invite the minister, if she wishes to make a contribution, to do so, but she's not obliged to. 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Firstly, I'd say, regarding the examples that Senator Payman seeks to identify as corrupt behaviour including a blowout of $18 billion, that if she does believe that that is corruption then she should refer that matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In relation to AUKUS, we are proud supporters of AUKUS. We believe it is in our national interest and our national security interest to have the AUKUS program. I think, in terms of Senator Payman being a senator from WA, there are significant economic benefits from AUKUS, including jobs and opportunities, in her home state of WA. We do not agree at all that the resourcing going in to support the delivery of AUKUS in any way constitutes—as she is seeking to smear it as—inappropriate allocation of resources. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 69 14:55 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It was reported today that the government's hand-picked administrator of the CFMEU, Mark Irving, has continued to employ Mr Joel Shackleton at the CFMEU, despite Mr Shackleton being charged with making death threats against the owner of an Indigenous labour hire firm. Among other profanities, Mr Shackleton is caught on video saying: I'll f---ing take your soul and I'll rip your f---ing head off. Minister, if the government is genuine in its campaign to clean up the CFMEU, will the Albanese government, today, intervene and instruct the administrator to terminate the employment of Mr Shackleton? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator McKenzie for that question. I would say to Senator McKenzie: I share your reaction to the statements by Mr Shackleton which have been reported. I haven't seen the video that has been reported. I again say what Senator Watt as minister has said and what the Prime Minister has said: thuggery and violence have no place in Australia's workplaces and on Australia's building sites. In relation to the decision by the administrator, I would make the point that the strongest possible action has been taken by the government in appointing an independent administrator. That person has removed over a dozen full-time officials permanently from office as part of the scheme of administration, as well as hundreds of other office bearers. Obviously, the decision of the administrator is a matter for him. What I would say is that we have taken stronger action than any government has to clean up the CFMEU, and that is because we do not believe that thuggery, corruption and violence have any place in our trade union movement or in Australia's workplaces. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Does the government believe that it can end the CFMEU's decades-long culture of law breaking, criminal activity, bullying, harassment, corruption, bribery and standover tactics when the administrator seems to be quite happy to continue the employment of those caught on video making death threats? From the minister's first response, it would seem the government is not of a mind to suggest he remove Mr Shackleton. 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll try and answer parts of that question. In relation to the last part, I think I opened my answer, Senator, with a view that is similar to the view that you expressed about the inappropriate and aggressive language that was used, which I understand is reported to be the subject of a criminal investigation. I share the concerns you expressed in your question, so I don't agree with the last political point you made in your question. But I again go back to this point, Senator: for all of the talk and all of the attacks on workers, our government and this minister have taken stronger action to clean up the CFMEU than any other government in Australia. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary? 14:59 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Will the minister confirm, given the answers today, that the government doesn't actually care about actually cleaning up the CFMEU because it is desperately trying to gain the CFMEU's support, their manpower and their donations for the upcoming elections and you refuse to have the conversation with the administrator about the acceptable employment of Mr Shackleton? 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I absolutely reject those assertions. I think you might have seen some of the former CFMEU and their members make their displeasure at the government's actions clear, but we are focused on doing what we believe is the right thing, which is to clean it up. We don't believe Australian workers or the Australian trade union movement are benefited in any way by violence, thuggery and corruption inside trade unions. This minister and this government have taken stronger action than any government has to clean up the CFMEU, and that administrator has removed hundreds of office bearers and a dozen full-time officials. That is stronger action than has ever been taken. On that, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 70 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Deputy Prime Minister 70 15:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I said I would come back to Senator Birmingham on his questions. In my answer, which addressed two questions at once, I correctly indicated that the government's staffing committee has not considered any matter referred to by Senator Birmingham. I can, however, confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister is the chair of the government staffing committee. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards 70 Appointment 70 15:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, the chamber has received a message and I understand it suits the chamber for me to report on that message now. A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by the House concerning the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards and requesting the concurrence of the Senate. The House of Representatives message read as follows— Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards That in accordance with section 59F of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023 (the Act) matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards shall be as follows: (1) members appointed in accordance with subsections 59B(2) and (3) of the Act be nominated by: (a) the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition or any crossbench Senator in the Senate; and (b) the Government Whip or Whips, Opposition Whip or Whips, or any crossbench Member in the House; (2) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (3) in addition to the chair elected in accordance with subsection 59C(1) of the Act, the committee elect a deputy chair in accordance with subsection 59CA(1) who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; (4) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting; (5) when acting as chair, the deputy chair or other member presiding at a meeting of the committee shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote; (6) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House; (7) the committee: (a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and (b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote; (8) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting; (9) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House; (10) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (11) the committee or any subcommittee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; (e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives; and (f) consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards; (12) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and (13) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. 15:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to have the message considered immediately. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT 71 QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT Central Land Council 71 15:03 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory President, I seek leave to raise a question with you. Leave granted. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 I would like to ask you, President, if you have had the opportunity to review the Hansard regarding the Assistant Minister for Education's comments yesterday and if you would amend your previous ruling. If you are not going to, I would like to understand why not? I would also like to register my disappointment that the comments from the Assistant Minister for Education were not ruled out of order at the time they were said. I am dismayed that the President has not apologised for the absence of a proper ruling. 15:03 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, I undertook to review two motions yesterday. From memory I think it was 650 and 649. I concurred with the Clerk that 650 was appropriate and my response to that was appropriate. You then, I believe, sought for me to review 649. I subsequently did and I agreed that a withdrawal was in order by Senator Chisholm, and Senator Chisholm made that withdrawal last night. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 71 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Housing, Small Business, Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 71 15:04 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Bragg, Cash and McKenzie today relating to housing, small business and the CFMEU. We heard, in Senator Bragg's question, about how 42 per cent of mortgage holders struggled to make their loan repayments in August—the highest level of mortgage stress we've seen in Australia since 2019—and we've seen the average owner-occupier mortgage increase to some $634,000—a nine per cent increase from 2023. It's no surprise that homeowners are struggling to make loan repayments. They've endured 12 consecutive interest rate rises. They've been enduring inflation that has stayed higher for longer in Australia than in other developed economies, and, whilst the central banks of other developed economies from the United States to the United Kingdom, Canada and Europe are reducing interest rates, in Australia the Reserve Bank keeps interest rates on hold and has continued to indicate that government spending is too high and that it will not be in a position to see inflation return to its target band and reduce rates until early next year. This isn't the only cause of the housing crisis. Fundamentally, as well, there is a lack of supply being built, and in large part it's because of the government's own policy settings. Under the government's National Housing Accord, they committed to building 1.2 million homes over the next five years. If you translate that to New South Wales that means 377,000 new homes, or 75,000 new homes per year. But in the year to March 2024 there were only 43,000 new homes commenced in New South Wales versus the target of 75,000. If you compare that to when the coalition was in office, from 2013 to 2018 we were building 67,000 new homes per year on average—pretty close to the target. Why is that? In part it's because labour productivity in the construction sector has gone through the floor; it's declined by 18 per cent over the past decade. In particular, it has collapsed since the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, was abolished. Since that time, we've seen construction costs grow at a much higher rate than inflation. We've seen major cost blowouts on large infrastructure projects, where Labor governments—surprise, surprise—at the state and federal level are one of the biggest consumers of construction services, and cost inflation that the CFMEU is building into those contracts is being met by the taxpayer. Whilst that is happening, we are also seeing smaller construction businesses, predominantly involved in residential home construction, go to the wall. In her questions, Senator Cash referenced the toughest operating environment in recent memory being faced by small businesses. Indeed, insolvencies are at a record high; there were some 11,000 business insolvencies in Australia in financial year 2023-24, and almost a quarter of those—3,000 of those businesses—are in the construction sector, particularly residential construction. Why is that? They've got out-of-control inflation. They've got a sector of construction in infrastructure and public works which is paying higher wages because of the CFMEU's role in bidding up wages, which means smaller construction players predominantly involved in residential housing can no longer meet those wages. As a result, we've seen construction particularly of residential semi-detached dwellings in New South Wales and elsewhere collapse because builders cannot build to a price that will ever be commercially competitive with existing housing stock. Rather than seeing the housing target met or even approached, the rate of construction of new housing in Australia under this government is going backwards. We heard from Senator McKenzie about these, frankly, frightening comments that Mr Joel Shackleton from the CFMEU has made—death threats against the owner of an Indigenous labour hire firm—and we've had the government's hand-picked administrator of the CFMEU, Mark Irving, say, 'There is nothing to see here'. Senator Wong said thuggery and violence have no place on Australia's work sites, but here is someone who makes it his business to embed thuggery and violence in Australia's work sites and who is being kept at the CFMEU. We've heard that this government has taken stronger action than any previous government in cleaning up the CFMEU. It's quite the reverse. This government has taken money from the CFMEU and run a protection racket for the CFMEU, abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the only body that controlled the construction industry. 15:10 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Senator Sharma is being exceedingly selective in the data he chooses to critique the government's answers on when it comes to housing commencements. I think the senator reflected on their so-called height of dwelling commencements. They had to go back as far as 2016 or 2017, I think, to find their peak of housing commencements. What we know is that in fact on the last government's watch, not due to COVID but due to their inaction and their lack of a housing agenda, between 2017 and 2022, up until the COVID stimulus started in about 2021, housing commencements absolutely collapsed in Australia relative to the previous climb and demand. They absolutely collapsed. Then, as we know, we had stimulus packages that saw, yes, a high level of housing commencements but absolutely without the prerequisite work done inside our economy to enable our economy to keep up with that elevation in demand. It is little wonder that our housing market became so tight as a result of that. It absolutely highlights why our nation needs the kind of housing agenda that we as a government have put forward. When you look, for example, at new and other residential commencements back in June 2018, they were up at some 30,000 new houses, but then they collapsed by some 5,000 commencements. That is new houses themselves. New and other residentials collapsed from 30,000 down to 15,000 in about two years under the last government's watch. Under COVID, they started to try and rebuild that. They stimulated the economy, but they left us very, very ill prepared to do anything to actually be able to maximise the use of that stimulus. As a result, we have seen massive delays in housing construction such that we are just now beginning to see in some instances completion of houses that go right back to their COVID stimulus program. We are doing the work in the development of our workforce, building materials, planning strategies, work with state governments and, in our Commonwealth housing procurement and stimulus programs, social housing affordability to unlock housing in our nation so that we can create more housing stock and a better future for all Australians. We see that the value of work done—seasonally adjusted chain volume measures, for example—under the last government absolutely collapsed, whereas now we are working towards growing alteration additions to residential buildings, new residential buildings, non-residential buildings and the total value of work done. We have seen a small dip in new residential building in the last quarter, but I don't think that is any surprise when it comes to what we know has been a constrained labour supply. 15:15 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales There is a slightly bawdy saying I've been considering, but I will clean it up a bit for this: couldn't organise a pee-up in a brewery with a fistful of dollars. We know what that means. That describes the housing policy of this government. Just a short time ago, $10 billion was allocated to the Housing Australia Future Fund, and zero houses have been built. On another bill today, Senator Canavan was talking about how the government doesn't build houses here—that he'd have trouble building a house and I'd have trouble building a house. With $10 billion and 12 months, I think I could have managed it. I could have managed to get one going, Senator Canavan. But this government—zero houses. That's why we're talking about this housing policy. As we heard in the questions from Senator McKenzie today, if the government is real about the 1.2 million houses that have to be built, they're going to have to build a new house every 2.2 minutes. Their policy has been $10 billion for zero houses in a year, but now it has to be one built every 2.2 minutes from now to achieve that. This government knows how to talk the talk, but they don't know how to walk the walk. They bring out these stats—and we heard the impassioned arguments just then about statistics, yours versus mine, this versus that. The facts don't lie. They haven't built a house. You can argue about the benefit of this other policy and say, 'Who will be able to buy the house?' But it doesn't matter; we're not building enough. Population is increasing in Australia faster than we are building bedrooms to put people in, and that is the problem. Senator McKenzie raised the point that the average Australian mortgage has now risen 9.3 per cent in one year. The problem with that is it's not just about housing. People are remortgaging their house, refinancing, to pay their bills. They're borrowing more money to try and stay afloat. The average mortgage is going up higher than the average house simply so that people can borrow money to pay it back to other people. That's what these stats on homeownership say: it is a symptom of the Australian economy that the housing market is very weak and very precipitous. If you are borrowing money to pay your bills, it is only a matter of time before it catches up to you. What we'll see in the early new year is people spending up, buying their kids Christmas presents and loading their credit cards—doing all of these things. Then we'll see this debt come back to bite people when they can't afford to pay those bills and they need to borrow more, and when we see mortgages go up again, because they're doing that. We need to be building more homes—not choosing who buys them, but building more. We need to be getting these approvals through. We need to be doing all these things, and it needs to be done in an efficient way. It needs to be done with the private sector building homes. We've heard stuff about the CFMEU and the large developers getting them out of the way and putting their 30 per cent costs on it. We're getting this data on housing completion that is not comparable to anything during COVID. We heard the comments from the previous senator, about how stats fell so low prior to COVID. The housing completions for 2023-24 are lower than that. They are the lowest they've been in 10 years now. If they were disastrous in 2019, before COVID, they are now super, double disastrous. That is the truth of the matter. If we aren't building homes, prices will just go up. If people are borrowing more to pay their bills, the servicing will go there and they'll get worse. The bottom line is that this economy is in trouble. The symptoms are all there. People are refinancing. Businesses are going under. We heard about the costs that they now want to put through on small businesses—on the anti-money-laundering stuff. It's not about whether we support money laundering or not. That's another question. It's about proportionality. How do small regional businesses—small regional lawyers, small regional accountants, small regional real estate agencies—go out there and put in the $30,000 worth of costs to comply with this? Proportionality is not there, because this government doesn't support small business. Why is that? Because their super funds can't own them, and their unions can't control them. If you're out there in a small business doing it tough, it is simply because this government doesn't have a way to influence and control what you do. If it's not their industry super funds going out there and buying up big business, getting the multinationals and getting their seats on the boards, it's the unions coming in and telling your workforce what to do. They don't want you to succeed; they want to cripple you. That's not good enough, and that's what we're seeing more and more. They're getting bigger and bigger so that there is more that the government can control. Remember, this country was built on individuals out there having a go and making this the lucky country, not the government doing so. It's the people that do it, not the government. 15:20 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to contribute to this debate. I have a fundamental disagreement with Senator Cadell, in that I believe in the power of government to do good things. I believe in the power of good public policy to change people's lives and I believe that good government intervention can make a difference when people are suffering, when people are doing it tough and when people are struggling. I believe in the legacy of Labor governments that, through public policy, intervenes to change people's lives, help people in dire and difficult situations and lead our country through troubling times. At the moment, there are many people in our country experiencing very significant stress when it comes to their mortgage pressures and to broader cost-of-living pressures, and, because we are a Labor government, we don't put our heads in the sand over that. We act, because we believe we can do something. We believe we have levers, through the tools of public policy, to make a difference to people's lives. That's why we have rolled out a range of cost-of-living measures to bring costs down for households. It's why we're backing in wage increases for our aged-care workers and our early childhood workers. It's why we've supported wage increases for low-income earners in Australia consecutive times. It's why we're doing everything we can to bring down the costs of medicine. It's why we're expanding paid parental leave. It's why we're providing energy bill relief worth $300 for individuals and $325 for one million small businesses. We do these things because we know the actions of government can make a difference. We know the actions of government can change people's lives. Our housing policies are all about that as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a high ambition for what we can do in housing in Australia, because what is the alternative? The alternative is the approach taken by the Liberal and National parties when they were last in government of sticking their heads in the sand and saying: 'We can't do anything here. This isn't the role of government.' We don't believe that. We do believe it is the role of government to have a high ambition, and I don't want anything less than a high ambition. That ambition is backed in by a suite of policy reforms—reforms which have either been blocked or delayed in this chamber for months and months and months. There are policies which would increase housing supply, which is the biggest block to solution of this housing crisis. We need to build more homes in Australia. We need those homes built by the private sector, but we also need more social housing, as well. Our policies go to all of these things. We want Australians to be able to buy their own homes. We've had bills in this place which would help tens of thousands of low- and middle-income earners get into their own home, and those bills have been blocked by the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals. We saw the HAFF, a program which does all of these things which need to be done to increase supply in our country, delayed by months. We have an ambitious plan, but we also have some bloody big handbrakes in this chamber in the form of the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens. They want to criticise the ambition. They want to say the ambition isn't achievable; at the same time, they are doing everything they can to ensure it fails. They are doing everything they can to stop the government taking the action and providing the frameworks that it can to solve the issues in the housing crisis. This is because they don't believe that government should be trying to make a difference. They don't believe that government should be using the tools and the levers of public policymaking that we have to help people struggling to change lives. That is fundamental to who they are. I'm afraid there's also a fair bit of political opportunism here, because they benefit in no way from our government taking action to help people and support people, and neither do the Greens, which is why we see them spend far more time focused on their social media strategy than on building social housing in this country. We have an ambition to build 1.2 million homes. We should have no lesser ambition, but we should also be seeing in this chamber a willingness to come together and do what we can to support Australians who are struggling with mortgage stress and support millennial Australians in particular, who feel let down and locked out of the housing market. They are being told by the Liberal Party that they need to choose between having superannuation—a secure retirement—and owning their own home. They want to limit the ambitions of younger Australians in a way in which their parents' generations ambitions were never limited, and we just don't believe in that. We believe young Australians should hold those ambitions, we believe governments can act and we believe in the power of public policy to change lives and to help people who are doing it tough and who are under pressure in this country. We will continue to do that. We will not put our heads in the sand like you did over 10 years in government. 15:25 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The data in Senator Bragg's question today is concerning but not shocking to Australians. It's very clear that many Australians are struggling to stay in their own homes, to pay their mortgages and to keep up with escalating rents. A big part of that, a big reason for that, is the inability, the failure, of this country to build enough homes for people to live in. We can see that ourselves on our streets as tent cities pop up all around the place. I can't believe we are now a country where many people that otherwise would not find themselves homeless have nothing but a sheet of plastic to put over their heads at night. It is disgraceful, and something should be done about it. I'll give the government some slack here. The reduction in house-building numbers is not something the Commonwealth government can easily change overnight. A lot of the problems here are because of the planning laws at the state and local government levels. They have failed our country for many decades now and they're crucially failing us right now. But the government does have a few direct levers that it can pull to alleviate housing stress. Principally, the Commonwealth government does control our nation's borders. The previous speaker said she believed in the power of government. I'm not sure why the government has not used that power to make sure we match the number of people coming into this country with the houses that are available for Australians to live in. While we have had declining house-building approval numbers—again, not solely the responsibility of the federal government—we've had ridiculous escalating increases in the number of people coming to Australia, putting stress on the housing market. It's important to reflect on how big these numbers are. On average, during the last coalition government, the net overseas migration number, a technical term for the difference between how many people are coming to Australia and how many people are leaving—normally more people are coming than leaving—each 12-month period had 226,000 more people coming to Australia than leaving. That was the average net overseas migration rate. In the two full years that this government has been in power, which we have data for, that average figure has been 493,000. So it was 226,000—I should say the 226,000 is pre-COVID. I took out the COVID years. That would have been an unfair comparison for the government, so I took out the COVID years. So pre-COVID, under the former government, it was 226,000. In the two years this government has been in office, it has been almost 500,000 people a year. There have been more people coming here than leaving every year. As Senator Bragg said in his question, we're building less than 160,000 homes a year. There are 500,000 people turning up, and we're only building 160,000 homes a year. Of course, some houses every year are condemned and have to be knocked down. Okay, maybe it's two people per home or whatever—it's about that. We're building way less homes than we should be with the people coming in. So why hasn't the government capped the numbers? Why have they allowed so many people into this country and caused this mess, where Australians do not have a home to live in? They were managing the borders and they had the job of reopening after COVID. Of course we had to take some migrants in after COVID, after we had closed our borders for a few years, but why do we need to take in the size of Canberra every year—Canberra is at around 500,000 people now—when we're not building a city anywhere close to the size of Canberra in terms of homes around the country? That is what has happened. It is the government's responsibility to fix it. This figure is remarkable—that they have allowed this to persist for two years. The previous maximum year for net overseas migration was back in 2008, the last time a Labor Party was in government, when Kevin Rudd wanted to build a big Australia. That was 315,000 people a year. That's still 170,000—180,000, in fact—short of where the government has found themselves on average over the last two years. This is why the government should be tossed out, because they can't manage the fundamental, first requirement of any Australian government: to secure our nation's borders and make sure they use the control they have over those borders for the benefit of the people in this country first. They have failed at that task, and now it's average Australians that are paying the price of that failure. Question agreed to. Pensions and Benefits 75 15:30 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services to a question without notice I asked today relating to income support. For a government that has said, in a previous contribution, that they want to change lives and that they're helping those who are doing it tough—well, that seems to include everyone except those people on income support, because every person in this country who is on income support is living well below any measure of poverty. In his answer, the minister gave no commitment to raising income support above the poverty line, no commitment to act on the royal commission's recommendation to legislate a six-year limitation on debt recovery and no commitment to release the sealed section of the report of the robodebt royal commission. This is a betrayal of every person in this country who is on income support and every person who was harmed by the actions of the government departments that implement our income support scheme. The minister said that the government is taking a comprehensive and systematic approach. I would say that you're taking a comprehensive and systematic approach to keeping people in poverty. Rather than abandoning people on income support, the government needs to listen to them. There are thousands of people in this country who are forced by this government to continue to try and survive on a poverty payment. One of those people is Kerry. Kerry sent me an incredibly difficult story about her experience on JobSeeker, which I will partly relay to the parliament. Kerry says: 'Ending up on JobSeeker was not my goal, but here I am living below the poverty line and struggling every day. I have, during this time, applied for so many jobs and interviewed for some of them, but I'm still unemployed.' She says, 'At 54, being interviewed by much younger people, it's futile, despite my broad range of skills and qualifications, because ageism is real.' Kerry goes on to say: 'The horror stories that you hear about job search providers are alarming. The hoop-jumping is dehumanising and petty. I have a reasonable one, thankfully, but the pressure to meet these obligations when I still haven't been able to recover or grieve, when resources are limited or non-existent and when I'm feeling like I'm the criminal, is hard.' She says: 'Being on JobSeeker and not eligible for rent assistance, because I have a mortgage, means I'm paying 80 to 85 per cent of that payment just on my mortgage. The hits keep coming.' She says, 'Some of us have just been screwed over by systems that are not fit for purpose, and then they push us into other systems that also aren't fit for purpose.' She says, 'It feels like we're being pushed to not exist and being forced to shrink and cower while waiting for meagre crumbs of those who congratulate themselves on surpluses.' I agree with you, Kerry. In a rich country like this, the fact that three million people and one in six young people are living in poverty is an utter disgrace. Poverty is a policy choice, and it's a choice that both Labor and the coalition have made again and again. This government needs to listen to the voices of the people who live on income support payments. It needs to listen to the voices of people who have direct contemporary experience of living in poverty. Robodebt was a scheme that was written by people who weren't on income support—people who developed a scheme that punched down and destroyed lives and, in some cases, took lives. It's time that the government listened to the people whom their policies actually affect. We need to raise the rate of income support to well above the poverty line and end mutual obligations, and we need to get it done now. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 76 Report 76 15:35 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I present the government response to the report of the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. 15:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave grant; debate adjourned. Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) Select Committee 76 Report 76 15:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the interim report of the Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 15:37 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria The interim report of the Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence is being tabled today. It focuses on the potential for AI—generative AI in particular—to influence electoral processes and undermine public trust in our democracy. In an era when technology is advancing rapidly, this is a matter of significant concern. The integrity of our electoral system is central to the health of our democracy, and any threats posed by AI cannot be taken lightly. I'd like to thank all of the parties that have provided submissions and witnesses who appeared throughout this inquiry and provided their insights for the benefit of the committee. The final report, which we will be tabling in November, will address other matters in the terms of reference which include the risks and harms arising from the adoption of AI technologies, including bias, discrimination and error; opportunities to adopt AI in ways that benefit citizens, including for economic growth; and the environmental impacts of AI technologies. But first I want to talk a little bit about the risks and why we are inquiring into this matter. Dr Cathy Foley, Australia's Chief Scientist, told the inquiry that political disinformation has been around since the introduction of the printing press. Today, however, AI-driven deepfakes have become a game changer because they are easy to create and even easier to disseminate. Just in 2024, we've seen how deepfakes could pose a significant threat to both our democracy and our individual safety. Before the New Hampshire presidential primary, an AI voice clone of US President Joe Biden called voters and urged them not to vote. Prior to the election in Indonesia a deepfake was circulated of deceased former president Suharto endorsing his former political party. In Pakistan jailed former prime minister Imran Khan claimed election victory in a video created using AI. The committee has looked very carefully at the experiences here and abroad in addressing this existential risk. The Digital Services Act in the European Union has a requirement for synthetic audio, image, video or text content to be marked and for systems which generate deepfakes to disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. And here in Australia the AEC told the inquiry that they are seeking to address disinformation and misinformation including through a national digital literacy 'stop and consider' campaign and engaging with social media platforms to actively debunk disinformation. Locally, we've heard growing concerns about the misuse of AI to manipulate images or voices, particularly in the arts sector. Voice actors represented by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance shared where they have had their voices replicated without permission, damaging their livelihoods and the integrity of creative industries. It's clear that we need robust laws and oversight to ensure AI developers are transparent and accountable for their technology, but we aren't suggesting that we rush head-first into creating new laws that might have unintended consequences. Any debates about electoral and other related artificial-intelligence related laws are sensitive and they need to be approached cautiously. Reform must be carefully balanced to protect freedom of speech and political expression while preventing the spread of damaging disinformation. Of course, there are also benefits to artificial intelligence, which the committee has heard about. Generative AI can also provide interesting opportunities for strengthening our democratic processes. For example, in their submission to the inquiry, the ANU Tech Policy Design Centre raised the potential benefits for democracy associated with AI, including identifying patterns in government expenditure and monitoring for corruption. So what is the government doing about this right now? While this report makes a number of interim recommendations, we are not sitting on our hands. The government has acted urgently by making creating or sharing deepfake sexual material a crime. The minister for industry, Ed Husic, also recently announced that we will legislate mandatory guardrails for the use of high-risk AI, including where there are serious impacts on things like health, safety, human rights or society at large. These mandatory guardrails will mean that developers and users have to have appropriate processes in place, including a requirement for real human oversight and requirements for transparency around how AI is used. This is appropriate because Australians want to know that the government is responding to our rapidly changing world and, while we want to continue to reap the benefits of rapid technology advancement, it is absolutely critical that we all have the confidence that these technologies are being developed and used responsibly with robust safeguards in place to protect our democracy, our privacy and our safety. It is clear that the platforms must be part of the solutions, with strong transparency and accountability measures, if we are to address the risks of AI effectively. Dealing with the risks and opportunities of AI will be an ongoing process for policymakers to work out what has been effective elsewhere and what needs to be tailored to our Australian context. For the sake of our democracy and health of our political debate, we need to get this right. This government is working on several fronts to grapple with these complicated issues. 15:43 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The coalition members of the Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence hold that the regulation of AI poses one of the greatest challenges in the 21st century in the context of our public policy. Nevertheless, the coalition members of the committee hold that any AI policy framework ought to safeguard Australia's national security, cybersecurity and democratic institutions without infringing on the potential opportunities that AI presents in relation to job creation and productivity growth. As the report of the Select Committee on Adopting AI is an interim report and solely considers the impact of AI on democracy, the additional comments of the coalition members of the committee focused only on this chapter, and we will hold off on a broader response until the committee concludes its final report. The coalition holds that any electoral changes to improve Australia's democracy ought to be assessed against four core principles: firstly, fair, open and transparent elections; secondly, equal treatment of political participants; thirdly, freedom of political communication and participation without fear of retribution; and, fourthly, recognising freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections. Australia's success as a democracy is reliant on the effective operation of the Australian Electoral Commission and the federal government more broadly to satisfy and uphold these four principles. Ensuring that Australians have continued faith in the electoral system is paramount to Australia's faith in its government. The coalition's response to the five recommendations proposed in the interim report are guided by these four core principles. The first recommendation recommended that, ahead of the next federal election, the government implement voluntary codes relating to watermarking. Though coalition members of the committee do not oppose this recommendation in principle, the coalition reserves its final position on this recommendation until the United States policy response to AI is holistically assessed following the US election. With different US states opting for different policy responses to manage AI, the US election will provide guidance to Australian policymakers on the different mechanisms to manage the risks that AI poses to Australia's democracy. The second recommendation from the committee recommends that the Australian government undertake a thorough review of potential regulatory responses to AI. The coalition members of the committee would welcome a thorough review of potential regulatory responses, but the coalition members of the committee will not support any rushed legislative responses to fit political timelines, especially if the response contains prohibitions or restrictions on freedom of speech. The third recommendation from the committee recommends that laws restricting the production or dissemination of AI content be designed to complement rather than conflict with the recently introduced disinformation and misinformation reforms and foreshadowed truth-in-political-advertising reforms. The coalition members of the committee strongly oppose this recommendation. The coalition members do not support the introduction of measures that purport to adjudicate truth in political advertising, nor does the coalition support the dystopian reforms included in the government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill. Freedom of speech and the contestability of ideas are necessary, indeed compulsory, for a healthy liberal democracy. Distinguishing between truth, opinion and falseness is an inherently subjective process and one that is appropriately left to the Australian public. The federal government and its bureaucrats, no matter how independent and qualified, has neither the scope nor the ability to adjudicate what is or is not misinformation. It is inappropriate for any government body, let alone a government minister, to have the authority to censor the Australian people and their political parties in their communications. Australian democracy ought to remain a marketplace of ideas. If Australians share statements that are considered to be false, it is the role of civil society to hold their statements to account, not for the federal government to prohibit such statements in the first place. The fourth recommendation from the committee relates to mandatory guardrails for AI in high-risk settings. Similar to the first recommendation, the coalition members of the committee do not oppose this recommendation in principle, although the coalition will reserve its final position until the United States policy response is assessed following the US election. The fifth recommendation from the committee is that the government examine mechanisms to improve AI literacy for Australians. While the coalition does not oppose this recommendation, it is particularly important in the electoral contest that any AI education programs are designed following extensive consultation with the opposition. Unlike the theme of the report, the coalition members of the committee hold that freedom of speech is not a mere constitutional guardrail but is integral to the success of our liberal democracy. That is why coalition members of the committee strongly oppose laws that purport to adjudicate truth in political advertising and the dystopian reforms set out in the government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. It is not surprising that the Labor government are seeking to develop further mechanisms to control the Australian public. Indeed, proposals that purport to govern truth in political advertising and proposals targeted at providing social media giants with financial incentives to silence the Australian public play into the consistent dystopian vision that the Labor Party has for our country—a vision of less freedom, greater executive secrecy and less transparency. As such, it is unsurprising that the Labor Party are now attempting to use further vehicles to censor the Australian public, through misinformation regulations and laws that purport to adjudicate truth in political advertising. The coalition members of the committee are concerned that if the government introduces a rushed regulatory model for AI with prohibitions on freedom of speech in an attempt to protect Australia's democracy, the cure will be worse than the disease. The coalition members of the committee would welcome the opportunity to work with the government on balancing how our freedom of speech can be protected in an AI world. 15:51 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia As a starting point, I'd like to commend the chair of the committee, Senator Tony Sheldon, whose leadership and perspicacity have been evident throughout the conduct of this inquiry and are reflected in both the interim report and the thoughtfulness of the contributions that have been made to it. Artificial intelligence is a transformative technology in myriad ways, and its use cases are so broad that they will come to affect almost every aspect of Australian life. That is no less true in the context of the production, consumption and analysis of information and data, and AI in this space presents significant risks and opportunities for Australia. This inquiry has revealed that there are some core regulatory and policy challenges that are required to balance those risks and benefits from AI. They include principles to ensure that AI is deployed safely and responsibly; that AI is deployed and utilised in a manner that improves fairness and opportunity in Australian society rather than detracting from it; that Australia as a country and our people derive the benefits, economic and otherwise, from the safe and responsible use of AI; and that Australia itself has some sovereign capability in the artificial intelligence space. It's also relevant to consider if our regulations in this space are broadly coherent with global frameworks, because AI is a global problem and the generation and use of this technology will transcend borders. The inquiry also revealed some of the regulatory difficulties that AI presents as a technology. First, the current and future uses and capacities of AI are not fully understood and will expand further. There is often an asymmetry of information between AI developers and regulators, and the speed of technological development in this space has sometimes been underestimated and shows no signs of slowing down. The final report will address this issue in a more fulsome way, but the interim report deals with the potential for AI technology and in particular generative AI to influence electoral processes and to undermine public trust and confidence in our democracy. The recommendations of this interim report reflect many of the recurring issues that arose during the inquiry itself. But may I make, as a starting point, a response to Senator McGrath's contribution today, which is to say that no-one from the government—neither in the recommendations in this report nor in the full report when it comes out—is attempting either to limit freedom of speech or to challenge or undermine a marketplace of ideas. That's simply not the objective here. But what is a focus of the inquiry and what is going to be an important aspect of how we regulate AI in this country is making sure that AI is not used to mislead or deceive Australians. That's at its core, and it's so that Australians are not, for instance, consuming false information generated by AI and thinking that it's something else. It's not about undermining the contest of ideas. It's just about making sure that people understand who's speaking at a given point in time. Do they know the information is real? The technology is sufficiently good now—as was demonstrated by one of the other members of the committee, Senator Pocock, in one of his recent posts—that ordinary Australians can produce effectively fake content, and it's important in the context of our democracy that people are protected from that. The methods are various, and I think that's what the first recommendation goes to: attempting to utilise methods like watermarking, setting standards and disclosing to consumers when they are interacting with AI and with AI generated content to ensure that Australians know what they're looking at. I'll deal with one of the other remarks that Senator McGrath made, which was that the Liberals are going to reserve their position. That's understandable to a point, but it does give us an insight into one of the things this parliament will have to do when it's dealing with artificial intelligence, and that is to be as nimble as it can be, because this is a space that moves quickly and the regulations may require significant nuance but also updates as things change in the space. In respect of recommendation 2, I think the coalition generally indicated its support for that. The benefit of that approach, of taking our time, of getting it right, means that we can manage some of the regulatory challenges I mentioned earlier and can ensure that the regulations are carefully designed but also comprehensive. AI will seep into so many aspects of the way we communicate as a society, and it is important that we deal with that comprehensively, or holistically. Recommendations 3 and 4 are aimed at ensuring coherence in the way we deal with AI in the political space and in the broader community. Again, it's not about censoring different things; it's about making sure that people know what they're looking at. The fifth recommendation is, I think, possibly the most important one in terms of the way we as a society deal with AI, because it deals with Australia's digital literacy in this space and the ability of Australians to navigate these fields and environments with appropriate information and sufficient skill sets and knowledge to avoid being deceived, to avoid being misled and to avoid being the victims of bad actors in this space. One of the things that we see around the world, in elections and in broader contexts, is that bad actors use this technology to hurt ordinary people or to deceive ordinary people. One of the best inoculations against that is digital literacy across our entire community. Therefore I'm very proud to stand by recommendation 5 and this interim report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Selection of Bills Committee 79 Report 79 15:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the chair of the committee, I present reports on references initiated by the Selection of Bills Committee. Education and Employment Legislation Committee 79 Report 79 15:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the chair of the committee, I present the committee's report on the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 [Provisions]. 15:58 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 80 BILLS Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023 80

Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023

Report from Committee 80 15:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the chair of the committee, I present the report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. 15:58 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee 80 Additional Information 80 15:59 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present additional information received by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee relating into its inquiry of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. Migration Joint Committee 80 Report 80 15:59 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration titled Migration, pathway to nation building. 15:59 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 80 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 80 16:00 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia When the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability was first announced, I read into the Hansard the names of 35 disabled people. These people had died in the years leading up to the establishment of the royal commission as a direct result of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. The year after the commission completed its work, I had five more names to add to that list. This royal commission gave disabled people the opportunity to share their experiences of being disabled in Australia. Thousands of disabled people, their families and allies courageously shared the stories of discrimination, violence and ableism in the hope that sharing these darkest of days could bring this government to enact real change. The response from the government is a slap in the face to disabled people, their families and their allies. We asked for justice. We asked for an end to violent, discriminatory practice. We asked for an end to segregation. Labor did not deliver it. There were three critical recommendations included in the commission's final report that would remove systemic segregation of disabled people in Australia. The recommendations were to phase out special schools, to phase out the group homes, which were found to be the settings absolutely rife with abuse, and to transition away from so-called ADEs, which uphold segregated employment and are empowered to pay workers far less than the minimum wage. The government did not accept any of these recommendations. In response to the recommendation to phase out segregated education, they said: The Australian Government recognises the ongoing role of specialist settings in service provision for students with disability and providing choice for students with disability and their families. How shameful to suggest that the continuation of segregation is in fact a form of choice. Disabled people deserve to be included in education, in housing and, yes, in employment. On the issue of forced sterilisation, in 2024, forced sterilisation of many members of our community should not be possible. It should not be possible in 2024 to forcibly sterilise a member of the Australian community, yet this government could not even bring themselves to support the DRC's recommendation that forced sterilisation of disabled people should be banned. Disabled people and their families are still coerced into forced sterilisation by lingering ableist ideas surrounding disabled people and sexuality and by fear of how the system's failures may compound their abuse. Reproductive rights are human rights. As long as forced sterilisation of disabled people remains a reality in this country, disabled people will be subjected to horrendous human rights abuses. The agency of disabled people must be acknowledged and must be respected. Disabled people are significantly more likely to live in poverty than the rest of the population, yet this government still condemns us to structures of income support that force us to cohabitate with our abusers. Still this government continues to cut the NDIS, cut people's plans and remove their vital supports. This response is not good enough. We do not accept it. We will continue to push for our full liberation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 81 Consideration 81 16:06 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak to the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For over 100 years, the RSL has been charged with caring for our veterans when they have left the service of our country. Like the national RSL, the New South Wales branch was founded in 1916 to care for the veterans of World War I. It is every RSL branch's job to support veterans and their families and to connect them to services that make their lives better, but I'm sad to tell Australia that veteran owned businesses and certain legal service providers are exploiting our very own vulnerable veterans and they are using the New South Wales RSL to help them out. The pain, suffering and struggles faced by veterans, who have sacrificed so much for our nation, are being further compounded by those who claim to support them but instead are preying on their vulnerability for cash. The transition from military service to civilian life is often riddled with mental, emotional and physical scars, and many veterans seek support from businesses and services run by fellow veterans. Makes sense, right? Surely veteran run businesses would have the best interests of veterans at heart, right? Not always. The findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide are harrowing enough. They reveal systemic failures in mental health care, support services and reintegration programs for veterans. The commission also illustrated a massive failure by ex-service organisations such as the RSL to actually deliver support to veterans and their families. What I am hearing is that those within our own ranks, these veteran owned businesses and legal professionals, are exploiting the weaknesses in some RSL branches for their own gain. Veterans are being charged massive fees for services that don't help do anything to improve their wellbeing but do everything to improve the bank balance of these organisations. Legal service providers, veteran lawyers in particular, have been implicated in unethical practices, taking advantage of veterans' confusion over claims processes and their legal rights and signing them up to expensive contracts, with none of the additional benefits they would have if they went through the claim process with a free advocate. Many of these veterans are in fragile states of mind, dealing with trauma, PTSD, physical injuries and isolation. They come to these businesses and services for help only to find themselves caught in a web of bureaucratic exploitation. Some businesses claim to offer specialised services to veterans but deliver nothing but false hope, leading to further frustration and stress and even, tragically, suicide. This is betrayal of the highest order. I'm going to speak directly to one of the worst examples of this behaviour that is going on and the failure of RSL New South Wales to take meaningful action against these unethical cowboys exploiting veterans for their own ends. The RSL is supposed to be a cornerstone of veteran support in this country, an organisation dedicated to the wellbeing and welfare of the men and women who have served our nation. But instead of taking a stand, RSL New South Wales has failed to act. Why? Because some of their own board members are involved in these practices, which is not only unethical but also a blatant conflict of interest. Specifically, I'm referring to Operational Legal Australia, a law firm owned by Mick Bainbridge and Paul James. Both are also directors of RSL New South Wales. These two men who hold positions of influence and responsibility within RSL New South Wales are simultaneously profiting from a business that has been implicated in unethical practices targeting vulnerable veterans. The veterans coming to Operational Legal Australia for help are often struggling with complex claim processes and seeking guidance. Instead, they find themselves being charged huge fees for incompetently delivered legal services that provide little relief, if any at all. The relationship between their roles at RSL New South Wales and their ownership of this legal firm calls into question the integrity of the RSL's leadership and its ability to act in the best interest of veterans. The shocking nature of this conflict of interest is made even more significant because of Operational Legal Australia's involvement in providing legal services to RSL sub-branches involved in incorporation. Every RSL sub-branch has a duty to support veterans and put the interest of veterans first, but what I am hearing about the conduct of RSL New South Wales and the veteran legal firm Operational Legal Australia, a law firm owned and run by veterans—once again, by Mick Bainbridge and Paul James—is absolutely shocking. I know of multiple RSL sub-branches who were encouraged to use OLA for the incorporation of their sub-branches while Mr Ray James, the father of Paul James, the co-owner of OLA, was president of RSL New South Wales and then later when Mick Bainbridge and Paul James got themselves elected to the RSL board on very slim numbers, I might add. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Your time has expired, Senator. Senator Lambie 250026 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Housing Australia Future Fund 82 Order for the Production of Documents 82 16:11 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. On 16 September, the housing minister, Clare O'Neil, released a statement in conjunction with the Prime Minister outlining that the government was going to direct in some form that the Housing Australia Future Fund, through Housing Australia, would be creating thousands of houses. They've said that this is the first round of Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund and National Housing Accord programs, which will deliver about 13,000 new homes. On 17 September the next day, the Senate passed an order requiring that the details of the recipients of these funds be published, which is quite a reasonable request from the Senate, given that all we have from the housing minister is a couple of pages on the Treasury website. This is after this Housing Australia Future Fund having been the government's main supply policy, which was announced before the last election and is part of a massive failure on housing. We have seen the number of houses built in Australia collapse from 225,000 just eight years ago down to under 160,000 in this year. All this order of the Senate from almost a month ago requires is who actually is going to receive taxpayer funds and the details of correspondence with institutional investors. The government says that it doesn't have a plan to create a corporate housing agenda, but all the evidence suggests that the government is very focused on trying to shovel taxpayer funds, subsidies and policy to create a system where major institutions, like foreign fund managers and superannuation funds, are able to build and buy and own in perpetuity the houses of Australians and thereby distort the Australian dream from one which is owned by individuals to one which is owned by major corporations. One of the organisations that has sought to do business with the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Housing Australia organisation is the Cbus Super fund, which is chaired by Mr Wayne Swan, who is also the President of the Labor Party. I would have thought it would be reasonable that we could get an answer to whether or not that organisation, which is connected with the CFMEU, is going to be one of the recipients either directly or as a consortium which is seeking to build houses with taxpayer support. We don't know. What we do know is this parliament thought it was important enough to put the CFMEU into administration but has not sought to protect taxpayer funds held in the HAFF from being planted by the CFMEU through its associate Cbus. The lack of transparency here is, frankly, astounding. I wrote to the housing minister, Ms O'Neil, on 23 September, and I have received no response to that letter. I also note there have been a series of letters over this parliament where there have been orders for the production of documents where there have been falsified public interest immunity claims filed with the Senate, which we will prosecute at Senate estimates. On this occasion, in relation to this order, the minister, Ms O'Neil, has written to the finance minister, suggesting, 'There is a need to review the identified documents, consistent with Senate practice, to ensure their content is suitable for public disclosure.' They've already announced they're going to build all these houses with taxpayer funds, so, surely, if they've already made the announcement with a big press release from the Prime Minister, the government should stick to its promise that it was going to be a government of integrity and transparency and provide the information of who exactly is going to get this taxpayer funding. Do those organisations include Cbus or the CFMEU? Do they include all the old mates from the unions? We want to know who's going to get this money, and we want to see the Senate's will acted upon. What is the point of coming down to Canberra and having these sittings and agreeing to things, with the support of the crossbench—and I thank the crossbench for their support—when the government of the day treats the Senate with absolute contempt and will not comply with its orders? We look forward to prosecuting this in the future, but I will say this is another very disappointing example of a lack of transparency. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. BILLS 83 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 83

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024

Second Reading 83 16:17 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to table my second reading speech on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I understand you're seeking leave to have that incorporated in Hansard, and that that's been agreed to. Leave granted. The speech read as follows — Thank you. The Trans Pacific Partnership was expanded in 2018 to include Great Britain. The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024 is to make changes to the tariff structure to give effect to that agreement. The tariff changes create winners and losers, on the balance these tariff changes are neutral for Australia. For clarity for social media, despite the misleading name, this bill does not expand the TPP. Legislation to expand the TPP occurred in 2018 and One Nation voted against the measure. And we will vote against today's bill as well. One Nation supports fair trade not free trade. We oppose globalism in all it's forms. The Australian Government should direct all their energies to encouraging all Australians, those who were here first and those all who are here now, to lift themselves up through their own hard work and enterprise. Instead successive governments have pursued a global agenda that reduces Australian sovereignty, introduces multiple layers of complexity to industries in a way that reduces enterprise, not encourages it. The outcome is reduced wealth and reduced opportunity. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one sovereign nation. DOCUMENTS 83 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 83 Order for the Production of Documents 83 16:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The document I was taking note of is the McPhillamys gold mine Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (Kings Plains) Declaration 2024. It was an order the Senate agreed to some time ago—I think it was 12 September, as a matter of fact. The documents that we were seeking as a Senate, and that the Senate voted for as a majority, weren't provided to us. We had a letter telling us more time was needed. In taking note of the documents before the Senate, as flimsy as they are, I will make a couple of points. Those documents point to the flimsy process the government went through in making the decision it did in relation to the McPhillamys gold mine. I want to remind the Senate and anyone who happens to be unfortunate enough to be listening this afternoon that the McPhillamys gold mine, which would have created over 800 jobs in a small community in regional New South Wales, just outside of Orange, in Blayney, had received full state and federal environmental approval. There aren't many projects that manage to jump those hurdles and clear those hoops like this project did over nearly five years of hard work. The proponents of the mine, Regis Resources, in getting the project to this point, spent $192 million complying with every request, every regulation, every rule and every law, state and federal, and they got the big green tick from the New South Wales Labor government, the Minns government, who were fully supportive of this mine, and they even got EPBC Act approval too. So what went wrong? We still don't know why it went wrong, but let me tell you what actually went wrong. Despite having full environmental and planning approval— Senator Cadell 300134 They must be building it. Senator DUNIAM 263418 You would think, as Senator Cadell says, that they must be building it by now. Well, no—sadly not. You would expect the story would flow on from full environmental approval mine construction and jobs being created on the ground, but the case is very different, sadly. The mine isn't being built, and the company that spent $192 million is not getting anything back from it. The community relying on those 800 jobs that were going to be created has nothing to show for the work that's been undertaken. What we were asking for here was to understand exactly what detail the minister relied upon in making her decision to say no to this project, and we still don't know. We do know that there is a small group of Wiradjuri people in and around Blayney who formed a small charitable organisation to campaign on matters Indigenous. We also know that there is the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the organisation recognised under law as the land council to speak on behalf of country for that area. Interestingly, that group, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the group of Indigenous Australians recognised under law to speak on behalf of country, was happy for the mine to go ahead. Indeed, the proponents of the mine had worked through a process with that organisation to comply with every cultural heritage request. I understand something like seven changes were made. Regis Resources worked with 13 registered Aboriginal parties. There were 1,700 pages of reports done by consultants, relating specifically to Indigenous cultural heritage. Yet somehow a group managed to convince the minister—and I wonder whether the minister is relying solely on this group's information and advice—to block this project, which would have created 800 jobs, a billion dollars of economic activity and an ongoing return to the state of New South Wales in the hundreds of millions of dollars when it comes to royalty revenue. We don't know. We have no clarity. Despite the months of waiting we've had, the huge media interest and the community outcry over this terrible decision, the minister has yet to provide us with what she's required to by law, the statement of reasons under the ATSIHP Act. We don't have any clarity on the correspondence with the various entities the minister communicated with. At least we know publicly that the New South Wales Labor minister, who is on the right side of the ledger on this one, said that it was the wrong call that Minister Plibersek made. We know that the planning commission got it right. We know that the advice of the hand-picked expert on this matter under the action the minister took did not recommend that she knock this mine on the head. So why was it stopped, and why won't the minister give us the detail we are seeking to ensure that we can overturn this terrible decision? I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 84 COMMITTEES 84 COMMITTEES Consideration 84 DOCUMENTS 84 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Attorney-General's Department, Department of the Treasury, Department of Home Affairs, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Health and Aged Care 84 Order for the Production of Documents 84 16:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Tasmanian devils on Robbins Island, deaths in custody, student visas, harmful gambling and the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check report. Department of Defence 84 16:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table the 2023-24 annual reports of the Judge Advocate General and the Director of Military Prosecutions. I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. Today the government is tabling the Defence Force Discipline reports, comprising the Judge Advocate General Defence Force Discipline annual report 2023 and the Director of Military Prosecution annual report 2023. The reports provide an update to parliament on the operation and application of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 and associated legislation. As has been the case in previous reports, these reports make a series of reform recommendations. Annual reports are provided to the parliament to inform public understanding, debate and consideration of issues. They are not provided to government as a mechanism for policy change. What is clear here, though, is a longstanding gap in the military justice system between the operation of state and territory jurisdictions and military jurisdiction when it comes to the recording of convictions, a gap which this government wishes to see closed. When members of the Australian Defence Force are convicted of a serious service offence through the military courts, those convictions are not reflected on their civilian criminal history records. While most serious criminal offences involving military personnel are dealt with by civilian courts in the criminal justice system, the military justice system routinely deals with service offences that should be reflected in criminal records, including sexual and violence based offences. The government sees no reason why, in 2024, someone who is tried and convicted of serious offences in the military justice system, including acts of indecency and intimate image abuse, should not have those convictions recorded in the same manner as civilians. By not recording a conviction on a civilian record, we are falling short of society's expectations and Defence's values. This is why the Minister for Defence directed Defence to engage with the Attorney-General's Department and the Judge Advocate General to develop a policy and establish a pathway for reporting certain service convictions to an authority of the Commonwealth or of a state or a territory for purposes connected with investigating, prosecuting or keeping records in relation to offences against laws of the Commonwealth, the state or the territory. This is an issue which we have been aware of and engaged on since coming to government. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide final report recommended we address this as a matter of urgency. It is not a simple undertaking, but it is the right thing to do. I can advise the Senate that the Minister for Defence has recently agreed to that policy and the pathway to implement it. Defence is working with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission on the disclosure of reportable service offences through the national police reference system. This decision is about futureproofing Australia's military justice system to empower it to hold personnel who come before it to the same standards that would be applied under civilian systems. It will ensure that service convictions society would expect to appear on a criminal history record will apply to members of the ADF, even once they leave the Defence Force. 16:28 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I thank the minister for that report. I take note of it and seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 85 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023 85

Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

First Reading 85 16:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 85 16:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (BETTER TARGETED SUPERANNUATION CONCESSIONS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2023 This Bill makes targeted, responsible reforms to support better economic, fiscal and regulatory outcomes. Schedules 1 to 3 to the Bill reduce the tax concessions on Total Superannuation Balances exceeding $3 million. The Government's proposed objective of superannuation is 'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way.' In line with this objective, the measure implemented by these schedules is a modest, responsible change to better target tax concessions in superannuation. From 2025-26, the concessional tax rate applying to future earnings of superannuation balances above $3 million will be a headline rate of 30 per cent. Earnings corresponding to amounts below $3 million will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent. This measure maintains concessional taxation within superannuation, and does not place a limit on the total amount that can be held within superannuation, beyond what is constrained by relevant contribution caps. It ensures that concessions are better targeted at amounts that deliver income for a dignified retirement. In 2025-26, the additional tax on earnings imposed by the Bill is expected to apply to around 80,000 people, meaning 99.5 per cent of individuals with a superannuation account will be unaffected. This change will increase revenue by $950 million over the five years from 2022-23. In 2027-28, the first full year of revenue collection, the measure is expected to increase revenue by $2.3 billion. Schedule 4 will allow the Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the ACNC, to make disclosures about new or ongoing investigations where the disclosure would prevent or minimise the risk of significant harm. Secrecy provisions currently prevent the ACNC from disclosing whether it is investigating alleged misconduct by a charity. This adversely impacts public trust and confidence in the sector and in the ACNC as an effective regulator. This reform will allow the ACNC to assure charities and donors that it is acting on issues of public concern and strengthening compliance, which will boost public confidence that the sector is doing the right thing. By increasing public trust and confidence in charities and the ACNC, this reform will help to ensure donors and philanthropists continue their support for the sector. This will contribute to the Government's election commitment of doubling philanthropic giving by 2030. Schedule 5 changes the frequency of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (FRAA) review cycles. Increasing the FRAA review cycles to every five years will support the FRAA to deliver more comprehensive reviews of ASIC and APRA. It will facilitate the delivery of more considered recommendations than is possible under the current biennial review cycle, which will improve the effectiveness of our financial system regulators. Regulators will also have additional time to respond to recommendations between reviews, allowing future panels to assess implementation meaningfully and direct their focus more productively. Schedule 6 amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure those laws operate in accordance with policy intent, make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as correcting technical and drafting defects. Schedule 7 provides licensing relief to facilitate access by Australian professional and wholesale investors to global investment opportunities so they can diversify their financial holdings. This improves outcomes for millions of Australians as these services are commonly used by superannuation funds, among other financial firms. To date, this relief has generally been provided by way of ASIC instrument. However, this legislation will elevate this relief to primary legislation and improve oversight for the regulator. This gives certainty to the industry that financial institutions and eligible investors can access the financial products and services offered by foreign financial service providers. Schedule 7 provides targeted exemptions for foreign financial services providers that are either authorised in a comparable regulatory regime, a market maker in respect of derivatives that are traded on prescribed licensed markets, or providing financial services to professional investors. Schedule 7 will also exempt certain foreign companies from the fit-and-proper person assessment when applying for a standard financial services licence in Australia, if they wish to do so. This only applies to companies regulated by a comparable regulator and is a restricted licence that enables them to service wholesale clients. Schedule 8 updates the payments system regulatory framework to address the risks posed by new and emerging technologies. The amendments expand the definitions of "payment system" and "participant" to ensure the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has the ability to regulate all participants and payment systems, including digital wallet providers and Buy Now Pay Later service providers. Further, it also introduces a new ministerial designation power that will allow the Treasurer to designate payment services or platforms that present risks of national significance, allowing them to be subject to additional oversight by appropriate regulators. Schedule 8 gives the RBA greater powers to regulate a broader range of players in the payment system, as well as extending these powers to other relevant regulators where there is a material risk to the 'national interest'. These changes will modernise our payments regulation framework to ensure it is fit for purpose, now and into the future. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations were notified in relation to amendments in Schedules 6, 7 and 8 in accordance with the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. SUPERANNUATION (BETTER TARGETED SUPERANNUATION CONCESSIONS) IMPOSITION BILL 2023 This Bill inserts a new Division 296 in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which imposes a tax rate of 15 per cent for superannuation earnings corresponding to the percentage of an individual's superannuation balance that exceeds $3 million for an income year. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024 87

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024

Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024

First Reading 87 16:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 87 16:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER-TERRORISM FINANCING AMENDMENT BILL 2024 The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 implements long overdue, major reforms to Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing, or AML/CTF regime. 'Tranche-one' of these reforms was introduced in 2006, and this bill will finally deliver on vital 'tranche-two' reforms. These reforms are a key pillar of the Albanese Labor Government's efforts to protect the community from serious and organised crime, and growing national security threats. Right now, Australia is an attractive destination to store, launder, and legitimise proceeds of crime. That can not continue—and this bill will put an end to it. Money laundering is not a victimless crime. Each year, billions of dollars of illicit funds are generated from criminal activity such as drug trafficking, cybercrime, child exploitation, tax evasion, and other illegal and corrupt practices. It is also used by authoritarian regimes to fuel corruption, and undermine the rule of law across the world. Money laundering diminishes tax revenue and diverts government resources that could otherwise be used to assist all Australians through greater investments in education and health services. Instead, it increases the burden on law enforcement. It also distorts markets. Hard working Australians have to compete in the housing market against criminals with dirty cash, or run their businesses against loss making, criminally owned enterprises. AUSTRAC's National Risk Assessments on money laundering and terrorism financing, released on 9 July 2024, found that Australia's economy continues to be exploited by money launderers, and risks financing terrorist organisations. Money launderers still prefer to conduct their operations via traditional methods using cash, banks, luxury goods, real estate and casinos. Lawful domestic financial channels are a significant pathway for money launderers to funnel their wealth and are also the preferred channels for moving funds for terrorism. For almost 18 years, Government inaction has led to significant regulatory gaps leaving Australia vulnerable. The AML/CTF Amendment Bill delivers on the Albanese Labor Government's commitment to protecting Australians by strengthening our AML/CTF regime. It means preventing criminals from enjoying the profits of their illegal activities, and putting an end to funds falling into the hands of terrorists and authoritarian regimes. There are three overarching elements of these reforms. Regulating 'gatekeeper' professions First, we are regulating so-called 'tranche-two' entities—Australia's 'gatekeepers' against criminal activity and terrorism. They are entities who are internationally recognised as high risk for money laundering and corruption—including real estate agents, accountants, lawyers, and precious stone dealers. 'Gatekeeper' businesses will be asked to assess their illicit financing risks and put in place controls to prevent the exploitation of their services. Information from these businesses will help law enforcement and national security agencies to protect the Australian community. Simplification and clarification Second, we are simplifying and clarifying parts of the legislation that can be complex for industry to comply with—while maintaining the integrity and strength of the regime. It means more guidance, less confusion, and better financial intelligence to support law enforcement investigations. Modernisation Third, this bill will modernise the AML/CTF regime to ensure it responds to the increasingly digital, instant nature of our global financial system. It will close the loopholes that we know increasingly sophisticated, professional criminal organisations can currently exploit. Regulating Australia's 'Gatekeepers' Regulating 'gatekeeper' professions means partnering with more sectors to monitor suspicious and criminal activity, and it will make a world of difference. AUSTRAC's National Risk Assessments found that these professions and the products and services they deal with are often relied upon by criminal networks to facilitate money laundering, either wittingly or unwittingly. Given their roles as entry points to Australia's legitimate economy, these reforms will strengthen and protect these professions against criminal exploitation and reputational damage. When businesses implement measures, they will make it more difficult for criminals to launder the proceeds of their crimes—and help weed out the bad actors in those sectors. Law enforcement in Australia sees case after case of these professions creating structures and obfuscations to hide the proceeds of crime, and facilitating serious financial crimes. This bill puts them on notice. The bill also provides stronger, more tailored protections for information that may be subject to legal professional privilege. This includes clear exemptions and mechanisms for regulated entities to comply with their reporting and disclosure obligations without being required to disclose privileged information to AUSTRAC and other agencies. Simplification of existing obligation Expanding the sectors covered by the AML/CTF regime will have regulatory impacts. But we are minimising regulatory burden wherever possible, while maintaining the overall integrity of the regime. For instance, the AML/CTF program obligation will now focus on high-level outcomes to be achieved—identifying and assessing the risks of illicit financing, and then taking steps to mitigate and manage those risks. It means the reforms will provide businesses with the flexibility to achieve these outcomes in a way that works best for them, based on the risks of their particular business. This moves the regime further away from prescriptive, tick box compliance. The bill will introduce simplified measures for AML/CTF programs, enabling business groups such as corporate groups, franchises and partnerships, to implement single, group-wide AML/CTF risk management and compliance frameworks. This better reflects the reality of modern business structures. The bill will also streamline the ability of Australian businesses to provide services to customers engaged overseas, by clarifying AML/CTF requirements for their foreign branches and subsidiaries. Reforms to customer due diligence requirements will implement a simpler, risk-based approach that reporting entities can more easily understand and comply with. This will support Australian businesses to better prevent financial crimes and result in higher quality reporting to AUSTRAC. This aspect of the reforms is intended to lower regulatory costs and support industry compliance, while also addressing a number of inefficiencies throughout the AML/CTF regime. The Government will also be repealing the current Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (FTR Act). When the AML/CTF Act was first introduced in 2006, parts of the FTR Act were repealed or became inoperative. However, other parts of the FTR Act continued to impose residual obligations on cash dealers and solicitors. This created two AML/CTF reporting regimes, which is inefficient and complicated. So, the FTR Act will be gone. Digital and virtual asset services These reforms will bring Australia's regime in line with current international standards by expanding the regulation of digital currency services so they are on a level playing field with the rest of the financial sector. Amendments to the AML/CTF regime in 2017 were intended to be the first legislative step in improving Australia's regime, and expanded it to cover exchange services involving digital currencies such as Bitcoin. These amendments made our regime world-leading at the time, but we have since fallen behind global partners in recent years. Currently, the AML/CTF regime only covers exchanges between virtual assets and fiat—or government-backed—currencies by digital currency exchange providers. This will be expanded to also include exchanges between different forms of virtual assets, transfers on behalf of customers, administration of virtual assets, and related financial services. Technological advancements over the past decade have made it harder to detect and track innovative and ever-evolving illicit transactions. These amendments will assist AUSTRAC to generate actionable financial intelligence on how criminal networks are using these services to manage the proceeds of their crimes—and how to stop them. Updating value transfer regulation The bill will also help close gaps in AUSTRAC's financial intelligence holdings, which can hinder law enforcement investigations. The bill will update the 'travel rule', which is a FATF requirement about payer and payee information that helps to ensure end-to-end transparency of who is making and receiving payments. Amendments will also reform International Funds Transfer Instruction reports, which are a critical source of financial intelligence. The bill will streamline value transfer services, which is currently unnecessarily complex and fails to cover the transfer of digital assets. Enhancing AUSTRAC's regulatory powers The bill makes a number of timely updates to AUSTRAC's regulatory and information-gathering powers to ensure AUSTRAC can effectively monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with the AML/CTF regime. These amendments will bring AUSTRAC in line with other regulatory agencies that conduct large numbers of complex investigations. The reforms are accompanied by safeguards and protections around AUSTRAC's use of these powers. Consultation and partnership with industry The Attorney-General's Department conducted two extensive rounds of public consultation with stakeholders between April 2023 and June 2024, with over 270 submissions received, and over 100 stakeholder meetings, including industry roundtables. The AML/CTF regime is a partnership with industry at the frontline of prevention. The Government is committed to ensuring industry is supported to meet its obligations under the new AML/CTF regime. We demonstrated our commitment to this task with over $160 million invested to implement these overdue reforms, including comprehensive education and guidance to support newly regulated businesses on the requirements of the Act and accompanying AML/CTF Rules. AUSTRAC will commence engagement and consultation with industry on concepts and a draft of the AML/CTF Rules in the coming months. This will ensure they are tailored and appropriate for different sectors, and will enable sufficient time for industry to transition to additional obligations. Grey Listing Critically, these reforms will bring Australia in line with the international standards for combatting money laundering and terrorism financing set by the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, the global financial watchdog. In 2015, the FATF found that Australia had failed to comply with a number of vital standards. They singled out Australia's failure to extend our AML/CTF regime to 'gatekeeper' or 'tranche-two' professions. Australia was a founding member of FATF, yet today, we are one of only five jurisdictions that are non-compliant with the FATF standards on regulating 'gatekeeper' professions. Without these reforms, Australia risks being seen by the global community as a jurisdiction with a weak AML/CTF system—or being 'grey listed'. A grey listing would have significant economic impacts for all Australians as the global financial sector and other regulated professions around the world would be required to treat Australia as a high-risk jurisdiction. It would lead to increased costs for businesses, and damage to Australia's international reputation—and we can not let that happen. Conclusion Any further inaction on our AML/CTF regime will enable criminals to continue to exploit our systems and businesses—and launder the proceeds of their crime through the Australian economy. These reforms are a critical and long overdue step in ensuring Australia's compliance with international standards, so that Australia does not become an international 'back door' for illicit funds. We are acting now to prevent the criminal abuse of our economy—and the harm and suffering caused to our entire community. . You cannot put a price on the need to fight against terrorism and child abuse. We must do everything we can to protect Australia from the dangers of money laundering—and we are. This is about protecting the interests of all Australians. It is about keeping us safe—and protecting the fair go. We are taking up the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing in Australia—and it is about time. I commend the bill to the House. UNIVERSITIES ACCORD (NATIONAL STUDENT OMBUDSMAN) BILL 2024 Last year I sat down with a group of remarkable women here in this building. And they spoke to me about their experiences on university campuses. For most of us who have the chance to go to university it is a time of learning new skills and making friends. An experience that changes our life for the better. That sets us up for life. But their stories weren't like that. These women were from the STOP campaign and from End Rape on Campus and from Fair Agenda. And their stories were of what had happened to them and to people they knew at university. People among the one in 20 who have reported being sexually assaulted since they started university. The one in six who have reported being sexually harassed. And stories of a confused and inadequate response process within our universities. Of inconsistent complaints processes. Of a lack of materials on how to even make a complaint to begin with. A lack of education on consent. A lack of feedback when a complaint had been made. A response process where one in two students felt like they weren't being heard when they made a complaint. In short, a protracted failure of the higher education sector, and of government, to do anything to properly address a situation summarised so poignantly—and so heartbreakingly—in the words of this student: "I'm sick of my friends being assaulted, I'm sick of begging to feel safe, and I'm sick of feeling ignored." For the last 10 years, Sharna Bremner has been fighting for the rights of students like this. That's what her organisation, End Rape on Campus does. She's here in the Chamber today. And she's not alone. Camille Schloeffel and the team at The STOP Campaign, Renee Carr from Fair Agenda, and Dr Allison Henry are here too. In truth, they have always been here. Fighting for this day. Alongside thousands of students and staff who want a better system. Who want to be heard. Who want to feel safe. And who want action, not more words. Well today, we act. This bill amends the Ombudsman Act 1976 to establish a National Student Ombudsman as a new statutory function of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This is a first. A dedicated, national body to handle student complaints within our higher education system. Across campuses. Across the country. The National Student Ombudsman will have the powers: to investigate complaints about a broad range of issues; to bring parties together to resolve those issues, including offering restorative engagement processes and alternative dispute resolution where appropriate; to make findings and recommendations on what actions universities should take; and to monitor the implementation of those recommendations. It will have strong investigative powers, similar to those of a Royal Commission, including: to require a person or university to provide information, documents or other records relevant to an investigation; to enter the premises of a university as part of an investigation; and to require a person to attend and answer questions before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is another recommendation of the Universities Accord report which this Government is turning into a reality. When I spoke to those students last year the Universities Accord panel was already looking at this issue. After that meeting it was clear to me that this work needed a dedicated process. And it was clear to the Universities Accord panel as well. In their Interim Report released in July 2023, they recommended as one of five priority actions to immediately engage with the state and territory governments on addressing this problem. My Department convened a working group of Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to make recommendations about how an ombudsman and other measures might be delivered. That working group was supported by Ms Patty Kinnersly, the Chief Executive Officer of Our Watch, and a national leader in the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia. They developed a draft Action Plan that I presented to the Meeting of Education Ministers last November. From November 2023 to the end of January this year, we conducted a broad consultation on that draft Action Plan, and one of the things that students and victim-survivors in particular strongly supported was a National Student Ombudsman. An ombudsman isn't a new concept. It's something that advocates have been calling for, for many years—particularly after university student surveys in 2016 and 2021 that painted a shocking picture of safety on university campuses. Those calls were ignored by the previous Government. But not by this one. In February this year, my fellow Education Ministers agreed to a final Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education and we got to work immediately on measures to implement it. The measures in this bill have been designed with the benefit of the collective expertise and wisdom of the working group. The National Student Ombudsman will provide a trauma-informed complaints mechanism accessible to higher education students. This is particularly important in recognising the serious impacts these issues can have on students, and in making sure their concerns are handled with care and respect. The Ombudsman will be independent, impartial and will provide a vastly improved complaints mechanism. And it will go further than addressing gender-based violence in universities. It will be able to consider and address a broad range of complaints made by students about the actions of their university. For example, complaints about a university's handling of a student safety and welfare matter, where a student is subjected to homophobia, anti-semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism on campus. Or about whether a university is providing sufficient staffing to meet students' educational and academic needs. Or complaints about disciplinary processes and procedures. Or whether a university is making reasonable adjustments for students with a disability. The Ombudsman will have a wide jurisdiction. And one that is truly national. We have negotiated with the states and territories to ensure that matters that might have been reported to their state and territory ombudsmen are able to be referred to this dedicated national one. It means that a single Ombudsman can bring to bear a national perspective and experience of what is going on across our universities, and give students a consistent complaints process. The Ombudsman will work proactively with the higher education sector to set up best practices in complaint handling and make sure that the student's welfare is at the centre. And it will work with regulators to share information and identify systemic issues. As an oversight body, the Ombudsman will work cooperatively with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and with my Department. It will also work cooperatively with state and territory ombudsmen and other relevant bodies, such as human rights, anti-discrimination and equal opportunity bodies. There will be annual reporting to Parliament on the numbers and types of complaints and the actions of universities. The Ombudsman will also make an important contribution to the work to end gender-based violence in one generation, which is being led by the Minister for Social Services. And it will be followed by other measures from the Action Plan agreed between education ministers. As part of that I intend to introduce a second piece of legislation, which will further support the work of the Ombudsman by implementing a mandatory National Code for universities to prevent and respond to gender-based violence. The National Code will set standards that higher education providers must meet to make our students and staff safer. It will be enforced and regulated by a new specialist unit at the Department of Education, that will regulate the standards and support universities to achieve better outcomes for students. The consultation for that Code is well underway. The National Code will set standards that providers must meet across seven key areas. They are summarised in this document, which sets out how the Code will work and gives some examples of the standards which will be set. Standards like ensuring that Vice-Chancellors and CEOs are held responsible for compliance with the National Code. Compelling providers to update their policies to specify that gender-based violence is unacceptable, and identifying the potential consequences for perpetrators. Specifying procedures that providers must follow to ensure that students consistently receive a swift response to their reports of gender-based violence. Requiring ongoing prevention and response education to staff and students. Creating a national dataset to monitor providers' performance. Setting strict requirements that university owned and/or operated student accommodation must meet to keep students safe in that setting. And—very importantly—requiring that universities implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman. The Code and the Ombudsman will work together to improve responses to students and the accountability of all higher education providers. I will release more information on the National Code when I introduce the bill which will give it effect. Mr Speaker, our reforms to higher education are deliberately and unapologetically focused on supporting Australian students. That includes wiping $3 billion of HELP debt. For the first time ever providing financial support for students when they do their practical placement. And now this—another national first. A National Student Ombudsman. Mr Speaker, can I thank my friend and colleague the Attorney-General, and our respective Departments and offices, for their work in bringing this bill to the Parliament today. I thank my colleagues behind me for their support. Can also I thank members of the crossbench here and in the Senate for their support. I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments in this chamber some months ago, pledging his support. Most importantly, can I thank Sharna, Renee, Camille, Allison and all those who have fought for this, year after year after year. They should get the last word here. Shortly after we made the announcement, Sharna said: "After 50 years of student-led advocacy, we've finally gotten reform." It has taken too long, but that reform is now here. Because of Sharna and people like her. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. COMMITTEES 92 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 92 Membership 92 Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Parliamentary Standards Joint Select Committee, Privileges Committee 92 Membership 92 16:32 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 16:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Economics Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator McKim Economics References Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into home ownership Participating member: Senator McKim Parliamentary Standards — Joint Statutory Committee — Appointed—Senators Brockman and Chandler Privileges — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator McGrath Appointed—Senator Chandler Question agreed to. MOTIONS 93 MOTIONS Economy 93 16:33 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate notes Labor's high taxing, high spending 2024-25 Budget will make the lives of Australians harder by putting further pressure on inflation and keeping interest rates higher for longer. We are now seeing the flow-on effects of Labor's high-spending, high-taxing budget that was brought down earlier this year, and the effects upon the Australian people are quite devastating. I want to read some statistics. These are the impacts of inflation that are flowing through our economy. Since the last election, the cost of health care has gone up 10.5 per cent, the cost of education has gone up 11.2 per cent, the cost of food has gone up 12.3 per cent and the cost of housing has gone up 13.1 per cent. I'll be saying something further about housing shortly. Rent has gone up 16.3 per cent—again, I'll be providing some further details in that regard shortly. Finance and insurance have gone up 17.3 percent. The price of gas, in a country which is blessed with plentiful supplies—if we could only get it to market—has gone up 33.8 per cent since the last election. These numbers are quite devastating and they have real-world impacts upon my constituents in the state of Queensland who are doing it tough, doing it really tough, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. These consequences are flowing from a big taxing, big spending government and that is what the final budget outcome that has just been released has indicated. Compared to before the election, Labor has raised $104 billion in additional income—that is, $104 billion in additional taxes was raised by the Albanese Labor government since the last election—and that includes $43 billion of higher taxes on households and $54 billion of higher taxes on businesses contributing to that $104 billion figure. The other question raised is: how is it sustainable? Even with those high revenue numbers in additional tax, spending is growing faster as a percentage of GDP than taxes. So even with an extra $104 billion of receipts, including an extra $43 billion in household taxes and an extra $54 billion in business taxes, the government is spending at an even faster rate than it is raising the additional taxes, with spending growing faster as a percentage of GDP than tax receipts. Listen to these figures: as a percentage of GDP in real terms, spending has grown by 2.9 per cent compared to tax receipts at 0.2 per cent of GDP. Taxes are increasing on both households and businesses but, at the same time, spending is increasing even further. It is not sustainable. Let's be honest here. The government's budget is only supported by record-high commodity prices. When those commodity prices weaken and those tax receipts, especially corporate tax receipts, start to decrease, the spending is locked in and that means a structural deficit in the medium to longer term and that is gravely concerning, extremely concerning. I want to talk about the cost of rents. Since the last election, national median weekly rents have increased by 23 per cent from $512 to $632 a week. That equates to an extra $6,240 a year. Since the last election, just to pay your rent is now an extra $6,240 a year. The impact of the government policies—higher interest rates, higher taxing—is $6,240 a year in extra rent. My office is located in the outer urban area in Queensland, in a place called Springfield, which is in the Ipswich City Council area. I want to talk to you about the increase in rents in my local area. This is based on research I got the Parliamentary Library to do and it is quite staggering. There are a lot of battlers who live in my region of Ipswich doing it tough in the cost-of-living crisis, so I did some research to see how much the rent has increased in the greater Ipswich region. For a one-bedroom flat in Ipswich, the cost of renting that in June 2022 was $265 a week but that has now increased in the space of two years to $350 a week, an increase of $85 a week, 14.9 per cent, or $4,420 a year extra in rent. The rent for a basic minimal standard of living, a one-bedroom flat in my area of Ipswich where my office is located, increased by $4,420 in the two years since the last election. That's a staggering increase. Senator Roberts knows the area of Ipswich very well, and he'll know the demographics of that area. There are a lot of battlers. If you have a one-bedroom flat in Ipswich, you are a battler and the property you rent has gone up by $4,420 a year. Looking down these figures, a two-bedroom apartment's cost per year has gone up by $3,640. A three-bedroom apartment has gone up $5,200. A two-bedroom house has gone up $5,200. If you have a larger family, for a three-bedroom house in Ipswich the average rent has gone up by $5,720 a year. For an average three-bedroom house in my area of Ipswich, where my office is located, rent has gone up by $5,720 a year. That is an astronomical amount. A four-bedroom house has gone up by the same amount. For a three-bedroom townhouse the cost to rent over the year has gone up by $130 a week. That's an average change of 16.2 per cent, which is $6,760. There were 195 tenancies for a three-bedroom townhouse in the Ipswich and Somerset local government authority region commencing on the June quarter 2024. Those tenants, those families, will be $6,760, after tax, worse off as a result of the increase in those rents. These are astronomical figures. In the Somerset local government authority region, which is also in the federal seat of Blair and which I am duty senator for, the cost of the rent for a three-bedroom house has gone up by $3,640 a year. This is after-tax income. The cost of a four-bedroom house has gone up by $6,760 a year in rent. These are absolutely astronomical figures and are deeply concerning. We have people in my Ipswich region who are living in parks because they can't afford to pay these increases in rent, which, as I've outlined, are up to $6,760 a year greater than what they were. Things are bad enough as they are. We have to ask ourselves the question: how much worse will they be if the Labor government after the next election are a minority government and then effectively only hold government with the support of the Greens? How much worse would they be? I have previously spoken in this place with respect to the spending ideas which the Greens have which are simply on another planet—absolutely bonkers. The Greens' proposals, to use a detailed economic term, are bonkers! The Greens' spending ideas are absolutely off the planet. We are actually seeing in the context of the Queensland state election at the moment what the Greens' ideas are with respect to spending in my home state of Queensland. I live in a beautiful part of the world, in Brisbane, where we have one of the oldest golf clubs, the Brisbane Golf Club. It was established some 128 years ago. The Greens actually propose to nationalise, confiscate and appropriate this golf club. That is what the Greens are taking to the next election. The Greens want to appropriate, confiscate and nationalise the Brisbane Golf Club. It's like Venezuela. This is a golf club with 1,600 members and a history going back 128 years. They're Australian leaders in terms of supporting women in golf. In fact, they got awarded the 2023 Visionary of the Year golf club award in 2023 from Golf Australia for everything they are doing with respect to promoting the participation of women in golf. The Greens want to nationalise it. They want to appropriate this golf club. I'll quote from the Greens' Venezuelan-like manifesto. This is how they described this golf club with 128 years of history. They said they want to: Buy back the giant 60ha golf course in Yeerongpilly/Rocklea and establish a 'New Rocks Riverside' public park with outdoor water play and playgrounds, BBQ areas, flood resilience and biodiversity areas … This is a golf club that's been in existence for over 120 years and has over 1,600 members, and the Greens want to go in there and confiscate it, nationalise it— Senator Roberts 266524 Steal it! Senator SCARR 282997 steal it, as Senator Roberts says. This is quite extraordinary! Have you actually consulted the members of the golf club on this crazy Greens extreme proposal to nationalise, appropriate and confiscate their golf club? Did you actually consult them? Have you raised this crazy idea to confiscate this golf club? Did you actually talk to the members of the golf club before you put out this manifesto, this Greens radical extreme manifesto, to nationalise, appropriate and confiscate their golf club? Golfers of Australia beware: the Greens are coming after you. The Greens are coming after your golf clubs. They're coming after your golf club itself! This is 128 years of history in my region of Queensland, and the Greens have the gall to introduce this policy to seek election in my own district on a platform that involves the confiscation of the golf club with 1,600 members. It's been going for 128 years, and the Greens want to nationalise it—absolutely extraordinary stuff. I say to the Greens' candidate: have you consulted the members of the Brisbane Golf Club about this proposal? Did you at least have the courtesy to tell them you want to steal their golf club? Did you actually have any consultation with them? 128 years of history—it's actually a heritage listed golf club. This is a world-leading golf club in terms of promoting women's participation in golf, and the Greens want to come and convert it to a riverside public park. It's the— Senator Cadell 300134 Which club? Senator SCARR 282997 I'll take that interjection, Senator Cadell. It's the Brisbane Golf Club, a beautiful golf club. It could be challenging for you, Senator Cadell! I'm not sure. I haven't played a round of golf with you, but I can I tell you it's a wonderful environment, and it is just outrageous that the extreme radical Greens in Queensland want to confiscate, nationalise, appropriate—whatever you want to call it—the Brisbane Golf Club and haven't even bothered to consult the 1,600 members of this golf club. Shame on you, Greens. 16:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Bracket creep! Labor Party budgets rely on bracket creep. Liberal Party budgets rely on bracket creep. Bracket creep is the government's dirty little secret, a hidden stealth tax. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes by simply doing nothing. As wages increase with inflation, taxpayers go up into higher tax brackets, paying higher tax rates, and no-one says a thing. We in One Nation are going to say something—again. We've been exposing this since this debate started, and we will fix it with an amendment. Bracket creep is a stealth tax. Due to inflation, as wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets, while being able to buy only the same things with less money because, in the higher bracket, we pay more tax. Taxpayers effectively have less to spend on groceries and have less disposable income. Bracket creep amounts to a secret tax that the government keeps collecting to pay for their pet projects of questionable benefit. If the Liberals and Labor, the uniparty, want to increase taxes, they should put it in a bill, take it to an election and be honest with all Australians rather than quietly relying on bracket creep to secretly plug their budget holes and ratchet up income tax receipts. Bracket creep should have been fixed a decade ago. Analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that, over the last decade, because of bracket creep Australians have had to pay an extra $44 billion that was stolen deceitfully. But shh! 'Don't tell the people because we didn't take the action to fix this 10 years ago.' Just over the next four years, bracket creep will mean Australians also pay an extra $38 billion in taxes—$38 billion extra! Labor told us that they were giving us a tax cut. Now you can see the truth; it's not a tax cut. If the government gets inflation under control, fixing bracket creep won't cost the budget anything. Australians don't deserve to pay for inflation twice because of government mistakes, and the budget shouldn't benefit from out-of-control inflation. This is how you are paying twice: firstly, through inflation, because of an out-of-control government there are higher prices; and, secondly, by being lifted into higher tax brackets because of the higher wages that come with inflation, you have less spending power and less money overall. The Liberals have made many comments about the scourge of bracket creep. This is your opportunity to fix it, once and for all. I urge all senators to stop the stealth taxation increases. How? Simply index the tax thresholds, the tax brackets. If Labor need any suggestions on areas of spending to fix so they don't have to keep secretly stealing more from Australians, they can consult One Nation's extensive network at Senate estimates for a few tips. Actually, we have lots of tips. We've exposed so much: the flawed $65 billion Hunter frigate program that Labor fiddled with and didn't cancel, the NDIS being on track to cost $100 billion every year, and up to $8 billion a year in Medicare fraud. They're all good places to start. The Albanese government's outrageously high, or I should say 'record high and increasing', immigration intake is fuelling huge increases in rent and house prices. By the way, on the amendment I moved to Labor's so-called tax cut bill in this place few months ago, Senator Hume stood up on behalf of the Liberal Party and said that they agree with ending bracket creep—but not now. I think it was Senator Gallagher, the finance minister, who stated Labor's position as basically identical. They would 'love to cut out bracket creep'—but not now. A few weeks later, Liberal Senator Dave Sharma, in his first Senate speech, stated he has a goal of ending bracket creep, yet, a few weeks earlier, he had voted against it. Let me get back to the second point. The Albanese government's outrageously high, record high and increasing, immigration intake is fuelling huge demand on rent and house prices. Rents, in the last five years, have gone up 52 per cent. Before COVID, the number of temporary visa holders in the country was around 2.3 million people. As at the end of July 2024, that number is now 2.8 million—more than 10 per cent of our population. These are hard numbers and facts, yet the government has continued to lie, claiming, 'We're just catching up on immigration.' Oh, really? We haven't just caught up; we've blown the record out of the water. We're nearly half a million people above the record. Using the average household size of 2½ people per house implies a need for more than 200,000 houses just to cater for new arrivals. Last year, the Albanese government promised to crack down on the level immigration, yet there were 335,000 net arrivals in the first seven months of 2024. That's 15,000 people more than the same time the previous year. And that was a record, so we've got a new record. This is a huge reason why we're in a housing crisis, with rents skyrocketing and housing prices reaching new records, yet the government won't say a word about it. They're quiet, just like on the stealth tax and bracket creep. The person responsible for this immigration program, Minister Clare O'Neil, has been now appointed as Labor's Minister for Housing. What a joke. The person who created the problem is now in charge of solving the problem. One Nation's proposal is practical common sense based on real-world data. Simply return the number of temporary visa holders in the country to pre-COVID levels, and that would immediately free up 200,000 houses. From there, immigration would be capped at the level for which Australia can build housing and infrastructure to cater for new arrivals. In the middle of a housing catastrophe, there are hundreds of Queenslanders in cities—Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Maryborough, Bundaberg, Ipswich, parts of the Scenic Rim, the Gold Coast and Beaudesert—who are homeless, sleeping in cars. Working families are going home in the evening after work to see if their kids are still there. Where do they shower? Where do they toilet? We need to get houses for people currently sleeping under bridges, in cars, in tents and in caravans before we allow more new arrivals into our country. We must put Australians first, and we must put Australians in houses first. What about demand for houses and foreign ownership? To reduce demand and open up more housing supply, One Nation would ban foreign ownership of residential property. Australians are banned from buying a house in China, yet China is the largest foreign buyer of real estate in Australia. A single real estate agent in Sydney sold $135 million in property to Chinese buyers in just six months. New Zealand and Canada, similar countries to ours, recently banned foreign ownership of housing. Putting Australians first is simple, clear and practical. Until we get Australian citizens out of tents and cars and into houses, we shouldn't be letting foreigners buy residential property. Under our proposal foreign owners would have to sell to an Australian buyer. If the foreign owners fail to sell in two years, the house would be subject to government auctions open to first home buyers only in the first round and, in the second round, to other Australians. All this is possible and can be done. It just takes truthful politicians with the guts and political will to put Australians first. One Nation would ditch Labor's half-baked housing schemes, including its so-called Help to Buy scheme and the Housing Australia Future Fund. Both add huge numbers of bureaucrats, who do not build houses. We would replace the bureaucrats with a new program called the people's mortgage scheme, offering government issued mortgages at five per cent fixed interest for 25 years. There would be no variable, changing interest rate. They would be cheaper than current mortgages from a bank, with minimal risk to the taxpayer thanks to the long-term, fixed nature. Forget the government owning your home under Labor's Help to Buy. Instead, One Nation will make sure the government helps you own your own home in full. Many first home buyers can't get a loan because of HECS debts, and that raises another point. Under One Nation's people's mortgage scheme, first home buyers can roll their HECS debt into the mortgage to pay it off. That will give them access to a mortgage that they can't get anywhere else and let them start buying their house early, over the years making that purchase of the house far cheaper, with lower interest. I'll now go to the supply side. All these policies must go hand in hand with huge improvements to the supply of housing. We need to build more houses, so we'll need to review construction codes and the undersupply of materials. Builders are currently drowning in a sea of red tape. Every single new home must be built to an NDIS silver level standard. Construction consultants estimate this requirement alone adds $50,000 to the cost of a new dwelling. We should make efforts to take care of our severely disabled, yet we cannot increase the cost of every new home by $50,000 while we're in an affordability crisis and a housing shortage. The National Construction Code must be simplified so that tradies can get on with the job. We need valued tradies and builders spending more time swinging a hammer than flipping through paperwork. Next, I'll go to supply and materials. One Nation would apply a three-year holiday for the goods and services tax, charged currently on building materials. We need more houses built. Government should not be standing in the way of someone building their first house because the government wants to collect GST on the transaction. We need to open up our timber supplies. Australia is a huge continent and has abundant timber reserves. Despite this, we're in the unbelievable and ridiculous situation of needing to import timber from countries with environmental standards below ours. The Greens and Labor want to gut our timber industry yet bring more migrants into Australia in record numbers. A sustainable timber industry is Australia's prime renewable resource. It literally grows back every year. One Nation supports our timber industry to ensure we have the supplies to build houses sourced right here in our country. There are other details and initiatives in our comprehensive, practical and proven immigration and housing policies which will have a major impact on reducing the cost of living and government debt. Foreign multinationals pay little or no company tax, due to choosing to adopt globalist policies under both the Liberal and the Labor parties. Foreign ownership is very high—90 per cent of Australia's largest companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no company tax, according to the former deputy commissioner of taxation Jim Killaly—due to the Liberal and Labor party governments choosing to adopt globalist policies. In housing there is record and rising immigration due to both parties choosing to adopt globalist policies. We have record and rising energy prices—the fundamental key to economic productivity and our competitive advantage. Why are they rising? Because the Liberal and Labor parties are choosing to adopt globalist policies. I've said it before: under Liberal-Labor uniparty governance over many decades, our parliament has ceded sovereignty and governance to unelected and unaccountable parasitic globalist entities like the United Nations, the United Nations World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum. It has ceded to unelected, unaccountable, parasitic global wealth funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. I thank Senator Scarr for his motion and for the opportunity to speak. This is an essential topic for all Australians and all Queenslanders. Instead of ceding sovereignty to foreign corporations and unelected foreign bodies, One Nation policies work to a very simple vision: to restore our country so Australians abound and thrive. Abundance is not a dirty word. We have one flag, we are one community and we are One Nation. 17:01 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I too rise to make a contribution in relation to Senator Scarr's general business motion. What Senator Scarr is trying to do here is to talk about the government's failure on housing. The next election, which I imagine will be next year, will be an election where the Australian people have a smorgasbord of policy options to choose from on housing. And I think that if people look at any of the information out there they will see that, particularly for under-40s, this is the really big-ticket item. I guess it's good that people have choice and have that smorgasbord. What is bad is that this government has now wasted 2½ years on shifting the Australian dream further and further away for the average worker. When you work through the supply and demand elements here, it is pretty obvious that if we continue with this government in any form we will never restore the Australian dream, which is basically the idea that the average worker on an average income can buy a house where they want to. That's basically the idea that is being lost now. The average worker cannot buy a house where they want in most cases, because the average house is priced at multiple times their income. Let's look at the supply issue. We hear the government talking in question time about all their great supply policies, but, ultimately, the numbers don't lie. Eight years ago we were building 225,000 houses in Australia. This year, we'll build about 160,000 houses. Next year, we're projected to build even less than 160,000. On the construction figures alone, we are going in the wrong direction. The key to understanding that figure is the nexus between migration and housing completions. What we have seen in the last two years is over a million people coming into the country. That is the largest increase in migration since the 1950s, and that is happening at a time when housing construction has fallen through the floor. That is one of the major failings, on the numbers, that we see the government presiding over. The government has had three main supply policies. The first policy was the Housing Australia Future Fund. It was promised before the last election, and the idea was that the government itself would come in and fund a whole bunch of housing construction. What we've seen is that the government has in fact put billions of dollars into a fund which has built no houses but has spent millions of dollars on executive salaries. It has been a complete failure. In mid-September, the housing minister, Ms O'Neil, made the first announcement about disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund. Apparently, 13,000 houses will be built across the states and territories in Australia. But the minister hasn't told us who is going to get this money. The Senate has made an order for the production of documents in relation to actually just giving us the detail on the statement from 17 September. The Housing Australia Future Fund has been a flop in terms of its ability to build houses, which is why, of course, we were always sceptical about the idea of the government trying to construct these houses itself. Similarly, we have grave concerns about the other funds the government has established, such as the Reconstruction Fund. I think that, in the long run, the government may also regret having gone down this route of establishing these great big boondoggle funds, because they have not been a successful plan so far. The other supply policy the government trumpets again and again—it's a bit bizarre to hear the '1.2 million new houses' line being trotted out on an almost daily basis, but that's what we hear. The government apparently wants to build 1.2 million houses over five years. Today we've seen more data from the Master Builders Association, saying that the government will be 400,000 houses short. It's a huge failure. When the Commonwealth government has so few levers to pull on housing, why would you make up something that you can never actually achieve and spend all your capital on a policy which you know you will not deliver on? The other supply policy, which I would say is the most curious and bizarre of the government's supply policies is the idea that the Commonwealth government would give a tax cut to foreign fund managers to come in and do what they call 'build-to-rent housing'. This idea is effectively that a foreign organisation would come in as a pension fund or a sovereign wealth fund—it could be a BlackRock fund, it could be a Chinese fund or it could be a Middle Eastern pension fund or Middle Eastern government fund of some form—and that would be given a tax concession to go into the build-to-rent game. In this case what you see are these organisations building apartment blocks in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane, perhaps, and then these organisations renting these out to Australians in perpetuity. They will never be owned by Australians. They will always be owned by foreign sovereign wealth funds and foreign fund measures. Why would the Labor Party, with its mission to apparently do its best for the workers, want to see Australian housing stock in the hands of foreign fund managers? I don't understand. I'm sure there are a lot of good people trying to do good things inside the Labor Party, but this is a bizarre policy. Perhaps the strangest wrinkle on this is that even the Property Council itself says that the bill, which proposes a tax cut for foreign fund managers, won't even work. Of course, we see organisations constructing build-to-rent properties in Australia. We see it all the time. That is their third supply policy. The Housing Australia Future Fund has built no houses but has spent lots on executive salaries. Housing targets have failed, with no chance of ever getting that one. Build to rent is a bizarre idea—that we'd want to have our housing stock owned by foreign fund managers. Then we come to the demand side. Apparently we're looking down the barrel of having a double dissolution election, which has been threatened, because of the Help to Buy scheme. Help to Buy was announced in the last election campaign for the Labor Party, the centrepiece of the campaign. When you need to be building more than a quarter of a million houses a year, this is their main policy on the demand side—10,000. It's not a policy for homeownership for people. It's a policy for state co-ownership, where the government would own 40 per cent of your home. It's taken the government almost two years to bring on this bill for a vote. They tried to do it in September, and it was deferred. We hear that they want to do it again, and they want to try and bring on a double dissolution trigger. If it was so important—if this was their best idea on the demand side—then why has it taken two years to bring the legislation into this parliament? It seems that either it's a massively incompetent government or it's been ashamed that it couldn't develop any new ideas after it took the Treasury benches. This is their only policy for the demand side. What I mean by that is that this is the only policy to help first home buyers. I think everyone accepts that there is an argument to be made here on the demand side—that the scales can be tilted for first home buyers—because we want to see first home buyers get that Australian dream. What we are seeing is a trajectory where millennials and gen Zs will never own a house. That is a trajectory that everyone wants to change, but this is their only solution. Then we go to what other options you could have to help Australians get that elusive first home. The Senate, in its wisdom, is running an inquiry into lending, but apparently, according to the Treasurer, lending policy is not something this parliament will think about. The parliament won't have any thoughts about lending policy, banking policy or mortgage policy. That's the preserve of APRA. APRA does all that. So his view is basically that we'll just give something as important as a mortgage policy to some unelected bureaucrats to do up in Sydney. They'll do it in the dark. It won't be disallowable, and we'll leave it all to the prudential regulator. That is the view of the Treasurer. We take the view that it's pretty hard to get a first house without a mortgage, so we think that there are things that APRA is doing, in terms of its mandate and the way that it deploys its serviceability buffer, that warrant examination at the very least and maybe warrant reform. If a serviceability buffer is three per cent above where interest rates are now, at the top of a tightening cycle, maybe that is rubbing out too many prospective first home buyers from the Australian dream. Maybe that is something that the parliament—certainly the government in its attempt to try and thread together a coherent banking and housing policy—should be thinking about, but, so far, we have heard crickets from the government. Barrenjoey has estimated that, if you were to tweak the serviceability buffer and the capital weights to help first home buyers, you might see an additional 50,000 people come into that market. Of course, all of these projections are always subject to building more houses and providing that supply, but I would've thought that was an important issue to look at. Of course, then the other issue, on the demand side, is the superannuation issue, and that is the Labor Party's favourite issue never to talk about. They don't think that super can help people get a first home, because their view is that the super funds should hold all the money and invest in housing but it's not a good idea for people to do it themselves. Basically, in their world, your super can invest in any house except for your own. In summary, on the supply side, we have seen fewer houses than in any time in the last decade. On the demand side, we've seen one idea to help first home buyers, which is stalled in this Senate and, I would say, at this point won't be passed in this parliament. It may feature again at the next Labor Party election launch potentially, but, other than that, the cupboard is bare. So the Australian people will be looking for more solutions than what the government has been prepared to develop during this parliament, and thank goodness for that policy smorgasbord that we'll see next year at the election. 17:13 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I might just say on the housing question that, if there was ever a costed policy that emerges, I look forward to it. It's been 2½ years of torpor for the federal opposition and not one single costed policy. I read Senator Scarr's notice of motion. He's a good fella, but it really sums up— Senator AYRES 16913 He's a very good fella, Senator Smith. He really is. So are you as the last remaining Liberal in the Liberal Party! It's drifted so far from economic liberalism— Senator Dean Smith 241710 I'm not going anywhere! Senator AYRES 16913 There's hope for the Liberal Party if you stay. We've given up on Senator Bragg, who once used to espouse economic liberalism and socially progressive values, but there wasn't much of a difference between what Senator Bragg just said then on housing policy and what Jim Cairns might've said about foreign investment. There is not much of a difference between what Senator Bragg says and what Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts say about foreign investment. It's time for, as they say in the classics, a good, long, hard look at yourselves on the foreign investment question. What's been going on, whether it's on Future Made in Australia or the housing fund, is you're trying to give people the heebie-jeebies about foreign investment. Rex Connor used to do it—again, he's a good fella. He spent a bit of time detained. Jim Cairns used to do it. He was a very interesting fella, Mr Cairns. He was Treasurer in the Whitlam government. He was a bit worried about foreign investment too. Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts and Senator Bragg are all very concerned about foreign investment. I read this, and it just shows the arrogance and smugness of the Liberal Party on questions of economic management. They haven't learnt the lesson that they should have spent this term reflecting upon. You believe that you're fated, in the eastern suburbs circuits that you walk in, where there's the clink of champagne glasses and the runny noses and the hubbub of voices as you all talk to yourselves about what great economic managers you all are. The truth is you don't do the intellectual job of examining whether that's really true. You just assume, and there's an intellectual laziness about that, a lack of curiosity, a smugness, a complacency, a lack of hunger for the national interest. It's the old failures, Morrison leftovers, all going to the same fundraisers, all hanging out together with the well-heeled set: 'Everything is alright. We're the superior economic managers.' That's why you end up with a shadow Treasurer like Mr Taylor. That's how you get there. It's the bottom of the fiscal and economic policy barrel. The truth is—I heard the Treasurer say this the other day and I sort of liked it—this lot forecast surpluses. They put out the mugs. I've got one of the mugs in my office. I drink a cup of tea out of it regularly. It says, 'Back in the black.' Well, it never ever happened because the Morrison government, the Liberals and the Nationals, weren't up to decent economic management. This government has been back in the black, back to back; twice—not just one year but two years. We've turned a conga line of Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses, with good economic management, with a disciplined approach to fiscal policy, led by my colleague Senator Gallagher, who actually knows what she's doing. Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham and all the former failed finance ministers—and Prime Minister Morrison, who was also finance minister for a time, when he didn't tell anybody, including Senator Birmingham. They had multiple finance minister. No wonder the show couldn't run itself. They talk tough. It's the old Liberal message, the entitlement, the smugness of 'we're great economic managers'. But they ran the show over a cliff, with a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it. They have cast a shadow over public finances for generations to come. The truth is pursuing a surplus is not about a coffee mug. We delivered the surpluses, but do you see any Labor coffee mugs? No, because we're doers, not talkers. We're lifters, not leaners. In this show, we lift everybody up; we're exhorting the Public Service to greater performance, making sure we do it in the public interest. A surplus isn't something to be put on a mug; it's designed to achieve a public policy objective. At this moment, when you need government to be acting in the acting interest— Senator Dean Smith 241710 You might be crowing too early, Senator Ayres! Senator AYRES 16913 He's very rowdy. It's the end of the week. He's looking forward to a long flight home. I always try and share. I always make sure that everybody gets a go. I gave Senator Bragg a go, and I'm going to really try, Senator Smith—oh, well, we'll see how we go. Senator Dean Smith 241710 Is that a broken promise? Senator AYRES 16913 That's a broken promise right there! The purpose of our surpluses is to put downward pressure on inflation. The purpose of our cost-of-living relief is to support families through what is a challenging period and put downward pressure on inflation—a trick that those opposite could never pull off, aren't capable of and have opposed every step of the way. Wage rises, tax cuts, rent assistance, knocking off student debt, electricity relief, childcare relief—these things have made a real difference. For working families in Western Australia, South Australia, in the territories and on the east coast of Tasmania, reducing childcare costs and lifting childcare wages made child care better and reduced costs for parents, meaning more people participating for more hours in the economy. Do you know how economically illiterate this show are? When the latest productivity figures come out—just conceptually, I want you to try to think about it for a second—if the number of hours worked goes up then labour productivity falls. I just want to let you in on the secret. For the people on that side, this is like a catastrophe. Labour productivity moves up and down. It's the long-term trajectory that you have to examine. After the failed decade of the lowest productivity growth on record in Australian history that made some of the undeveloped economies look good during the Morrison-Abbott-Turnbull catastrophe, the idea that this show would criticise this government on the basis of productivity performance is like Idi Amin criticising another country for their human rights performance. That's a reference that the gen Z people that Senator Bragg talked about might not get. But that's what we have achieved. The research demonstrates that, if you followed the Dutton approach on wages and tax cuts, working Australians would be $4,700 worse off in real terms. That's if the squalid torpor approach that characterises the show opposite had prevailed. We've delivered wage reform. We've delivered tax reform so that people earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's meant for childcare workers and aged-care workers, in particular, that their wages have lifted. It's good for them, good for their kids, good for their communities, good for participation in the economy, good for caring for little kids and supporting their education and good for caring for older Australians. The surpluses that we have delivered, plus the cost-of-living relief that we have engaged in, has not solved every problem—not at all. There is still more work to do. Inflation is much lower than it was at its dizzying heights when the Morrison government lost office. It has fallen. It still has further to go. There is still more work to do. This government will continue to do that work. That's the here and now, but we are also engaged in long-term structural reform in the energy market in particular, where we have to turn this great big ship around. It's headed for disaster. Four gigawatts of generation capacity went out of the electricity system and every single coal-fired power station in the country closed down or announced their closure under these characters' watch. They used to carry around lumps of coal in the parliament. The energy market was in complete disarray. The investment community around the world didn't bother knocking in Australia. I know Senator Bragg doesn't like foreign investment, but it is how you get things done. The investment community didn't want to come anywhere near Australia because of the sovereign risk that was presented to them by the government. So there needed to be energy reform Future Made in Australia is, again, an area where Senator Bragg and Mr Taylor—God love him, poor old Angus Taylor—are out there talking down Australian manufacturing and the capacity of Australians to make things. The claims that are made about Future Made in Australia by the coalition that is now formed by the Liberals, Nationals and Greens are quite curious. What they say is that Australians aren't up to it. That's the message they send. This is the show that had former senator Johnston in here. Senator Dean Smith 241710 Only some Australians aren't up to it. Senator AYRES 16913 Senator Smith's poor old Senate colleague Senator Johnston, when confronted with the national task of building ships and submarines in our national security interest, said that Australians couldn't build a canoe. Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey forced 40,000 automotive jobs offshore and exulted in it. They loved it. They were absolutely gleeful about sending good union jobs offshore. They loved every second of it—all that lost industrial capacity. They are hostile to Australian manufacturing. They dress up in the high-vis but can't deliver a single manufacturing job. It's not clear to me which bit of Future Made in Australia they are so afraid of. They are certainly afraid of the future. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Order! Come on, enough. Senator AYRES 16913 They are certainly hostile to the Australian national interest—particularly our security and economic resilience interests in an environment where our future security cannot be taken for granted. They are hostile to Western Australian mining, resources and manufacturing. In Western Australia, their hostility to Future Made in Australia goes down like a bucket of sick. It is anti-Australian and anti-Western-Australian in particular. They're hostile to Australia's national interest, to the future and to Australian manufacturing. Good luck prosecuting that message in Western Sydney! Good luck prosecuting that message in the industrial suburb— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Rennick, do what you can with what's left. 17:28 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I don't have a lot of time. While I agree with the sentiment of this motion from Senator Scarr, I think that, with six months remaining before the next federal election, it's time the Liberal Party also put out their policies. It's one thing to criticise, and it's been very easy to do with the Labor Party, who have been floundering, but I spent five years as the secretary of the finance backbench on the Liberal Party. I called many backbench meetings to look at reforming policy. I've made numerous suggestions. I note Senator Bragg's comments about foreign fund managers owning housing in this country. The Liberal Party has done nothing to tackle superannuation in this country. I asked Josh Frydenberg, the former Treasurer, numerous times to pause that increase in the superannuation levy. He didn't do it. He allowed it to go to 12 per cent. John Howard and Peter Costello should have stopped the rise in superannuation when they got in in 1996 and killed superannuation stone cold dead. They didn't. This morning, the People First Party released its capital markets policies. One of the things we are going to do is to actually make superannuation boards be elected by the members. There's this little thing called democracy, and superannuation is very undemocratic. There was no referendum that even asked if people wanted 12 per cent of their wages taken from them and given to someone they've never met. The other thing we're going to do is disallow superannuation funds from voting at AGMs unless they get direct proxies from their members. We're not going to have these left-wing superannuation funds, or any ideological superannuation funds, shoving their ideology down corporate boardrooms— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The time for the debate has expired. Senator Rennick, you'll be in continuance. ADJOURNMENT 101 ADJOURNMENT His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, Youth Voice in Parliament Week 101 17:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia October is proving to be a very royal month for Australia. Not only are we looking forward to the much-anticipated visit by Their Majesties King Charles and Queen Camilla; we also welcome His Majesty the King of Bhutan, who arrives today. It may surprise some to know that Australia is home to the largest Bhutanese community in the world, outside of Bhutan, and that my home state of Western Australia has the greatest share of that national community, with over 4½ thousand Bhutanese people calling WA home. There are also more than 24,000 Bhutanese students studying at our universities, making Bhutan the 14th-largest consumer of our education services. So the tie that brings our two nations together is both economic and cultural, with shared ideas and values. For our Bhutanese Australians, a visit by His Majesty the King of Bhutan is an incredibly exciting and historic time. It is the first time the Bhutanese head of state has visited Australia and the first face-to-face meeting between the king and Australian leaders. Milestones aside, though, the main reason this visit is being met with such eagerness is that His Majesty is revered at home and abroad as an exceptional leader. Under his stewardship, Bhutan has smoothly transitioned into a vibrant democracy and constitutional monarchy much like our own. The king also received widespread praise for his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which Bhutan achieved the lowest case-fatality rate in the world, at just 0.05 per cent. But, above all else, he is respected as an inspiring and humble monarch, with a genuine love for his people, and he has brought the Bhutanese monarchy into the 21st century. I particularly look forward to welcoming His Majesty to Perth next week and joining with the Bhutanese community on this important occasion. It is a high point in Australian-Bhutan relations and gives us every case for optimism about the future of our important bilateral relations. Welcome to Australia, Your Majesty the King. The Raise Our Voice in Parliament speechwriting event is a very special opportunity to share the perspectives of young people from across our country, and I'm delighted to participate again in 2024. A speech submitted by 15-year-old Piper from my patron seat of Cowan, in Perth's northern suburbs, caught my eye. It is with pleasure that I read it in the Senate this afternoon on Piper's behalf: Imagine sleeping in the cold every night, where in some states it gets to below 0 degrees Celsius. Imagine living in inadequate living conditions, whether it's couch surfing, on the streets, or in insecure housing for weeks on end. This is the case for over 122,494 Australians country wide. Hi, my name is Piper. I am 15 years old, and I live in the electorate of Cowan. Today I am addressing why we need to lower the cost of living. The cost of living is rising by the second. If we don't stop it, you or someone you know could be impacted next. To make a change, the government can lower the cost of living or put money towards building and operating homeless shelters country-wide. So, please listen, and make a change for the sake of our country. I am calling to you to make a change in our country. I am calling to you to make a change for the better. A change that'll benefit millions of Australians. We need a future where people can live happily. A future where they don't have to worry about not being able to put food on the table, worrying about where they'll sleep the next night, or being on the brink of homelessness. Well done to Piper, and thank you for your well-worded speech on a topic that is so critical, so top of mind, for many Australians today. I hope you stay engaged with our national politics and that this isn't the last we hear from you. Congratulations, Piper. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 102 17:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Like my colleague across the chamber, I am deeply honoured to be given the opportunity to deliver speeches today written by young Queenslanders as part of the Raise Our Voice campaign. The first speech is from Shradda, who lives in Rankin. She says: Imagine a world where every person is free to pursue their passions and live out their dreams. Imagine a world where society treats everyone with dignity and respect. Imagine a world where the chains of racism, social injustice, and discrimination are shattered. In 10 years, this is what I envision for everyone in Australia. This vision will enable us to fulfil our dream lives without social paralysis. We will gain a sense of pride, in our unique and distinct selves. To work towards this, I envision workshops, educating about diversity to dismantle stereotypes and foster understanding. People from diverse backgrounds can share videos of their personal experiences, helping to bridge incumbent gaps and reduce the stigma and shame around discussing racism. Let's transform this great diverse    nation, paving the way for others and leading by example to create a more equitable and just world. Together, we can create supportive environments for all of us to share, so no-one must suffer through racism and discrimination. To ensure we all live out our dreams unencumbered by prejudice. Let us champion a world where equity, is not just ideal, but a reality. Charlotte, from Moreton, says: There are over 50 schools in the Moreton federal electorate, and as a student in Year 12 who has struggled with balancing school and mental health for my entire secondary school career, the changes I want to see in our community in the next ten years include increased amount of mental health support easily available and accessible to school students. Specifically, programs within school or programs that work easily with schools to create a better system for students on campus. I have watched countless fellow students struggle to attend school because of mental health issues and the additional social/emotional stress that high school provides. We all know high school isn't easy, and for an increasing number of students dealing with anxiety on a day to day basis, it's not as simple as keeping their heads down and pushing through it. According to recent data acquired by Headspace, about one-third of young people are experiencing high or very high levels of stress. Specifically, 38% of students aged 15-7 reported such levels of psychological distress. The Australian Parliament can improve students' mental health over the next decade by implementing nationwide policies that promote mental health education and awareness within the school curriculum can help students better understand and manage their mental well-being. Furthermore, Parliament can support research and development of innovative mental health interventions tailored to young people, ensuring that these initiatives are data-driven and effectively address the specific needs of high school students. Thank you very much to Shradda and Charlotte for your contributions. It was an honour to be able to read out your words in the Senate today. Transgender Athletes in Sport 102 17:38 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Women and girls should be entitled to compete in sport in female single-sex categories. That is the position that I have held and advocated for for many years. It's a position which the vast majority of Australians share, and it's a position which this week has been put to the United Nations in the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem. After an extensive consultation and investigation, Ms Alsalem's report, tabled this week, recommends that sport at all levels must 'ensure that female categories in organised sport are exclusively accessible to persons whose biological sex is female.' For most people, particularly women and girls competing in sport, this is an overwhelmingly obvious conclusion. We all know that males have huge advantages in strength, speed, stamina and physique in comparison to females. As Ms Alsalem's report points out, it has been extensively demonstrated by experts that reducing testosterone levels does not go even close to removing all these male performance advantages. So how is it that many sporting organisations have been so callous, so scientifically illiterate and so corrupted that they have deliberately chosen to remove the right to female sport and allow males to choose to compete against women and girls? Through her consultation, Ms Alsalem has found the same problem that we find every time someone looks into this issue and actually consults with women. Her report says: … women and girls in sports are rarely consulted by sports associations on guidelines regarding whether sport should remain sex-separated, and they have faced negative repercussions when reclaiming their right to single-sex sport, in efforts to silence them. That is exactly what has happened for years now. Women have been abused and threatened and told that they will lose their careers in sport if they speak up and say that they support single-sex sport for women and girls. Thankfully, though, many have been brave enough to speak out and, when female athletes are consulted and allowed to have their say without fear of repercussions, we know that they support single-sex competition. That is why so many sporting bodies around the world have listened to female athletes and moved protect the female category from male intrusion. It is shameful that many others have refused to act. That includes the IOC and the International Paralympic Committee, who allowed female competitors to be forced out of competition by male competitors at the recent Paris Olympics. But, shockingly, it also includes all the major Australian sporting codes and the Australian Sports Commission. When will the Australian government and Australian sporting codes finally wake up and realise that women and girls must be entitled to compete in their own sex category? Yesterday, the New Zealand government took an important step towards safety and fairness for women by directing Sport New Zealand to rewrite its guidelines for community sport, which currently tell sporting organisations that men identifying as women can take part in women's sport. The New Zealand minister for sport and recreation, in announcing the review of the existing guidelines, said: I have come to the view that the Guiding Principles do not reflect legitimate community expectations that sport at a community level should not just be focused on diversity, inclusion and equity—but also prioritise fairness and safety. That is a very sensible statement, and one which almost everyone would agree with. Why on earth would we ever have got to a position where fairness and safety for women and girls wasn't the top priority in women's community sport? Here in Australia, though, the government and Australian Sports Commission have refused to accept that women and girls should be guaranteed the right to single-sex sport. The Albanese government refused to support my bill to ensure that sports, clubs and volunteers cannot have legal action taken against them for keeping males out of women's sport. That bill would've stopped the absurd and dangerous situation that occurred earlier this year when a team featuring multiple males won a women's football competition. On numerous occasions women's teams were forced to forfeit because of the sheer unfairness and the risk of injury. More than six months have passed since Football NSW begged the federal sports minister to review existing legislation, but the Albanese government should be absolutely ashamed that they have they ignored Football NSW and, even more so, that they've ignored women all over Australia who just want sport to be fair and safe. Tasmania: Mental Health 103 17:43 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania It's World Mental Health Day. Today is about raising awareness of mental health issues. We're all good at talking about mental health, but what are we actually doing to improve Australia's mental health? This is a health issue that disproportionally impacts Tasmanians. At the last census, 8.8 per cent of Australians reported that they had a long-term mental health condition—that's about 2.3 million people—but in Tasmania the number of people who reported having a long-term mental health condition was 11.5 per cent. One of the reasons for this is our spread-out population, which impacts people's ability to access the medical and psychological supports they need. It is not unusual for people to wait up to eight months to see a psychologist in Tasmania. Three months is a long time when you're unwell, but eight months is absolutely shocking. What is even more shocking is that our young people are waiting even longer to see school psychologists. This week the Mercury reported that 2,217 Tasmanian public school students were on waiting lists to see school psychologists. But we all know that number is probably higher, because many kids and their parents would have given up waiting and made appointments with private psychologists instead, if one was available. These students are waiting an average of 448 days for an initial psychologist assessment. That's close to 15 months. These are the kids who have mental health issues or may have suffered trauma, and they're being asked to wait 15 months to talk to someone about what's going on. Because they're young, they probably don't have all the tools they need to cope with being unwell on top of whatever else is going on for them in their world. They might disengage in class, or their behaviour might become difficult. They might even stop going to school altogether, leave home—or worse. None of that is okay. We end up with kids who feel stupid or feel they have failed, and then we're asking them to wait to see a doctor. Imagine how hard it is, when you get to the point that you agree you need to talk to someone about what is going on, to find out you have to wait months and months for that appointment. We need more school psychologists. It would be great if each school had its own psychologist, instead of three or four schools having to share the one professional. But there aren't enough school psychologists to do that, so we also need more training pathways for psychologists. The University of Tasmania has tripled its intake for those who want to become school psychologists, and the UTAS psychology clinic is offering students free or low-cost therapy or cognitive assessment services when they're referred by their schools. I know our healthcare professionals are working to the best of their ability with what they have, but I'm sure we can do more as a government to help them. At the 2024-25 budget estimates hearings I asked about the Postgraduate Psychology Incentive Program. This program, which is funded to the tune of $55 million over four years, covers clinical neuropsychology, clinical psychology, community psychology, counselling psychology and health psychology. That's a lot of psychologies. But it doesn't cover educational and developmental psychology, forensic psychology, organisational psychology or the master of professional practice, which is the only available pathway to general registration. I asked if there were plans to expand the eligibility criteria in future rounds of the Postgraduate Psychology Incentive Program so these important areas were not overlooked. The response I received didn't answer my question. So I'm asking again: will later rounds of this program cover more than just the five psychology streams listed and include the master of professional practice? It will take years for us to see the results of uni pathways for people who want to be psychologists, so we need things we can do now. Let's look at expanding the Medicare rebate to include provisional psychologists. There are around 8,000 provisional psychologists across Australia, so getting them into the system sooner would definitely address these severe waiting times. In Tasmania that's an extra 150 professionals that would be able to provide subsidised sessions. Those young Tasmanians waiting over a year to see a school psychologist really need to know we're working on this. Let's show Australians, particularly these kids in our schools, that we want everyone to be okay and that their mental health is a priority to us. Economy 104 17:48 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland This morning I was pleased to release the People First policies in regard to capital markets. Earlier this week I also spoke about policies in regard to monetary policy. But I must say that it's interesting to note, after five years in this place, the lack of policy discussion by the major parties when it comes to serious economic reform in this country. Granted, the Labor Party did make a slight amendment to income tax cuts this year—income tax cuts that were first introduced under the Morrison government in 2019. But the geniuses in that government decided to wait five years before they'd actually introduce them. A great way to lose an election is to introduce income tax cuts five years down the track. Generally, the way you'd do it is put out some income tax cuts every year so that people feel like they're avoiding bracket creep. Apart from that, the only other two discussions we've had this year are the debate over building 6,000 new houses in the next five years—that's hardly going to put a dent in helping to house the 600,000 immigrants that are coming into this country every year—and a discussion of how many boards we're going to have on the RBA. That discussion is like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Who cares how many boards the RBA has? What we need to be discussing is serious structural economic reform in this country. I am pleased to say that the People First Party will discuss it. This is the reason why I quit the LNP. I wanted to spend the last eight months of my term actually discussing real policy for a change rather than carrying on with the clown show in this chamber where you argue, shout and scream over rats and mice. We need to deal with serious structural reform in this chamber. In the first place, we have to start with superannuation, because governance of superannuation funds is appalling. It is a complete and a disgrace that in what is considered to be a democratic country we do not allow superannuation fund members to vote for their boards. Those boards then go on and vote in company AGMs. The big ASX 200 but all companies listed on the ASX control the bulk of Australia's economy. If we are going to live in a democratic society, we have to reward the capitalists. We call ourselves a capitalist society and, while I don't believe in free markets for the same reason I don't believe in fairies at the bottom of the rose garden—they don't exist—I do believe in fair markets, I believe in the risk-reward paradigm and I believe in rewarding capitalists. They are the people who have money in superannuation funds. They are—believe it or not—the workers. There is a false dichotomy between capitalism and the worker. It's the worker who gets out of bed and puts their nose to the grindstone, whether they are a carpenter or labourer using their hands, because that's what their capital is, or a teacher or nurse using their heart and passion or a scientist or an engineer. These people are all capitalists and they all pay their superannuation. They should be allowed to vote on how their capital is allocated. That is one of the policies the People First Party is advocating. The next step in that is that superannuation funds cannot vote at company AGMs unless they have received direct proxies from their members. They have no right to assume what the member wants unless they have direct instructions. Our industry is now being driven by ideology and not productivity. If we want to turn this country around, we need to be attracting people who are looking at balance sheets, looking at profit-and-loss statements, understand cost management and understand entrepreneurship, not sitting round a boardroom discussing woke ideas and doing a 'welcome to country' at every meeting. It's not good enough. The other thing that we also need to look at doing is changing the way the energy markets are being priced. They are currently being priced in five- to 30-minute blocks. This is creating an enormous opportunity for arbitrage on the energy markets. That means that people are making a riskless profit. That's often where the speculators come in to play. We need to tackle speculation in this country. It's out of control on the ASX, because Howard got rid of stamp duty. Well, it wasn't him, but he should have leaned on that when he brought in the GST. The state premiers got rid of stamp duty on marketable securities and not payroll tax. We need to get serious about productivity in this country, and speculators are a parasite on the capital market. We need to destroy speculators stone-cold dead as well. We need to stop speculating on energy markets, because it is driving up energy costs and it's making it harder for this country to be productive. Returned and Services League of Australia: New South Wales Branch 105 17:53 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak on the New South Wales RSL. I'm told that Mick Bainbridge and Paul James have been involved in providing legal support to a claimant who was encouraged to take legal action against RSL LifeCare, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the RSL in New South Wales. In another instance OLA left a veteran to fend for himself in court because the night before the court case was heard Mr James told him to 'cop it on the cheek' and that OLA wouldn't be representing him because the money had run out. What a disgrace! I'm also terribly concerned about the treatment of veteran staff, especially females, and RSL board members by OLA involving bullying, harassment and intimidation. A former employee of OLA told me that Mr Bainbridge and Mr James both spoke about attempting to get a woman off the RSL New South Wales board because she was 'a feminist and a thorn in their side'. Another told me that Mr Bainbridge ran down a fellow RSL New South Wales director to his staff at OLA, saying she did not deserve to be on the RSL New South Wales board, had no qualifications and was a recipient of handouts she didn't deserve. This same woman attempted to raise issues affecting female veterans, and Mr Bainbridge got angry and told her: 'I don't have time for female effing veteran issues. I don't give a shit about female veterans.' I've also been told that Mr Bainbridge bullied one of his female legal staff members who was an ADF veteran. This included things that would amount to fat shaming by commenting on what she was wearing and eating. It is completely and utterly unacceptable that directors of an organisation that exists to support veterans, whether they're male or female, have financial ties to a firm that has been accused of taking advantage of these very veterans. The leadership of RSL NSW must be held accountable for their failure. If they are not willing to root out this corruption and take a stand for vulnerable veterans then we as lawmakers must intervene. In the wake of the royal commission, we need stronger regulations and oversight of businesses that market themselves as veteran friendly or veteran owned. I call for the following measures to be introduced immediately. Firstly, RSL Australia must investigate whether, in providing legal services to RSL NSW sub-branches, Operational Legal Australia actually delivered the services for which they were paid and whether the costs were appropriate and in accordance with industry standards. I want to know if the RSL NSW board has failed in its fiduciary duties to protect the organisation from this behaviour. Secondly, the Law Society of New South Wales should investigate the fee structure and approach to supporting veterans for legal services provided by Operational Legal Australia. I want to let the Law Society of New South Wales know that tomorrow or on Monday they'll be getting a heap of documentation on what I am talking about this evening, to make their job of investigating a lot easier. Thirdly, the Law Society of New South Wales must examine whether Mr Bainbridge and Mr James should have their practising certificates cancelled. Finally, RSL NSW should seriously consider if Mr Bainbridge and Mr James are fit and proper persons to be directors of RSL NSW and if they should hold positions on the board of RSL NSW. We have an obligation and a duty to protect our veterans not only from external threats but from those within their own ranks who would seek to do them harm. Let me make this very clear: this is not about shutting down veteran owned businesses. To those businesses I say: most of you do a great lot of work out there. You're supportive, you're compassionate, you do the right thing, and you'll go above and beyond for your fellow veteran mates. We know that. But we also need to call out those businesses owned and operated by veterans that are not doing the right thing—the ones that are exploiting veterans and manipulating the RSL. This system needs to end. Our veterans deserve better. They deserve a system that truly supports them, businesses that uplift them and legal services that protect them, not a system that uses them as guinea pigs and exploits their pain and suffering for profit. Quite frankly, in response to what is going on RSL NSW, I say: you are atrocious. As to what is going on with you, Mick Bainbridge, I told you two years ago that I was onto you, and I am onto you, mate. The evidence is there. Honestly, what you are doing is shameful. I have called you out. The evidence is there. You are finished—both you and Mr James. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind honourable senators that legislation committees will meet to consider estimates commencing on Monday 4 November 2024 at 9 am. Senate adjourned at 17:58