2024-11-19 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 1

Aged Care Bill 2024

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 12:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Today I stand to make a contribution in relation to the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, which are before us. The opposition has been very clear right from the get-go that we will support sensible policies, because we need a system for aged care that is strong and delivers the dignified care that we believe every older Australian deserves in ageing. This legislation delivers on a recommendation of the royal commission appointed by the coalition to implement a rights based act for aged care. After the royal commission brought its findings down, the coalition invested more than $18 billion to support the immediate recommendations and needs of the sector at the time. But it's really important for us to realise and remember that aged care is not a sector; aged care is a journey of ageing for older Australians and everything that goes with that. It's about respecting the older people in our society. So, through good-faith negotiations with the government, the coalition has sought to ensure that the reform package that is before us is improved in many ways. We did so before the package was presented to the parliament, and we've continued to do so since the package has been available for public consumption, but there is no doubt that the issues that are before our aged-care system are absolutely undeniable. We've got aged-care homes across Australia. Nearly half of them are reporting that they're operating at a loss. We have an ageing population, but we have an even greater increase in the number of Australians who have a desire to stay at home as they age, which means that we have to fundamentally change the way we deliver aged care and support the needs that we need to put in place to effect that change. There's no doubt that this bill represents a very significant package of reforms, which is why we pushed to have the bill referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. We absolutely valued this opportunity—that, at last, finally, the government was prepared to have a conversation with Australians—older Australians, their families and the sector more generally—about this significant package of reforms. Up until we put it through the Senate process, there had been an extraordinary lack of transparency about the process to date. It was really disappointing to find, though, that the majority report that was delivered by that inquiry, which was the majority report of the government senators on that inquiry, made no recommendations around how the bill could be improved to reflect much of the concern that we heard during that inquiry. The only recommendation the majority report made was that we should pass the bill. We've been very critical of the government right the way through about the lack of consultation, but I'm even more critical of the government because, even when we got the opportunity to speak to Australians about what they thought about the bill, the government still refused to recognise many of the improvements that could be made to the bill to make it better and to make sure that it delivered on what older Australians were expecting it to. They simply just thought that they'd push it through in its original state. We will continue to criticise the government on the things we think they have failed to do. But, most particularly, I will be critical of the government because they have yet to demonstrate to me, to the parliament or to the sector that they themselves are ready for the massive changes that this bill will bring in should it start on 1 July 2025. One great question that is yet to be answered is: are the government's IT systems even sufficiently in place for the sector to be able to plug in to their changes? There are going to be massive IT changes that the sector will have to make. Given all the information that was submitted to the Senate inquiry, it is clear that we are going to need to make substantial amendments to this bill to make sure that it is delivering what it says it will, and I will not be rushing this through this parliament. For that reason, we will be moving a number of amendments. We are going to act on the hard evidence that we heard during the committee process. We need to recognise that there are still a number of quite significant shortcomings if this bill is actually to deliver on the promised outcomes. We must be transparent about the release of the subordinated legislation. If there was one thing that the inquiry process delivered time and time again it was that people are concerned that they simply don't have enough information to even understand what is going to be required of them, whether that's older Australians and their families or whether that's the sector in terms of implementing this bill. Withholding this critical information from stakeholders denies them the ability to fully understand what the implications are. So we will continue to fight to make sure that we have transparency about what is yet to come. This is not the end of the journey, government. This is the start of the journey, and we will continue to scrutinise every single piece of subordinated legislation that you bring into this place to make sure that your rush and lack of consultation do not detrimentally impact on the older Australians this bill is endeavouring to support. But can I say that the coalition remains absolutely supportive of a rights based framework for older Australians. Putting choice and control at the centre of our aged-care system is absolutely paramount. We know that that's what the royal commission recommended, and we absolutely support that. But we also need to understand the quantum of change that is before us, and we also need to understand that much else that's contained in this bill is certainly not delivering on the recommendations of the royal commission, and that is to put choice and control back into the hands of Australians. The coalition has sought and gained significant changes from the original proposal that was delivered to us behind closed doors in March because we wanted to make sure these reforms are fairer for older Australians, particularly for older Australians who've worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement and for older Australians who find themselves in a situation where aged care is out of their reach in terms of affordability. We wanted to make sure every Australian has access to aged care in a fair and reasonable way, which is why we demanded that grandfathering be put in place. That means that every Australian who has already started their aged-care journey will see no change to their financial circumstances, whether they be in residential care, in-home care or even on the waiting list to receive a home-care package because they have already been assessed as needing one. We will also make sure that there are caps on clinical care and caps on home care because older Australians need to understand what is going to be the quantum of the ask on them in terms of their own support of their ageing journey. We also made sure that taper rates were much lower than the ones that were previously proposed by government so that older Australians would not be hit with extreme changes as their incomes went up. We also wanted to make sure that the government guaranteed that they would always be the majority funder of aged care—most particularly around making sure that every Australian, regardless of who they are or where they are, will always receive a high level of clinical care. These were very important changes that we sought to achieve, and we're pleased that we have been able to achieve them. We were also very concerned about the lack of recognition of rural, regional and remote Australia and the challenges of the shallow markets that are there. So we secured an additional $300 million to go to rural, regional and remote aged-care homes to make sure they were able to develop the capital works so that they could provide the facilities for people that lived in their community. We understand that getting access to these kinds of services is often a great challenge in rural and regional communities—it's hard to get the workforce but it's equally difficult to get capital building. We also fought hard to remove criminal penalties. Our position has always been that criminal penalties were unnecessary. The royal commission didn't recognise criminal penalties because they already exist in our legal system under work health and safety, banning orders and other criminal codes, and these are adequate measures to make sure that we protect the safety of older Australians. That is not to say that in any way, shape or form we believe that the safety of older Australians should be compromised; we just believe this once again overreach. We've also successfully eliminated provisions that would have forced unionisation into every aged-care home in this country, taking away the focus from the delivery of quality care and increasing mandates felt the hardest by small providers. While there have been significant achievements made by the coalition during our negotiations, it's important that we remember this package is still fundamentally flawed. This is a package made by the Labor government. The bill has not been co-designed. In fact, we were excluded from the process of the design of this bill almost from the get-go, and were brought into the process only after it was finalised. The issues that we believe need to be addressed that have not been addressed in this bill in any way, shape or form are issues like workforce, regulatory impacts and the implementation timeframes of this bill. These issues continue to go unaddressed, and if they do so, it could result in very serious consequences. Last year 49 aged-care homes closed, which is a very telling statistic. The coalition is seeking to ensure the introduction of this bill will not force more closures of homes. Instead, we need to make sure it's actually going to incentivise the critical builds that we know we need. We remain very disappointed about the lack of transparency by government throughout this process, and I think the Senate inquiry highlighted the fact that many Australians were equally frustrated by the lack of consultation or inclusion in this process, and the continuing lack of consultation or any oversight for the many rules that would actually drive this particular piece of legislation. Workforce is one of the biggest issues. I don't think I've been into an aged-care home in Australia in the last 2½ years where the first thing they've said to me wasn't about the challenges they're acing in workforce. The idea that we've got some one-size-fits-all response to aged care is just ridiculous. Markets are different, geographic locations are different. We see it manifest itself in many different ways, whether that's in the financially crippling reliance on agency staff to fill shifts or the inability to fill shifts themselves, which means nursing homes are closing down or closing beds. People moving hundreds of kilometres away from their communities and loved ones just to be able to get a bed. There's throwing out of enrolled nurses and allied health when it comes to the provision of care, even though those workers are extremely valued in the care of older Australians. I know every aged-care provider wants to deliver the highest-quality care, and I acknowledge the amazing workforce that works in aged care, but all the reforms in the world are not worth the paper they're written on if you do not have the workforce to deliver them, and if your financial viability is so threatened that you're worried you're going to have to close your doors. Today's paper showed the government's removing of homecare caps for cleaning and gardening is exactly the kind of issue that we fought really hard on, saying, 'You cannot consult behind closed doors because that's not consultation; you have to speak to people.' I'll give a shout-out to Hannah, who drove all the way from Yankalilla to Port Lincoln to give evidence at the inquiry because she could see the fallacy of these caps. Eighteen hours of gardening every year is an hour and a half a month. If Hannah was trying to prepare for the bushfire season, it was hardly going to achieve that outcome. Through this process, at least the government have recognised the fallacy of these caps and have a bit more of a flexible approach to these things. These are the kinds of things that are happening that are completely at odds with the decision to go forward with a bill that gives choice and control to older Australians, and these stupid bureaucratic decisions that haven't been consulted remove that choice and control for older Australians that we are so keen to make sure we see. On home care, another point that I really want to raise here is that this bill makes no reference whatsoever to the Commonwealth Home Support Program under which 800,000 Australians already are receiving a level of care in their home. The government made a decision to release 24,100 home-care packages, when we know that the waiting list is currently 76,000 and it will mean that the waiting time will blow out from five months to six months. Knowingly, this is a design feature of this government's decision—that they are actually going to blow out the waiting time. But, aside from the current failure to ensure that enough home-care packages are being delivered, the government haven't been transparent about the rules, and witness after witness after witness said that. So we think this bill needs amending in so, so many ways, and I'll foreshadow now that I'll be moving a second reading amendment to that effect. We believe that we need to make sure that we understand transitional requirements. We need to understand the transition pathway. We need to understand information so that older Australians, their families and the sector understand. We need to make sure that the Commonwealth Home Support Program recipients have got greater clarity. We need to understand the caps that they're still proposing for the service list. We need to understand how the service list has been designed. We also need to understand things like the scale of unrecoverable debts and with whom and where they will reside. We also need to make sure that we have dignity for all older Australians in the high-quality care that we want for them. So, as I said, we need to make sure that we do get this bill right and we need to do it right once. We cannot afford to have all of the errors that sit in this bill get passed in this place. So the opposition—and, I am sure, the Greens—will be moving a series of amendments during the committee stage to try and make this inadequate bill better. Fundamentally, we believe in a rights based framework for the delivery of Australian aged care, because we believe that having choice and control delivers the dignity back to older Australians, and that is the most fundamental reason that this bill is in this place. But, because this government can't be trusted to provide the kind of transparency and detail we need, we will continue to prosecute that case. 12:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak to the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Our concern is that these bills risk creating a two-tiered system that bakes in inequality. The Greens share the concerns of older Australians that these bills will increase their co-contributions and accommodation costs but don't guarantee enforceable rights or the quality of care for participants. We have significant concerns that, in buckling to the demands of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party has abandoned criminal penalties for dodgy aged-care providers, which it had promised and has now junked to get the deal with the Liberals. We've also got concerns about chapter 4, which contains the new funding model, because asking people to pay more for their care with no guarantee of improved quality is simply taking us in the wrong direction. So we will be moving amendments to address both of those concerns when we come to the committee stage on this bill. The royal commission showed us the depths of pain and suffering that proliferated in the aged-care sector, and this was in part due to a regulatory system that was driven by for-profit providers. The deals done between the government and the coalition on these bills lead us to have significant concerns that these bills actually won't address the issues that were identified in the last royal commission and, frankly, wouldn't stop another royal commission into the aged-care sector in future. The key concern for us is that the rights within this bill remain aspirational for providers. They are not enforceable. The removal of criminal penalties, as part of negotiations between the two big parties in this joint, has been a significant concern for us and also for many participants and advocates. The Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care in a submission on the bill called the rights contained within it 'aspirational'. They said: The Office considers the approach taken in the Bill to safeguard individuals' rights to be largely aspirational. In particular, the Office is concerned that it will not implement a rights-based framework as clear or as robust as Royal Commissioners envisaged, because the pathways available to individuals to understand and assert their rights lack the necessary vigour to drive real change. This would be bitterly disappointing for participants, their loved ones, their families and advocates who have seen far too often how the rights of older people in aged care come last and are subsumed by the profiteering of the aged-care providers. The shameful evidence we saw throughout the royal commission shows the sector lacks serious regulation, and we are concerned that, without enforceable rights, this regulation remains far too relaxed to prevent another royal commission. Professor Kathy Eagar told the inquiry that, in her view, this bill is a lost opportunity to genuinely fix aged care once and for all. She has no doubt that within a matter of years the sector will be back in crisis. The lack of enforcement of rights was also an issue for the National Older Women's Network, who told the inquiry: It appears that the framers have been convinced that the aged-care sector is too big to fail and so their demands remain a priority. The act, by not making the rights enforceable and actually spelling out the fact that they aren't enforceable, means that we know the words of rights are window dressings to offer appeasement and focus our attention. 'Window dressing' is what these rights are if they're not enforceable. That was the view of many submitters, and it's a view the Greens share. Post the royal commission, we cannot let providers off the hook. Older people deserve clearly enforceable rights and access to high-quality care. The lack of safeguarding those things in this bill jeopardises that purpose. We hold significant concerns that the aspirational rights for providers do not go anywhere near the heart of the problem in aged care—that its operation as a market means the incentive of providers, the profit motive, always trumps the provision of high-quality care. Further, although this bill partly reforms the complaints process, we hear time and time again from participants and their loved ones who are frustrated with the lack of real justice that they see issued against providers. The removal of the worker voice during negotiations between the government and the coalition is also of deep concern. Workers are at the coalface of this sector, and they are the ones who see when things are going wrong. Removing their ability to influence the safety of their workplace is a detriment to them and to participants. We've seen appalling conduct from industry consultants, lobbyists and providers who try to game the system, and we've seen this most clearly with the failures of the star-rating system and a watering down of care minutes. A worker's voice would have gone some way towards ensuring aged care is monitored properly. We're also concerned about the strength of whistleblower provisions. In the absence of a worker voice, it is critical that participants and workers are protected from adverse consequences for whistleblowing. The royal commission showed us that people must feel safe to speak up when something is wrong, particularly in a sector like aged care, when it can be a matter of life and death for people. Now I move onto issues pertaining to funding in chapter 4 of the bill. While the Greens support the wealthy paying their fair share, opening the door to an expanded user-pays model only risks serving to increase the profits of private providers that are already robbing older Australians blind. If more emphasis on user pays is the answer, then you are asking the wrong question. The government needs to be responsible for funding an accessible system for all Australians who need it. We have significant concerns that this bill takes aged care down a pathway that will be very difficult to unwind. Instead of treating aged care as health care, as it should be, this bill and this government, with the support of the opposition, are completely embedding it as a marketplace. Participants and the government will continue to subsidise for-profit aged-care providers. This bill entrenches aged care as a marketplace, and all the while it turns the screws on co-contributions from participants. The varying contribution levels risk pushing older people to ration the care that they receive. In the submission that ACOSS—the Australian Council of Social Services—wrote on this bill, they say: Australia has a longstanding principle to provide universal, essential health care services, so that decent care is available to everyone, regardless of their means. Such services have traditionally been provided either free of charge (such as public hospitals), or at modest cost (such as General Practitioner consultations). The Bill now puts this principle in direct jeopardy. That is ACOSS saying that the principle of universal health care that we pay taxes to fund is in peril because of this bill. Additionally, in the submission to the bill from the Nursing and Midwifery Federation, ANMF, they pointed out: Aged care should be publicly funded and owned, particularly as the sector relies heavily on taxpayer support and … The proposed … separation of clinical and non-clinical care also creates an unnecessary distinction that can lead to financial burdens for residents while undermining comprehensive care. Further, the increase to the maximum room price is of significant concern. There is little evidence that there'll be any limitation on providers simply lurching to increase the room price as soon as they can to collect another $250,000. This bill lacks safeguards to protect against that. The government should be increasing taxes on billionaires and big corporations to properly fund the overburdened aged-care system rather than continuing down this pathway of rationing care and opening the door to unaffordable services and higher profits for private aged-care providers. Beyond the substantive concerns with the bill, the community and the Senate have been provided with very little time to consider the full implications of these reforms. This bill is substantive, and participants and advocates were given just two weeks to read the over-500-page bill, to put in a submission and to participate in the inquiry process. We heard from many people in the community who felt that they had been completely sidelined during that process. Feedback through the inquiry highlighted how complex a task for participants and advocates this has really been. Participants also highlighted the emphasis on provider perspectives. One lived-experience witness told the inquiry: The airwaves have been dominated by government and corporate provider lobbyists, and our voices have not been heard and certainly not sought. So we are indeed grateful that this committee is prepared to hear evidence from us, although hearing time still seems to be dominated by commercial interests. Many submissions also noted that the significant delegation to the rules has meant that it's incredibly difficult to appraise the full implications of the legislation. There are over 600 references in the bill to the rules. We haven't actually seen all of the rules. I understand there's only one tranche of them. So the Senate is essentially being asked to form a position on legislation when we don't know the full shape of it yet. That should be ringing alarm bells to everybody in this chamber. The significant amount of delegation to the rules under the bill also leaves much of the decision-making up to the government of the day. With the amount of contribution levels that have been delegated, we're concerned that this is leaving it open for a future government to turn the screws, notwithstanding that some of those rules will be disallowable. Every person fortunate to live into old age will need to be cared for, and if this really is the once-in-a-generation opportunity for reform, then it's critical that the government gets it right. We cannot risk a two-tiered system that bakes in inequality. The elderly are not commodities; they're human beings. It should be an obligation of any moral society for the government to ensure that older people can get the care that they need. I want to acknowledge the work that Senator Allman-Payne, who is our aged-care spokesperson but is currently suffering from COVID—though thankfully seems to be on the mend—has done in this area. She, through me on her behalf, wants to thank all of the older people, their families and their advocates who took the time to give evidence and engage in this process—both the Senate inquiry process and also the royal commission process that preceded it. That inquiry process was far too brief, and those people really feel like their voices were not properly considered, which is an indictment on this government rushing through such big reforms. We want to thank the people who did take the time to engage and reassure them that we've heard them, that our view is that people in their later years deserve dignity and safety and that we will always fight for them. 12:29 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. This bill responds directly to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and addresses, or partly addresses, 58 royal commission recommendations in total. The Aged Care Bill also responds to the Aged Care Taskforce, established in 2023, which considered how to sustainably fund aged care into the future. In other words this bill addresses the neglect of those opposite during the 10-year period that they were in government. In fact, during that 10-year period that they were on the government benches, they changed ministers more often than they changed their underwear. To have the contribution today by the senator from the opposition talking about how bad this legislation is—for 10 years they did nothing. Their government neglected aged care in this country and was so bad that they called a royal commission into their own failings. That says to people in the community that they can't trust those that are now in opposition and Peter Dutton if he ever becomes Prime Minister of this country. We know what he did when he was the health minister. He gutted it by $3 billion. That's what he did. They can't risk having Mr Dutton on the government benches as Prime Minister. When we took office we said that we were going to respond to the royal commission and its recommendations, look at those and act as quickly as we could. We have made sure to reform this piece of legislation so that it will deliver quality care for senior Australians living in residential care and for those who are still able to live at home. So the government did respond. It's not like all of a sudden people have only just found out that aged care is in such crisis. We knew it for the 10 years that they were in government. We've been in this place on this side of the chamber for less than three years, and we are already responding to that royal commission. Senator Marielle Smith, as chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, went out and listened to the concerns. Not only did that committee listen to the concerns but this government has actually acted on the concerns and the issues that were raised through that appropriate process. The royal commission determined that the aged-care sector at the time was existing as a systematically failing system, where treating older people without dignity was normalised. That's what happened under their government for 10 years. It was a sector in crisis. It was in that much of a crisis that they finally realised it themselves and called a royal commission, and rightly so. Most Australians were shocked by the findings of the royal commission and the systematic abuse occurring within our aged-care system across the country. Those opposite were beholden to the sector and were unwilling to make the necessary reforms to the sector that were so badly needed. With this new bill the Albanese government is delivering a new comprehensive pathway; mandatory aged-care food standards, which is pretty basic but very important because we all know what people in residential care were being fed under the previous government; statutory duty of care for registered providers of aged care; and worker screening. Workers can no longer be sacked from one aged-care residential home and then go down to the next suburb and get another job. We have done that in this legislation. There are stronger investigative powers for the regulator, new civil penalties and new whistleblower protections. I'm proud to stand here before you and speak on this bill because for years I've advocated for many of these reforms, which is why they are now becoming part of reality. I want to remind those people opposite of how many failed ministers they had in their decade in government. As the assistant shadow minister for ageing under opposition leader Bill Shorten, I travelled the country and heard directly from residents, from their families and from providers who were advocating for change to the sector. They were advocating for more money to be put into the sector. But what happened? Nothing happened until the Albanese government was elected at the last election, and we've taken the action that was needed. When we first came to government we got on with the job of reform of the aged-care sector, and I want to acknowledge the hard work of Minister Mark Butler. When we were in government previously, we actually started the process with Living Longer, Living Better. We knew that senior Australians deserved better support, better care. And then finally, after 10 years of neglect, we were elected and now Minister Butler, along with Minister Wells, has taken those actions. I'd also like to acknowledge Minister Julie Collins for her leadership when she was the aged care minister. I worked with her when she also had the shadow portfolio. I also acknowledge Shayne Neumann for his leadership over many years. We travelled the country and we were listening, and now we've had the opportunity to act. I'm very proud of all of those people who have made a contribution to this legislation. This was so serious for us that our first act, on coming into government, was to pass the reforms in the first piece of legislation that our government tabled. We have placed older Australians as a priority since we were elected to government. We delivered a new funding mechanism for residential aged care and a sector-wide code of conduct. We expanded the Serious Incident Response Scheme and created stronger provider guidance. We implemented aged-care reforms, delivering greater transparency, capping homecare fees and, most importantly, putting nurses back into nursing homes. Those opposite didn't care enough to put them back when the sector was crying out for them, when families and older people were crying out for them. The creation of the Inspector-General of Aged Care reinforced the Albanese government's commitment to being open with the Australian public about how aged care is administered and how it will be administered into the future. We have made aged care more transparent with star ratings for residential care, informing senior Australians and reassuring them about the importance of family and having communications between the resident and the provider that are open and transparent. And in line with our commitment to working people and wage growth, the Albanese government proudly delivered an investment of $11.3 billion in an historic pay rise for aged-care workers. Those opposite did nothing about wages. We still have a shortage of workers, but at least now they're getting paid for the valuable work that they perform for our loved ones, and one day maybe they'll do that for some of those who are in the chamber right now. It was a 14 per cent pay rise. When you listen to what those people on that side say, remember that their government's policy was to keep wages low. Try telling that to an aged-care worker who's trying to buy a home or put food on the table—or, during COVID, having to work in two different aged-care homes, spreading COVID because they had no other choice. That all happened under the watch of those opposite. Just as we have provided funding for early childhood educators, we are investing in the care economy. The care economy is about caring for senior Australians and it's about educating our young. Our reforms have a positive impact on the lives of older people, on their families, on their friends and on the workers who are caring for them. As I speak in this chamber, there is a registered nurse on site in aged-care residential places 99 per cent of the time across this country. Older Australians are receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every single day, of which 1.7 million are delivered by a qualified registered nurse. We should never accept anything less than that. This is what delivering for senior Australians looks like, and we're not stopping there. The new legislation framework for aged care will place high-quality, safe and compassionate care and services at the centre of the scheme. The Aged Care Bill includes a statement of rights for older people and a positive duty for providers to uphold those rights, as well as a single-entry point to the aged-care system with clear eligible requirements and a fair, culturally safe assessment process. It is the framework for delivering a range of aged-care services including residential care and the new Support at Home program which will offer improved access to supports and services to help people remain independent in their own home. At the end of the day, we all know this will save governments money, but it's about more than that. It's about supporting people to stay in their own home, where they can be independent and where the majority of older people want to age. We will be providing higher levels of care in the home so that, as I said, people can stay at home longer. The bill will provide mechanisms for the Commonwealth to fund aged-care services, including aged-care related grant programs and fair contributions from those who can afford to contribute to the cost of aged care, and to make sure the aged-care system is sustainable in the future. I've been in this place long enough to know that those opposite were urged to do something about making those people who can afford it pay a contribution to aged care. That's because the need for aged care in this country is going to grow exponentially. This is a good thing; we all want to grow old. But those opposite were not prepared to take that step because they didn't want to deal with any political backlash. When you're in government, you have to be accountable to your people. You have to make sure that you have services and you protect older Australians who have worked to create the country that we have the privilege of living in and that I have the privilege of serving. This bill is a new approach to aged care. This is about restoring dignity, and it's about restoring respect. It's about respecting those people who work in aged care. It's about respecting the rights of the individual who has to go and live in a residential home. We must always remember a residential home is that person's home. It's just that they're not well enough or they don't have the support to be able to live independently at home anymore. So this is one of the best things that this Labor government has done, and we've done it because we respect older people. We believe that people working in this care economy deserve to be supported. They deserve fair pay. We've taken another really important step, and that is to legislate so that only people aged 65 years and older can live in residential homes. That's so people with disability, often younger people, aren't put into an aged-care home that is totally wrong for them. Somebody who's in their 30s should not be placed in an old people's home because they have a disability and have nowhere else to go. That's part of this legislation as well. This is good legislation. I have been in this place for a long time. There is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. That is why we have been negotiating with those opposite for over 12 months. For 12 months, we've been trying to get them to the table, to actually vote and to support this legislation, but we never walked away from it. We were never going to go away from our belief that this was really important. The other priority in this bill is something I've been passionate about from my first day in this place—that is, empowering workers to be able to care for, and to be well trained and well skilled to deal with, those who are on their dementia journey. Dementia is, unfortunately, the biggest killer of women in this country. It's not heart attacks. Women die predominantly from dementia, so more and more Australians will go into residential care, and we need skilled, caring, supportive staff to help them. I'm very proud, and I urge people to support— (Time expired) 12:44 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. While these bills are ambitious in scope and the coalition will support their passage, they contain a number of concerns that should be addressed to achieve their intended goals. Earlier this month the community affairs committee tabled its final report on the inquiry into the Aged Care Bill 2024. I thank the shadow minister for health, Senator Ruston, for facilitating the opportunity for senators to scrutinise these reforms via public hearings before their passage through this chamber. Throughout the inquiry, senators heard directly from providers, and from older Australians and their families. While there is broad support for the reforms proposed in these bills, many stakeholders emphasised the need for adequate time to implement these changes effectively. This concern is especially relevant given that much of the detail remains in subordinate legislation which has yet to be released in full. The coalition has agreed to the passage of these bills because it is necessary to embed a rights based framework and to ensure a world-class aged-care system in our country. However, the coalition remains deeply concerned about the lack of appropriate transparency, particularly the absence of critical rules and implementation guidelines. This bill doesn't meet the aged care royal commission's recommendation to establish a right to access care. It lacks clear timelines and reporting mechanisms to track wait times from application and assessment to receiving care. Witnesses also raised concerns that the bill includes no safeguards to prevent the government from reducing the number of aged-care places. Genuine reform cannot succeed without clarity, consultation and an achievable timeline for the providers who must deliver these changes. Aged care reflects our values as a society. The way we care for older Australians mirrors our commitment to dignity, respect and humanity. These reforms should embody that commitment, but they fall short. Over half of the aged-care homes in Australia are operating at a loss. In the last year alone, under this government's watch, 49 aged-care homes have closed. By 2042, a mere 18 years from now, the number of Australians aged 85 years and over is projected to double, increasing to over one million people. By the 2060s, just 36 years away, one in five Australians will be aged over 65. It is important to note the work the coalition has done in aged care. We initiated the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and delivered over $18 billion in immediate funding to the sector following that royal commission. We've secured critical changes to this legislation, including grandfathering arrangements, fairer financial contributions and additional support for rural and regional providers. Workforce shortages are a critical issue in the sector, with aged-care providers struggling to attract and retain staff. Financial pressures on families and providers are escalating, compounded by inadequate support for essential services. The substantive bills have been rushed through the parliament, leaving providers and older Australians unable to properly prepare for their impact. During the inquiry the CEO of Community Based Support, Ms Allyson Warrington, stated: … we haven't had enough detail on the overall rules and change to be able to financially model what that care management looks like … Transparency is lacking, with key details hidden in subordinate legislation which is yet to be released. This bill implements the first of the recommendations of the royal commission—a new rights based framework for aged care—and it seeks to promote dignity and independence for older Australians. They are both critically important. However, arbitrary caps on things like cleaning and gardening services undermine the ability for older Australians to age at home. The primary message we got from the inquiry is that people want to age at home for as long as possible. These services are essential; they are not luxuries. Mr Jim Paterson, the senior manager at Advocacy Tasmania, told the committee that the 52-hour-per-year cap was far too low. He said: The cap at 52 hours in a year is very low for cleaning, and, for some people, 18 hours for gardening is also extremely low. And, for some people, when you look at consumer directed care, they might be the two items that they want actually more of, compared to some of the other items they may not need yet in their package … Foundation director of the Australian Health Services Research Institute, Professor Kathy Eagar, expressed concerns that the shortfall in services would lead vulnerable elderly Australians to move to the cash economy: If you can only get an hour of gardening or cleaning, you'll end up being in the cash economy, paying somebody locally. For an older person, particularly someone who's got cognitive loss, this is a really risky issue. We actually want a community aged-care system that is socially engaging with people and that people trust to identify their needs as they get older. Ms Beverly Baker, Chair of the Older Women's Network New South Wales, captured the human element of the issue when she stated during the Newcastle hearing: An hour of cleaning a week—for heaven's sake! It takes me longer than that to clean up my kitchen after one meal. It is absolutely unreal. If you're living in Sydney, with our climate, you can hear your grass grow … As you get older your eyesight isn't as good and maybe you don't see the dirt as clearly as you could when you were younger. Those sorts of things are really important. Older women are not dirty. Sometimes they simply can't see what's in a shadow or in shade … It is an insult to say to somebody, 'You can clean your house in an hour.' That is not possible. It doesn't matter how small your house is; it's going to take you longer than an hour to clean. Evidence presented during the inquiry raises important questions around these caps. Who exactly determined this to be a reasonable community expectation? Which segments of the community were consulted to assess whether these timeframes truly reflect needs? The $10,000 grants available for providers for ICT upgrades not only are inadequate but also fail to reflect the complexity and cost of implementing these changes. We also don't know whether the department itself is ready for the changes with their own ICT upgrades. Evidence presented during the Senate inquiry highlighted that ICT upgrades involve significant financial and operational challenges, including updating systems, training staff and ensuring compatibility with government systems. The costs far exceed the limited funding on offer. Coalition senators recommend that transition arrangements include a provision delaying the start date for any changes requiring ICT builds until six months after key milestones have been met. These milestones include receiving pricing from the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, tabling the chapter 4 rules and ensuring that all associated government ICT changes are either in place or scoped sufficiently to provide certainty around system capabilities. If this government is serious about delivering historic reforms, it must match its ambition with meaningful structural and transitional support. Without realistic timelines, providers will struggle to implement the necessary changes and deliver the outcomes that these reforms are intended to achieve. The push to move elderly Australians from hospitals into aged-care facilities prioritises system efficiency over individual needs. We need to ensure that older Australians are given options to return to their home after extended hospital stays, rather than being directed to the aged-care residential system. Such transitions should be guided by personal preferences, wellbeing and the opportunity to age respectfully at home. The government has failed to release key subordinate legislation, leaving stakeholders in the dark. Providers and families cannot adequately plan for these proposed changes. The Albanese government is introducing punitive tax changes on superannuation balances over $3 million. These changes will double the tax rate on some super earnings, including unrealised capital gains. Younger Australians and self-funded retirees will ultimately bear the brunt of these tax changes. Simultaneously, these same cohorts of Australians are being asked to pay more for aged-care services, with no real guarantees of improved quality. Rising property prices and rents are eroding Australians' abilities to save for aged-care costs, like refundable accommodation deposits and daily accommodation payments. This comes at a time when this government is expecting Australians to depend on their home equity to fund their aged-care needs. Risks preventing Australians from building long-term financial security required to meet their aged-care needs are something that we need to address. As of 31 March 2023, 63 per cent of Australians aged 65 and over received income support payments, with 92 per cent of those receiving the age pension. This amounts to around 2.8 million people. This number will only continue to grow as a greater proportion of our population ages. Without homeownership, these Australians face significant financial insecurity as they age. The aged-care sector faces a workforce crisis. Staff shortages are placing significant strain on providers, with rural and regional areas hit the hardest. It is also where aged-care workers are overburdened and underpaid, leading to higher turnover rates. The government has failed to outline a clear strategy to address these workforce challenges. Since coming to power, the Albanese Labor government has introduced over $315 billion in additional spending, much of it poorly targeted. Rising inflation and interest rates are compounding financial pressures on families and providers. Australians are facing higher taxes and fewer services with no relief in sight. Ensuring Australians can age at home, if they choose, with adequate support is critical. Demanding the release of all subordinate legislation and clear timelines for implementation are critical. Targeting training, retention and recruitment to build a sustainable aged-care workforce is also critical. Aged care is not just a policy issue; it is the measure of our humanity. In the current form, and without the full scope of subordinate legislation, these bills lack the clarity and transparency needed to fully address the challenges facing aged care in Australia. The coalition will continue to advocate for reforms that deliver dignity, choice and quality care for older Australians, and we will hold this government accountable and ensure that every Australian can access the care they deserve. We have a duty to our older Australians to ensure they are treated with dignity and respect, and we have an equally urgent responsibility to young Australians to safeguard them from inheriting the crushing tax burden of a broken and inefficient aged-care system. This is a pivotal moment, a chance to create an aged-care system that not only rises to the challenges of today, but becomes a foundation of fairness, sustainability and dignity for generations to come. I move the amendment as circulated in Senator Ruston's name on sheet 3072: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) revise the transitional arrangements of the Support at Home Program to allow sufficient time for implementation by in-home aged care providers; (b) provide certainty to the aged care sector through a clear transition path, including implementation information beyond 1 July 2025, recognising the cost, both in staff training time and monetary value, of the measures in this bill; (c) undertake an extensive education and information campaign about the measures in this bill, targeted at both older Australians and their families and the wider aged care sector, to address the understanding gap clearly articulated throughout the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry; (d) expedite the design of the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) replacement program to: (i) give aged care providers sufficient time to make necessary changes and to prevent the challenges associated with rushed policy implementation as seen with this bill, (ii) enable providers to undertake ICT changes for both Support at Home and the CHSP replacement program concurrently, and (iii) ensure greater emphasis is placed on the additional value delivered by organisations, such as Meals on Wheels, when determining contracts and pricing for services; (e) undertake further consultation on care management fee caps and service delivery, including with clinicians, to: (i) provide greater transparency about the factors used to determine the Service Lists, (ii) ensure arbitrary decisions such as the caps on cleaning and gardening services do not remove choice and control from the centre of aged care, and (iii) ensure that there is greater flexibility in use of care minutes so that residential aged care homes can deliver individualised, fit for purpose care that is within the limitations of their market, while still ensuring high quality care; (f) immediately assess the scale of risk in relation to unrecoverable debts and ensure that the liability for any unrecoverable debts rests with the appropriate entity; and (g) ensure that: (i) consideration is given to regulatory requirements to ensure that dignity of risk is never removed from the centre of high-quality care, (ii) aged care providers are not adversely penalised until transitional measures in this bill are completed, while protecting the rights of older Australians, and (iii) consideration is given to the exclusion of Refundable Accommodation Deposits (RADs) from aged care asset testing provisions where the person has sold their family home to pay the RAD, to align the treatment of RADs to their treatment in the age pension assessment and recognise that residential aged care is an individuals' home". 12:57 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to also offer a contribution to the debate on the Aged Care Bill 2024. Over the last few months, I've been speaking with Canberrans about these proposed changes and about what they want from our aged-care system here in Australia. My team and I had a great time speaking with seniors about this bill at the COTA ACT Seniors Expo. We also conducted a survey of Canberrans and, with the support of the amazing team at COTA ACT, we held a townhall at the Hughes Community Centre to walk through what has been proposed and to listen to what the Canberra community has to say about the government's proposal. Broadly, Canberrans have told me that they are comfortable with these changes but with some caveats. The vast majority of people I have spoken to have told me they are happy to contribute more to their aged care in the future but only if it means that they have access to better services. The reality at the moment is that people are not getting what they need from our aged-care system. They are not getting the services that they are paying for. Many can't even find the services that they need. There is still concern for people's wellbeing while they are in residential aged care. Recently, I had somebody tell me that they fought with a provider for a full year just to get them to stop feeding their diabetic partner sugar. This should not be happening. It should not be happening given what we learned through the royal commission and given the commitment of the parliament to actually looking after senior Australians. That complaint was left unresolved by the commission, even after that man passed away. For this reason, I was not surprised to learn that 58 per cent of people that are surveyed said that they weren't confident that the aged-care system would be able to meet their needs. A further 51 per cent of people told me that they didn't think aged-care providers had people's best interests at heart. The trust in the system is not there, the trust in aged-care providers is certainly not there, the trust in our regulators is not there, and the services simply don't exist to meet people's needs, even in our nation's capital. That's clearly why change is necessary, and that's why I'm supportive of what is being proposed today. We need a system that is available for the next generation and the generation after that. We need more funding entering the system to improve wages, quality standards and accommodation. In general terms, this bill delivers on that, helping to secure the future of the aged-care system and regear it so that it focuses on providing support to keep people at home for as long as possible. However, there are a few issues that Canberrans have raised with me that I want to call out today, the first being aged-care assessments and the time it takes for someone to get a home-care package. Before anyone can even start receiving support, they first need an assessment. Here in the ACT, the wait to get an assessment has been unacceptably long. I've heard from people who've waited a full year for an assessment—12 months just for an assessment—and then they have to wait another year for the package to come through. The end result is that a lot of Canberrans have ended up hospitalised waiting for their package, or Canberrans are told, 'Just go to the hospital, and you'll get your assessment much faster if you say it's an emergency.' That's disgraceful. It is truly disgraceful to have a system where people are resorting to going to emergency and landing in hospitals that are already clogged, just to get an assessment for a home-care package. I want to put on the record my frustration with the finger-pointing that has occurred between the federal government and the ACT government, who can't seem to provide a straight answer on where things have been going wrong here. The ACT government say that they've been dudded on funding and they haven't been given enough, and the federal government say that that's not true—that the ACT government have been given funding and they haven't actually employed enough people to do these assessments. Whatever the case, we need both governments to work it out so that our senior residents are not paying the price. We have people who are paid big bucks, and they need to accept responsibility for actually fixing things rather than pointing at the other government and trying to handball this issue. I recognise that the government has committed to lowering waiting times to three months. But let's be real: that three months presents just one component of the journey. It doesn't account for the time it takes to get an assessment and then the time it takes for the services to actually commence. So we need to be much more transparent about the whole process, not just the element that the government feels that it can control directly, where it can go out there and promise three months. Let's break it down and be upfront about what that process will actually look like and how long it's actually going to take to be delivered. That's why I'll be asking the Senate to support amendments to provide greater transparency around wait times so we can keep a sharp eye on where we may be failing communities across the country. The other big issue I want to raise is how we're treating people who become disabled over 65. From a number of people I've met and whose stories I've heard, it's pretty appalling. If you become disabled over the age of 65, you are guaranteed to receive far less support than a person with a disability aged under 65. This was brought to my attention by two Canberrans who have become familiar faces in these halls—Peter and Lorraine. In late 2012 Lorraine, at the age of 72, fell off her bicycle and injured her spinal cord. Tragically, this rendered Lorraine quadriplegic. Because she was over 65 at the time of her accident, Lorraine will never be eligible for the NDIS. The aged-care system is the system that provides support to her and she receives that support through a home-care package. But the aged-care system has not been designed for people with disability. When they first got their package, many aged-care agencies turned them down. Many of them simply said Lorraine needs disability care, not aged care. When they asked disability agencies, they were told, 'If she's not in the NDIS, we can't help her. We're not interested.' Peter and Lorraine did find support in the end but the package simply does not provide the support that Lorraine needs. Within their package they can scrape together enough to help Lorraine get out of bed in the mornings but they do not have enough to help get her to bed in the evenings. Lorraine's husband, Peter, turns 86 next month. He has told me he fears the day he will no longer be able to help his wife in the evenings. He asks us to consider: 'What should I do when I no longer have the strength to lift my wife into bed? The only option will be residential aged care.' Lorraine is an active member of our community. She attends lectures and is a member of the Women's International Club. She has an active life and it would be the greatest shame for Lorraine to have to enter residential aged care before she needs to, simply because the system will not give her the support she needs to get into bed at night. That's the opposite of what the system should be doing and it runs contrary to the strong recommendation of the royal commission that the aged-care system provide support to older Australians with disability comparable to supports funded through the NDIS. I will be moving an amendment to recognise that this system is the system that has to support people who become disabled over 65. I hope that the Senate will support that amendment for the benefit of people like Lorraine, who want to remain at home and remain part of our community. I want to finish by talking about the statement of rights. This is something we debated quite a bit at the town hall. Canberrans have told me that, while they appreciate the strong statements of right within the bill, they worry that these rights are essentially unenforceable, that they are rights on paper. They are like the mission statements that you see up on the walls of offices and businesses around the country—they are there but no-one really pays much attention to them. It's true that a person can't take action in a court if they feel their rights have been breached. But looking into the details of the bill, it's unclear to me if even the commissioner can take action if people feel their rights aren't being upheld. It seems the commissioner only has to consider whether providers have procedure manuals in place, not whether these rights are being upheld each and every day in practice. And everyone in this chamber knows it's one thing to have a procedure manual but another thing to actually use that and ensure that those procedures are being implemented. I'd like to finish by reading to the chamber some of the feedback I've received from Canberrans. This is from Eileen: The royal commission proved it is not a matter of a few bad apples or isolated incidents. The abuse and neglect is systemic and it continues unabated without consequence for the service providers. Nothing in the new act will change that. Many providers are still not meeting the service quality standards more than one year since they were meant to be fully implemented. These are standards for only bare-minimum care, not even for good care. This is from Vicki: 'How will the government ensure that contributions made by senior Australians to the cost of their aged care are used to improve the quality and number of services provide to residents and not simply used to increase the profits of aged-care providers? Aged care is expensive already, and service quality varies significantly across the sector. If being asked to contribute more, then the services provided must be monitored and standards enforced.' This is from Donna: 'Dad's strongest wish is to remain in his home until he dies. My sister lives with him and is committed to helping him realise that wish. Her role as carer is largely unsupported by the community, and avenues for subsidised assistance aren't readily apparent to her. Review of Dad's care package takes a long time, and the services he needs are difficult to access. My sister's role as carer is close to 24/7. It's not sustainable. She's in her 60s, and both of them might end up in care.' Finally, this is from Bronwyn Vincent: 'The system is a nightmare. I don't understand how aged people without support or an advocate navigate the process. I provide support for my almost 90-year-old mother, who lives independently in her own home. I've been trying for months to get her additional support, and although her application has been approved months ago, she is still waiting for the paperwork to go through. This is ridiculous. They keep reassessing her. She doesn't need a new assessment; she just needs someone to do the paperwork. This is so frustrating.' I thank the government for bringing forward these reforms. I sincerely hope they will support amendments that I think strengthen the aims of this bill and really ensure that we are living up to the pact that we should have with older generations. The things we enjoy are due to their hard work, and we will respect them, look after them and ensure that they can live a life of dignity as they age. As we know, for most people, that is living at home for as long as possible. Whilst a number of things in this bill will do that, the timeliness of that process to get an assessment and a package has to have more transparency, so that we can ensure it is delivered to Australians around Australia. 13:12 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry into this bill primarily through the month of October, reporting early November. It was a considerable inquiry, and I just need to put some facts on the record regarding the extent and thoroughness of that inquiry as well as some of the other consultations which have gone into the development of this bill. We held nine public hearings over a matter of a few weeks. We went to every single state and territory, not just capital cities but regional areas in the states and territories as well. We heard from over 150 people, including 28 witnesses who shared their lived experience of aged care. We held five panels of lived-experience witnesses across the course of our hearings. We added an additional one towards the end to make sure we could bolster the lived experience we were receiving as evidence to our committee. In total, we received over 180 submissions by people affected by aged care and by their advocates and representatives, as well as by service providers and other stakeholders across the aged-care sector. It was a substantial inquiry. I want to thank the committee secretariat for their tireless work to organise these hearings in a very short timeframe, particularly Claudia Kevin, who stepped up as acting committee secretary for a significant portion of the inquiry. I know a number of other Senate staff members attended our hearings and helped facilitate our inquiries, because we had so many around the country in such a short period of time. Government senators turned up to every single one of those inquiries for the entire duration of the day. I want to acknowledge Senator Urquhart and Senator Pratt for their presence and also for their assistance to me in chairing some of those inquiries. This built on a consultation process conducted by the Department of Health and Aged Care before the bill was introduced. The exposure draft of the bill was released for public consultation for four months, during which nearly 1,000 people attended face-to-face or virtual workshops on the legislation, including specific sessions for culturally and linguistically diverse communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The department hosted three public webinars with more than 9,600 people in attendance, and facilitated roundtable discussions that engaged aged-care experts, advocates, providers and representatives to discuss and provide comment on the exposure draft. I'm advised that these consultations in total resulted in almost 14,500 separate points of engagement on the bill, including more than 440 submissions and 1,500 survey responses. The consultation on this bill and these reforms was extremely thorough, not just by our committee but also by the department before it, and that consultation extended to people with lived experience of aged care. It was not just about providers, and it extended to almost every corner of Australia. And as chair of the committee, I am so grateful for the heartfelt, passionate and sometimes deeply personal testimony we received, which was instrumental in developing our report and shaping our views. But what we heard loud and clear over the course of this inquiry was that this bill was urgent and necessary, and that there is absolutely no time to waste to pass it through the Senate so that the government can implement these vital reforms. This bill is part of a reform process which isn't months long—it is years long, after significant advocacy from people in aged care, from their families and from their loved ones. It responds to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety from October 2018—the report of which left absolutely no doubt about the urgency of a reform. That interim report was titled Neglect, and let us never forget it. From a royal commission report call Neglect, something had to happen. This bill represents a substantial part of the government's response to that report and a substantial part of the reform process we know needs to take place in aged care to make sure that high-quality care can be delivered in a sustainable way to ensure it will be there for all the generations that need it. In its final report, the royal commission has made clear that change was needed and that people in aged care want to be treated with care, dignity and respect, but that it had been far too easy for older people and their families to become disempowered in what can be a depersonalised, confusing and overly bureaucratic aged-care system. Recommendation 1 of the royal commission was that a new aged-care act be passed by this parliament, and the passage of the bill will respond to around 60 of the recommendations of this royal commission report. This bill is about putting older Australians at the heart of the aged-care system and raising the standard of care across the nation, and sustainable funding is an essential part of that mission. By changing how aged-care providers deliver services to older people in their homes, community settings and residential care homes, there is an opportunity to ensure that older people are treated with the respect that they deserve. This bill implements a much-needed, rights-based legislative framework for aged care, as was recommended by the royal commission. We all know the stories—the horrific stories—from years past about what has happened in aged care in this country. The royal commission report was called Neglect for a reason, and none of us should be comfortable maintaining the status quo that produced a report called Neglect. The bill before us today is about responding to that report, saying a report called Neglect does not leave us with any option but to embark on a substantial agenda of reform. Sometimes that requires hard decisions, but it actually does require coming to the table, coming to the party and trying to resolve a problem—a massive problem which was hurting too many of the people we love and too many members of our own families. It would have continued to hurt and harm if a reform agenda were not ambitious, bold and brought to this chamber, as this bill today. I think this is a good bill. Throughout our inquiry process we found some things which we thought needed work and needed to be addressed. We made commentary throughout our report on the committee's view, and I acknowledge the work and the response of the government to some of those issues raised. That's the purpose and part of having an inquiry process. But it is also really important that we come together and do something about this and that we don't think the status quo, in a system which led to a royal commission report called Neglect, is ever going to be superior to a reform agenda which seeks to put older Australians at the heart of aged care, because that's not an acceptable scenario either. It's not acceptable and not at all reasonable to put your heads in the sand on this one. We need to come together as a parliament to deliver reform. That's what our community expects of us, and that's what this bill will deliver. Those reforms go to secure and sustainable funding. They go to the Support at Home program, which will make a tremendous and massive difference to many people's lives. We know it is a core part of what older Australians and their families expect and want from the aged-care system and what this bill will help us deliver, including changes to those waiting lists and making sure that more Australians are supported to be able to age in their homes—an absolutely critical request of older Australians and their families. The aged-care sector absolutely needs reforms. These reforms are once in a generation, and I commend the minister who has worked tirelessly, since she was sworn into this portfolio, on seeking to deliver a reform program which responds to that report and responds to the title Neglect—a report that this chamber should never be able to ignore—and a response of the complexity, detail and, at times, compromise necessary to change this system to ensure that it works for older Australians, that older people get the care, dignity and respect they deserve, that we do that in a sustainable way and that we don't shirk our responsibilities in this parliament to respond to that No. 1 recommendation to deliver reform and to deliver a new act this term. That's our opportunity today. I commend the bill to the Senate. 13:22 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the legislation before us, the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. These are important pieces of legislation, and I acknowledge the commentary from the chair of the community affairs committee in relation to that. But, if this is such important legislation—if it is so important, as the government tell us—why have they left it so late in the term to legislate? Why have they allowed the program of the response to the royal commission put in place by the previous government to slip by so much? Why are we here at quarter to 12, just before an election, urgently needing to pass a piece of legislation that should have been done over a year ago? Why have they allowed that to happen? Why have they allowed the waiting time for home-care packages to slip from 30 to 90 days, where it was under the funding provided by the previous government, out to 15 months? I heard Senator David Pocock talking about waiting times. Why is their ambition for delivery of a home-care package out to 90 days? The coalition got the time down to 30 to 90 days for a home-care package at any level and to fewer than 30 days for a high-needs package. Yet the government, in this legislation, is saying that the acceptable standard for receiving a home-care package is 90 days, and Senator Pocock thinks that's okay. I don't, and neither do people receiving care. It's worth noting that this government, the Labor Party, still has not responded in full to the royal commission. The document that they're working off is the response tabled by the Morrison government in the budget of 2021 in its response to the royal commission. It's a bit cute, I have to say, to listen to members of the Labor Party—who still haven't responded formally to the 148 recommendations of that royal commission—taking credit for decisions made by the previous government. They're all important reforms. It's good that they're happening: the star rating, standards on food, the new funding model—the AN-ACC system—where providers all knew their funding regime before the 2022 election came to pass; and financial reporting. These were all things that were planned decisions made under the previous government. It's good that they're in place. These are important reforms in response to the royal commission. But we saw, before the last election, the politics of aged care played by Labor, when they opposed pieces of legislation that were proposed by the coalition and then brought them back immediately after the election in mostly the same form to pass them and claim credit for them. That's fine, but, as part of that process, for example, they reduced the standards of clinical care required in aged-care facilities for Indigenous Australians. Why do Indigenous Australians deserve a lesser standard of clinical oversight than everybody else? I would argue that they don't, but that's what this government did. They excluded Indigenous-run aged-care facilities from the clinical governance and the governance oversight required of every other provider in the country. It is shameful. It is shameful that they let the waiting time for home-care packages slip out to 15 months. The reform of the home-care system was one of the key elements of the royal commission report—'a cruel lottery', they called it. The Prime Minister talked before the election about 'returning the care to aged care'. The reality is that all he has done is delay the process and return the waiting lists. It is shameful that people are now waiting 15 months for a home-care package when all of the investment and all of the hard work done by the sector and the previous government had got the waiting time down from 90 to 30 days. That was a commitment that we made very early in the previous parliamentary term. There are some other catches within this legislation that haven't been talked about. The government talks about a lifetime cap on expenditure. It has been referred to by a number of people, but the thing that this legislation does is discriminate against people on lower incomes. If you can find the money to pay a RAD—a deposit for your home, which is a lot of money; potentially, up to a million dollars—that money is protected by the system, but, if you pay a DAP, a daily accommodation price or a daily accommodation fee, that is not included in the cap, and you will pay that every day. So, if you're someone of low means who can't afford to pay a RAD, all of your resources can, over time, be gobbled up through the daily accommodation fees. It is not part of the cap; it's not protected. The only thing that is included in the cap is the clinical care fees. Of course, the new design of the home-care system will drive people out of home care and out of their homes. They might just need that little bit of home care around the house or around the garden. Senator Pocock talked about it, and so did the Greens in their contribution. They might just need that little bit of assistance with some of those daily chores to stay in their own homes. But, with the way that the funding system has been designed under the government's new model, you might as well pay on the cash market than try and go through a home-care package because you will pay more. And, if you're in the upper echelon of wage earners, you could pay double what you're paying on the private market. The design of the scheme is designed to push people out of home care. The waiting times for home care are, quite simply, unacceptable. Now, the government talks a big game. I go back to the title of the interim report, not the final report, of the royal commission, and the government has a long, sad history of misrepresenting the royal commission— Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Colbeck. You will be in continuation. We will move on to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 15 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Paterson Electorate, Antcliff, Mr Laurence 15 13:30 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Last week I was delighted to join the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, in the electorate of Paterson, to announce our outstanding new candidate, Laurence Antcliff. Laurence is a true Paterson local who understands the needs of his community. He lives in Paterson with his wife, Kyra, and their three children. For over a decade, Laurence has worked in the housing sector, training and mentoring young Australians wanting to play a part in building our future. He has supported over 250 small and medium-sized construction businesses in the Hunter and across New South Wales. Laurence knows firsthand the significance of the housing crisis that is gripping our country and gripping the people of Paterson. The community of Paterson are an aspirational people. I know that because for some years I lived in Port Stephens. Like all Australians, they deserve respect from government at all levels. Sadly, for the last two years, this community has been dismissed by the Albanese Labor government. They have seen, too many times, Labor ministers fly in with grand announcements, to the detriment of local small businesses and local residents, and then fly straight back out. The people of Paterson deserve better, and Laurence Antcliff is that better. He will put Paterson first again, as any local member should do for their community. I look forward to fighting with Laurence, as does the rest of the Liberal team, as he campaigns for the next election to give Paterson the representation it deserves, whether that be for small manufacturing businesses in Maitland or for a tourism operator in Port Stephens. The diverse community of Paterson deserves a strong local candidate, and we'll fight really hard to deliver that with Laurence Antcliff. South Australia: Black By-Election, South Australia: Reproductive Autonomy 15 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia How good was the weekend? Not only did we see the Port Power AFLW make an amazing run, up towards the finals—very impressive—but also we saw the absolutely excellent Alex Dighton win the by-election in Black in South Australia. So good! Alex is such a great local member. He's going to be brilliant in this role, he really is. He is a proud member of the Labor Party, has spectacular values and has spent 16 years working in the school community, supporting students and being there for his community. I know that he is going to do so well in this role, and the people of Black will be very, very lucky to have him there. He will be the voice that is needed in the parliament for them. Winning two by-elections this year shows the confidence that South Australians have in the Labor government in the state and in Peter Malinauskas—an excellent leader, just kicking goals all the way. It is very impressive to see how amazingly the state government are doing and how well the federal Albanese Labor government are working alongside them. Between us, we do make the state a much, much better place to be. But one of the things that was quite disgraceful to see, in the last wee while, was the shameful attempt from members of the upper house to actually re-address the abortion debate. It was a disgrace to see that—to see our state's pro-choice stance knocked about. South Australia is clear: this is not where we're at. This is not the debate we want to have. We are not going to go down that disgraceful pathway and undermine the core values that we cherish. Middle East 16 13:34 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania There's a genocide underway in Gaza, and Labor has made Australia complicit. We're complicit because we're exporting Australian-made military hardware that is being used in the genocide. We are complicit because we've failed to take the necessary international action to resist the Gaza genocide. We are complicit because our government won't even call it a genocide despite overwhelming evidence as the slaughter of innocent civilians continues. The Liberals cheer on the brutality in Gaza with a bloodthirsty enthusiasm that renders them wholly unfit to hold office, and Labor talks out of both sides of its mouth. They wring their hands and call for balance yet they refuse to hold the state of Israel and its leaders accountable for a genocide. This is not neutrality; it's complicity. Australia must stop exporting military hardware to Israel. Australia must impose sanctions on Israeli war criminals, like Mr Netanyahu. Australia must stop siding with the murder of children in Gaza. Australia must end its complicity in the deliberate displacement of Palestinian people from their homes to be forced into concentration camps. End the slaughter in Gaza. End apartheid in Israel. Choose a ceasefire over the profits of weapons corporations. Choose enduring peace over violence against innocent people. Stop burying children alive. End the slaughter and end the Gaza genocide. First Nations Australians 16 13:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia In my home state of South Australia, the social and economic mess in Ceduna continues with the removal of the cashless debit card. Take up of Labor's enhanced income management is now so very low but the dreadful social, human and financial cost of their handiwork is so very high. With this Albanese government, non-disclosure agreements abound, as does the distilling or withholding data on increases of alcohol consumption, gambling, emergency presentations, violence and so much more. The Aboriginal service industry though is doing very well in Ceduna. There are 21 separate services, funded by the Commonwealth, that operate in the small remote township of some 3,000 residents, even though most residents in that area are actually not on welfare. Despite the regulator announcing an audit, public servants this month revealed plans to hand over an additional $600,000 to Ceduna's primary health provider, Yadu Health, to cover additional costs to build a health clinic that was supposed to be built in June. It gave $14 million to Yadu in November 2022, and its poor administration is rewarded with even more money when the service has delivered absolutely nothing—not even a slab; not even a shovel in the ground. This matters for all Australians because the human, financial and social costs continue to grow and so too does the gap in life expectancy for Indigenous Australians. The removal of the card was a mistake, but the coalition will reinstate it in the communities that want it. Those who live with that decision are the biggest losers. They're the most vulnerable: elders, children and those with co-morbid issues that live in the communities that wanted the card. Labor can't manage the economy, or your money, and this government must surely go down in history as one of the worst. Smith, Mr Peter 16 13:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the 50th anniversary of Specialised Container Transport in Melbourne. SCT was established in 1974 by Mr Peter Smith. SCT is now a national multimodal transport logistics company. SCT offers a full complement of transport and logistics services, including rail and road linehaul services, refrigerated transport services, contract management, distribution centre design and development, and tailored rail solutions including bulk haulage. For decades now, SCT has connected the agricultural and fresh food producers on the east coast with us in the west. SCT is Australia's largest private rail freight operator, and it is the largest carrier of freight across the Nullarbor. There are 1,600 families that rely on direct employment by SCT, and I suspect there are many, many more indirectly. SCT's footprint across our nation, especially in Western Australia, is huge. And you'd be hard-pressed not to see an SCT truck or container wherever you are on the roads in our suburbs and our cities. Over the last 30 years I have had such respect for Peter and for the values that he has passed on to his sons Geoff, as the managing director, and Glenn, as the chief executive officer. Those values are honour, respect and integrity. They say the fruit does not fall far from the tree. It couldn't not be any more relevant than in the Smith family. It has been a pleasure, in my time as a senator, to reconnect with the Smith family as we've joined forces to work together to improve Australia's supply chain and logistics sector. And it's an even bigger pleasure to have been invited to celebrate their 50 years of the truly iconic Australian transport success story. The word 'legend' gets thrown around very loosely these days, but, Peter, you truly are a legend in the Australian transport, rail and logistics industry. Ashley Youth Detention Centre 17 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Children in Tasmania's Ashley Youth Detention Centre are unsafe and they have been for many years. This is despite decades of promises, reviews and inquiries to improve conditions and outcomes. I've been calling for the closure of Ashley for nearly 10 years. Since 2021, the Tasmanian government have promised to close Ashley, but their actions speak for themselves. The centre remains open for the foreseeable future and the conditions are as dangerous as ever. Labelled a 'gladiator pit' and a 'prison for kids' the horrors that Tasmanian children and their families have lived with for years were laid bare in a commission of inquiry. The recommendations that were handed down on 31 August 2023 included the urgent and immediate closure of the Ashley Youth Detention Centre. This was over 14 months ago. In response to the commission of inquiry, the Tasmanian Liberal government committed to closing the centre as soon as possible. The Tasmanian government does not dispute the horrors that have occurred and continue to occur at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre. An audit commissioned by the Tasmanian government recently estimated the state's abuse related liability for all current and future redress and civil claims at nearly $650 million. But despite this financial cost and what it implies, despite the lives destroyed in this institution and despite government promises every year since 2021 to close it down, Ashley remains open and without proper oversight. Plans for a replacement facility have been delayed indefinitely. When you consider the recent devastating failures in other states and territories, like Banksia Hill in Western Australia and Don Dale in the Northern Territory, it is very clear to me and to most Australians that national oversight and enforceable standards of child protection in youth detention facilities in this country is urgently needed today. Western Australia: Roads 17 13:42 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Once again I stand here to talk about the Nicholson Road and Garden Street intersection in Canning Vale. You would remember Labor's campaign slogan in 2022, which was 'building Australia's future'. Well, we know that they are not serious about that at all. Under the Albanese and Cook Labor governments, the Nicholson Road and Garden Street overpass has suffered delay after delay and nothing has been built. A project committed to by the previous coalition government was expected to start in May 2023 with a completion date of December 2024. However, we were told at recent budget estimates that work is now expected to start in 2026—and who knows if it ever will start? Under these two Labor governments, this project has been delayed by over three years. Because this project is so badly delayed, Labor is now attempting to rewrite history. Well, here are the facts. This project was funded by the coalition government but, since taking office, Labor has consistently delayed it. In the 2023 Senate estimates, we were told cars would be driving on it by late 2024. Then earlier this year, during budget estimates, we were told the timeline had shifted, with construction expected to begin in January 2025. Two weeks ago, at supplementary estimates, the goal posts moved yet again. Now we're being told early works 'might start' in early 2025, but the main construction has been pushed back to early 2026. Each day that Labor don't get on with the job is a day that this intersection is heavily congested and unsafe, with traffic incidents occurring and putting road users at risk. When will those opposite just get on with the job, including the member for Burt, including the member for Tangney? When will they actually stand up and demand more? Renewable Energy 17 13:44 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria For decades Gippsland has powered Victoria. And now, as Australia's first offshore wind zone, it's set to lead the way in clean energy for generations to come. This new energy future isn't happening by chance. It's happening because of the hard work and collaboration of people in this region. Recently Assistant Minister Tim Ayres visited Gippsland for a forum on jobs in the energy supply chain—thank you, Minister—bringing together local business, unions, experts and industry. The message was clear: Gippsland is ready to seize the opportunities of a clean energy future. While I was in town, I dropped by Federation University and I heard about the Asia Pacific Renewable Energy Training Centre in Churchill. This centre will create pathways to secure jobs, training the workforce to power this new era. It will work alongside TAFE Gippsland and key partners like Corio Generation and Iberdrola to prepare the local workforce for the opportunities that lie ahead so that they can feel confident about what it means for their region, their local economy and their future. Our government is proud to support this future, with the Net Zero Economy Authority helping communities transition to renewable jobs, fee-free TAFE making it easier for Australians to gain new skills and the Future Made in Australia policy driving investment in renewable energy manufacturing. So, while Mr Dutton's coalition gambles on reckless nuclear promises with no costings, no feasibility plan and no plans for workers, Gippsland is already on track for its renewable energy future. With the right support, Gippsland will continue to power Victoria with clean energy, with secure jobs and with a future made in Australia. Housing 18 13:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The housing market in this country is completely broken, and first home buyers are one of the primary targets of this manufactured cost-of-living crisis, with interest rates putting so much pressure on them and making life so much harder. First home buyers are literally stuck in the middle of a federal government that is unwilling to implement the policies needed to relieve the pressure on their mortgages, a reserve bank which, at best, seems apathetic to their struggles as it continues to keep interest rates sky high and, of course, the big banks themselves, who care about nothing except their profits. The big banks, particularly the big four, are crushing mortgage holders. As the housing crisis exploded, these banks made $30 billion in profit every year. Even when interest rates were low, the big four charged rates three per cent above the RBA cash rate, and, yes, they pocketed the difference. Now that rates have skyrocketed, they are cashing in. In fact, $400 from the average monthly mortgage repayment is pure profit for the big banks. The Greens have a plan for the federal government to build 610,000 well-designed homes over the next 10 years. These would be homes that would be available to rent or buy at prices people could actually afford. We want to see the banks properly regulated and the ability for government to step in and provide rate relief for homeowners, young families and pensioners struggling to pay their mortgages. Building and Construction Industry 18 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Today I met with subcontractors who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on work that they have completed because of our lax security-of-payment laws in Australia. The blame for this lies firmly at the feet of both major parties. To the coalition's credit, in 2016, Senator Cash commissioned John Murray to look into this issue. We've known it's an issue for a long time now. In 2018, John Murray released his report. It's been sitting gathering dust on a shelf somewhere in this building, and neither of the major parties will touch it. It's disgraceful that we are not protecting the hardworking tradies who are building the houses that we live in and that we need a lot more of into the future. We've heard a lot about the need for more housing, yet we're expecting tradies to do their work and then not get paid for it. We wouldn't allow this to happen to anyone else, so why are we leaving tradies in the lurch by hundreds of thousands of dollars? The Prime Minister made a commitment to at least respond to the Murray review in this term of parliament. As we know, things are quickly running out on this term. We've seen how quickly the majors can act when things are in their interests, when there's more money to be had come election time and when there's $30,000 per sitting member that goes to the party for administration fees. There's no need for a Senate inquiry then—ram this through. I'd love to see the same urgency in protecting the hardworking subbies and tradies across Australia. It is long overdue, and I urge the major parties: this needs to be a priority. Gordon, Mr Paul 18 13:50 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Today I want to pay tribute to my brother-in-law Paul Gordon, who passed away last week. Paul was a much loved sibling of my husband Richard, and of Philip, Peter, Anne, John and Sue—siblings who were orphaned at a young age and who have stuck together through a life that has thrown up plenty of curveballs. Paul was the police detective who made the breakthrough regarding Paul Onions that led to the arrest of Ivan Milat. He put together much of the evidence that let to Milat's arrest. If wasn't for his focus and determination, who knows where we would be. But, rather than being celebrated and supported, he was treated appallingly by the New South Wales police, particularly by Assistant Commissioner Clive Small. It was treatment which led Paul to struggle for a long time after. Hounded out of the police force, Paul ended up driving taxis in Queensland with no pension or benefits. He was beloved by his family, and there are so many funny stories—far too many to relay now. We do know that there is likely a housing commission home in Canberra where the bathroom floor eventually fell through, as Paul's solution to flooding in the bathroom was to drill some drainage holes right through the floor. There was the time he literally flew out of a window, having shaved a beard off unannounced and no-one recognised him. Or, more recently, there was the time he was kicked out of a men's shed for constantly rearranging the tools to where he thought they should be—not where everyone else thought. He was very funny, solid politically and completely attached to his passion project—the shipping container renovation. That's something that I know won't be disputed in the will, unless it's left to us. Philip, I know you and Mandy would just love to have it at your place. Foreign Investment 19 13:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Labor's opened yet another front and it's war against Australian farmers. This time they have a Chinese ally. Xi Jinping, the authoritarian dictator leading the oppressive Chinese communist regime, has been praising the Prime Minister recently. The Prime Minister might want to reflect on all the implications of that praise. I raise this because I watched Landline last Sunday, and I am absolutely appalled by the application of a Chinese mining company to mine prime agricultural land at Horsham in Victoria to the tune of over 3,000 hectares of land. This is a mining company that wants to compulsorily acquire prime farmland around Horsham. This is some of the best cropping land in the world, and a key area for lentils and wheat. This is land which some families have farmed for many generations. One family has a home there that's over a hundred years old, which could be sold from under their feet to a Chinese miner. If it was an Aboriginal midden, which is a bloody rubbish dump, then it would be stopped immediately. But this is about prime agricultural farming land and we're allowing a Chinese company to take this over, mine and destroy the productivity of this land, which is some of the best in the world. It's going to be permanently damaged and never produce the same good yields again, despite farmers' claims of full remediation. Why I'm angry about this is because it's about time we woke up to ourselves. You're clamouring for foreign investment in this country. You're handing over mining plus agricultural land to foreign investors, when they should only own 49 per cent. We should have Australian ownership of 51 per cent, and we should have Australian directors on the board. What is wrong with you people that you are allowing these people to rip the guts out of this country? They don't pay enough taxes here. You're going to destroy prime agricultural farming land—disgraceful. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 19 13:54 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales It's a privilege to read out a speech today as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. Sophie from New South Wales says this: 'Massive floods, horrifying bushfires, smoke-filled summers and an increase in poverty—this is what our future will look like if we don't commit to a ban on fossil fuels. I want to grow up in a community safe from the risks of climate change, a community safe from the problems made from the people in the past. This can only be done if drastic measures are taken now. I want the kids in the future who grow up in this community to not have to deal with the mistakes made today. They should be free to live out their lives to the fullest of their abilities and not have to be limited by the effects of poverty caused by climate change. I want the generations to come to still be able to see animals like koalas, bilbies and quolls in their natural habitat before they're burned or flooded away. To do this, Australia needs to commit to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. To successfully reach their promised emissions goals, Australia will need to quickly bring in new laws regarding a ban on fossil fuels, invite more people to start using solar panels, electric cars and take public transport. In order to get 27 per cent below 2005 levels, we need to seriously reduce our emissions. In conclusion, we simply have to develop new laws to ban fossil fuels and use more renewable sources of energy as well as change our eating habits if we are to ensure a safe and sustainable environment for future generations.' Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 19

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to speak about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. This bill, as it currently stands, has significant flaws, and I will not be supporting it. As the Senate is the house of review, it is our role to do due diligence on legislation. When I first saw it, at first glance, the bill seemed to be a reasonable approach to tackle harmful content on platforms. But, on any further examination, there are such significant defects in the bill that it should not pass as drafted. Our role in this place is not merely to pass or reject laws but to improve them and ensure they strengthen our way of life, including our freedoms. We do need to be vigilant against misinformation and disinformation, especially the pernicious effects it has when used by bad actors as a part of their foreign interference campaigns, and this is a very real threat to Australians. Like many of you, I have received countless emails, phone calls and letters and, as always, I thank our constituents for their input into this. But it was on the solid reading of the bill that I came to this conclusion. It has significant flaws, as I said at the beginning, and I can't see how they can be corrected. I agree that there may be potential, but at this point I will not be voting for it, and I will vote against it. We do need stronger safeguards against harmful online content, but this bill is not the solution. Leader of the Opposition 20 13:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The biggest threat to housing relief in this country is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. For two years, he has tried to block Labor's record investment in housing, and last night we saw the latest disgraceful chapter, with Mr Dutton blocking Labor's international student caps. Our sensible caps would improve the integrity of our education system while relieving pressure on the housing market, but Mr Dutton has made it clear that he'd rather see Australian families on the street than let Labor fix the mess he left us in. He would rather protect shonky training providers than fix a broken system. The fact is that that bloke acts hard on migration but goes limp when it goes to taking action. Who could forget Mr Dutton, as Minister for Home Affairs, personally intervening in the migration cases of his mates' au pairs not once but three times, or the Sydney Morning Herald expose in 2022 which found he had numerous cosy dinners with a migration agent called Jack Ta? According to law enforcement agencies, Jack Ta ran a migration firm helping Vietnamese drug runners enter Australia on student visas. Over three years, Mr Ta bragged on Facebook about all the cosy meetings he was having with Mr Dutton. In 2019, Mr Ta said he had a 'very cosy dinner' in the dining room of parliament to discuss how the ministry of immigration operated. Mr Dutton has cosy fundraising dinners with shonky migration agents, then comes in here and blocks caps on international students. You can't make this thing up. This man has no shame. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll just wait for calm to descend. Thank you, Senator McKenzie! Order! We are moving to question time now. I expect senators to come to order. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Nuclear Energy 20 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I ask the minister firstly: does the government welcome cooperation between the United States, United Kingdom and other nations to speed up investment in next-generation, zero-emissions nuclear energy technologies? Further, Minister, I draw to your attention a statement from the UK Labour government, in which it said of the agreement signed between the UK and the US that it is also expected to be signed by Australia. Can the minister inform the Senate whether Australia will or will not be signing this agreement with US and UK partners? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The answer is: no, Australia is not signing the nuclear energy agreement. That's because we do not have a nuclear energy industry. What we will keep doing is continuing to work closely with our international partners to reach net zero, and we will remain observers to this agreement to continue to support our scientists in other nuclear research fields. I think we all understand what Senator Birmingham is seeking to do with this question, which is seeking somehow to build some foundation—some scaffolding—around the so-called policy that Mr Dutton announced. It's a policy that we know will cost billions of dollars, which they haven't fessed up to, and a policy which will deliver—was it four per cent? Senator Watt 245759 Yes. Senator WONG 00AOU It will deliver four per cent of Australia's energy needs. Opposition senators: It's 4.1. Senator WONG 00AOU They are desperate to try and find some economic credibility on this point. But the facts are entirely against them. And not only are the facts against them, and the market against them, and the advice from AEMO and others in the field against them. We also know what else is against them, and that is their record. The reason we have the challenges we have in the energy sector is the 22 failed policies under you. And now we still have Senator Canavan and others, President, already calling into question the policy of the opposition when it comes to their targets. Senator Birmingham, you can ask all the questions you like, attempting to use others in order to provide scaffolding and foundation to your policy, but everybody knows it is without foundation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia How did the UK government come to believe that Australia was going to sign this agreement? Did the Albanese government make any representations to the UK government related to its references to Australia, stating that Australia would join UK and US forces to speed up advanced nuclear technology development? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that's not really a question, to me. What I can say to you is— Senator Birmingham H6X It was a question to Minister representing the Prime Minister—the foreign minister. Senator WONG 00AOU It's a question about a press release from Ed Miliband, who is a good friend of mine and someone with whom I worked very closely in the lead-up to Copenhagen. We both remember that challenging period very well. My point is that this is not an agreement the Australian government will be signing up to. As I said in my primary response, though, it is the case that ANSTO is participating as an observer for the reasons I outlined in my answer to the primary question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, is Ed Miliband correct when he says, 'Advanced nuclear technology will help decarbonise industry by providing low-carbon heat and power, supporting new jobs and investment'? Isn't the only reason for the Albanese Labor government being unwilling to cooperate with the US and UK that you're scared of undermining your scare campaign in Australia at the next election? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I would say to Senator Birmingham is that we are focused on what we are doing here. It is true that other countries have a longer history of turning to nuclear power generation for their domestic needs. The point is Australia has not. The point is Australia has a vast array of renewable energy sources at enormous potential, and we know, from all of the advice that was given to you and to us, that nuclear is expensive and its arrival will be tardy. If you're talking about four per cent in 2040, this is not a solution to the challenges Australia faces. No amount of looking to what the rest of the world does or may do can get over the fact that your policy cannot deliver. (Time expired) Health Care 21 14:05 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. After a decade of reckless neglect and mismanagement of the healthcare system by the Liberals and Nationals, which left bulk-billing in a mess, how is the Albanese Labor government investing to improve Australia's healthcare system for all Australians? In particular, how is the government strengthening Medicare, the heart of universal health care, and easing cost-of-living pressures with cheaper medicines? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thanks to Senator Marielle Smith for her question and for her focus on health costs and affordable health care for Australians. She is a member of a government and a party that understands what Medicare is. We understand what Medicare is and, unlike those opposite, we will always work to strengthen Medicare. That is why our government has worked to make medicines cheaper, has worked to increase bulk-billing, has established urgent care clinics to help patients access the care they need and is strengthening Medicare. Senator Ruston 243273 How's that going? Increase bulk-billing? It's gone backwards by 11 per cent. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take the interjection from Senator Ruston. We know her record when it comes to this. We remember her in this chamber giving everyone in Australia a lecture about how we have to make Medicare more sustainable: 'That's why we can't put more money into it. We have to cut more, or we have to charge you more.' This year, this government froze the price of PBS medicines for general patients until the end of 2025 and at $7.70 for concession patients until the end of 2029. We have delivered the largest price reduction in the 75-year history of the PBS. Australians have saved billions on cheaper prescriptions since January 2023, in part because of the introduction of 60-day prescriptions for around 300 common medicines. Who opposed that? Senator Ruston 243273 You cannot lie. You cannot lie. Senator WONG 00AOU Who is now shouting at me and pretending they care about Medicare, after voting for more expensive medicines for Australians? That is you, Senator Ruston. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, withdraw that comment. Senator Ruston 243273 In the interests of the chamber, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator WONG 00AOU Cheaper medicines under us—more expensive medicines under them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia How has bulk-billing improved in the year since the Albanese Labor government made the largest investment in it in Medicare's history to increase the incentive to bulk-bill families with children under 16, pensioners and concession cardholders? Senator Ruston 243273 It's gone backwards by 11 per cent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I'm calling on you to at least be quiet while the question is asked. 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia When we came to government, bulk-billing was falling off a cliff because of their six-year freeze on Medicare rebates. We have a different approach. On 1 November last year, Labor tripled the bulk-billing incentive, the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history, with 103,000 additional bulk-billed appointments per week. Senator Ruston said at the time, she claimed, that this 'would not result in a single additional patient being bulk-billed'. That's what she said. Sorry, you're wrong. In fact, in South Australia, in the home state that you and I share, there have been 460,000 additional visits. Let's talk about Medicare urgent care clinics. Of the 900,000 visits to these clinics, every single visit is completely bulk-billed. Mr Dutton didn't want any of those visits. Senator Ruston, you can yell 'wrong' all you like but you voted against cheaper medicines and you are against bulk-billing—demonstrated by your record. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! I have lost count of the number of times I've called you to order. If you can't sit in here in silence, please leave the chamber. Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Here in the Senate we have seen the Liberals and Nationals oppose everything from cheaper medicines to urgent care clinics and even the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. Why is it that Australians can only trust a Labor government to invest in health care and a stronger Medicare? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, those opposite are opposed to cheaper medicines, they are opposed to investments in bulk-billing and they are opposed to urgent care clinics. Are they just opposed to Medicare? That's the question people want to know. But what we know is Mr Dutton arrogantly puts political battles ahead of helping people. He stands in the way of a more affordable healthcare system after a decade he spent trashing the system. Let's remember, when Mr Dutton was health minister, he tried to get rid of bulk-billing in this country altogether. Honestly, I know you're embarrassed by it. Mr Dutton, as health minister, tried to remove bulk-billing in this country altogether. No amount of shouting over me is going to absolve them of their history because it goes to their character and it goes to their agenda. You are not supporters of Medicare. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber. Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm still waiting for order. You've got one of your own senators on his feet waiting to ask a question. I want silence, thank you, Senator Ayres. Housing Australia Future Fund 22 14:12 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Construction levels have declined to rates not seen since 1989. Housing affordability has fallen to the lowest point since records began in 1996. Minister, is this not clear evidence that Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund has failed? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor's comprehensive housing agenda and the first round of the Housing Australia Future Fund being complete, and those applications are being processed now. This is a very significant and important reform to have the Housing Australia Future Fund as an ongoing vehicle to invest in social and affordable housing, something that those opposite were allergic to when they were in government and that has left the state of social and affordable housing in this country in terrible need of additional investment because there was none. There was no interest in it. We have established the Housing Australia Future Fund that was delayed in this place for well over a year as those opposite sought to frustrate and obstruct the government's housing agenda. But we were able to get that reform through and those programs were oversubscribed by interest in the first round from investors, from state and territory governments, from social and community service organisations that work in the front-line that see the need to invest, that see the need to create opportunity and accommodation for people in need of social and affordable housing. Plenty of people see the need for it, plenty of investors want to be part of it and now we will get those projects through. Senator Bragg 256063 Who's going to get the money? Senator GALLAGHER ING We know you hate industry super. You don't need to interject about it. We have banked that you hate industry super. We think there are opportunities for innovative investment to drive social and affordable housing in this country and this government is proud to support it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The Prime Minister recently commented, 'They're the blockers; we're the builders,' when in fact it was revealed at estimates that Labor's housing agenda has not built a single home. How can Australians take this Prime Minister seriously when his government's supply agenda has failed? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Prime Minister couldn't have put it better; you are blockers, and we are builders. Everything we have done since coming to government is about increasing— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I've called order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, which part of order does not apply to you? Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Senate will be interested to know that the government has directly supported more than 10,000 homes that have been built since we came to government through the Social Housing Accelerator program and new builds under the Home Guarantee Scheme and through the Housing Australia bond aggregator. And there are more homes to come. More than 20,000 homes are in the pipeline through direct Commonwealth investment, including 13,700 properties under round 1 of the Housing Australia Future Fund. That's something again that you opposed and delayed and blocked in this chamber, and now it is ready to build 13,700 social and affordable homes. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING You may not need them, but plenty of people will benefit from these investments in housing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia On demand, all this government has to offer Australians is coalition policies that it has inherited and the opportunity to co-own a home with the government through Help to Buy, a policy so unpopular that it's unlikely to see the light of day. Minister, why has this government given up on the great Australian dream? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory If I can in one minute, I'll give the Senate an update on all of the investments that we've made in housing: $1 billion to get homes built sooner with states and territories, $90 million to boost the construction workforce, the new agreement with states and territories on social housing and homelessness, crisis and transitional accommodation, the first back-to-back increases to rent assistance in more than 30 years, working with universities to increase student accommodation, the Housing Australia Future Fund, the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, the $3 billion New Homes Bonus and build-to-rent accommodation. We've helped more than 110,000 people into their own homes, and the Help to Buy shared-equity scheme will help even more. Those opposite seek to frustrate, obstruct and block, and the Australian community sees it. They see the position you take on housing, they know it's wrong and they know that the federal government should be doing everything it can to increase the supply of housing, which is exactly what we are doing. Donations to Political Parties 23 14:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Special Minister of State, Minister Farrell. After two years of promises, yesterday the government finally introduced electoral reform legislation. But there's no ban on fossil fuel companies donating to big political parties who keep approving new coal and gas mines, there's no ban on accepting corporate donations and there seem to be massive loopholes in the form of nominated entities, which will ensure that the war chests of the big parties can be grandfathered in and spent on national campaigning up to $90 million. When one in three voters chose to vote for someone other than the major parties at the last election, why has the government introduced legislation that favours the two-party system at the expense of smaller parties and new entrants? 14:19 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Waters for her question. We haven't done that. We have done exactly— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Do you want to hear the answer? We haven't done that. What we have done with this legislation is give ordinary Australians a chance to participate in the electoral system in this country. We have taken big money out of this process so that ordinary Australians like these ones here and maybe even some of those over there can participate in the electoral system. We don't want an American style electoral system in this country. We get one chance in the next week to do something about preserving and protecting our electoral system. We're introducing transparency. We're introducing accountability. When you go to the polls after this legislation has been introduced, you'll know exactly who the people are that have donated the $2.1 million to the campaign of Senator Pocock over here. If you're going to make a decision about voting for Senator Pocock, you'll know exactly who is supporting him. We won't just made it harder for coal companies, gas companies and betting companies. We'll make it harder for every company. Every company in this country is going to find it more difficult to make donations, not just the companies you don't like. I understand Duncan Turpie will continue his massive donations— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The second bill introduced yesterday is to legislate truth in political advertising. This is a welcome and much-needed reform that needs to be implemented alongside any increase in public funding to ensure that taxpayer money is not spent on misleading campaigns. Yet you've said you won't progress that bill. Why are you delaying actually legislating truth in political advertising? 14:21 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Waters for her first supplementary question. I support the truth in advertising legislation. I saw it at work in the Black by-election in South Australia. Unfortunately, I know the Greens vote collapsed— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, it's very sad. I know the Greens vote collapsed in that by-election, and you're obviously very worried about it. I won't get onto what happened to the Liberals— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. I've got Senator Waters on her feet. Senator Waters 192970 On a point of order—this is why we need truth in political advertising; our vote went up—my question went to why you are delaying those reforms. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, if you are on your feet, you need to indicate that you're calling a point of order. You didn't do that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to remind those at the back of the chamber that, when Senator Waters asked her question, she was heard in silence. I'm asking you to stop the interjections so the minister can continue with his answer. Senator FARRELL I0N You're right, Senator Waters. The real collapse on Saturday was on that side of the chamber. There was a 20 per cent swing to the Labor Party. The truth in advertising provisions were used in that election because these people were making false claims about the Labor Party. I see the benefit, but, as I've said to you on— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland According to polling released yesterday by the Australia Institute, 80 per cent of voters believe that electoral funding reform legislation should be scrutinised before passage. Why are the two big parties, who both agree on this bill, rushing it through and not allowing a Senate inquiry to scrutinise these reforms? What exactly are you trying to hide with what is clearly a two-party stitch-up? 14:23 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Absolutely nothing, Senator Waters, and, so far, I haven't heard that the coalition are supporting the legislation. We still have to get a decision from them. I'm hoping they'll see the sense in taking all of this big money out of the system. But, Senator Waters, we've been working through the system for 2½ years. How many inquiries do you want to understand that you've got to take big money out of the electoral system? How many inquiries? We've had two JSCEM reports. The Greens have participated in all of them. We've had non-stop negotiations with the Greens, with the coalition and with anybody else who's wanted to talk to us. At a certain point, it's time to make a decision. Either you want big money out of the system or— (Time expired) National Reconstruction Fund 25 14:25 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. I refer to the announcement this morning that the National Reconstruction Fund has made its first investment. Can the minister please update the Senate on this announcement and its impacts on manufacturing in Queensland, and how is the Albanese Labor government working with the private sector to invest more in Australian manufacturers? 14:25 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Green for her question. We had a fantastic night last night with all of her constituents from the Great Barrier Reef. I know she takes great pride in that area of Australia. Obviously not only are the Albanese government delivering on electoral reform but we're also delivering in the area of the National Reconstruction Fund. That wonderful minister, Minister Husic, has announced a $40 million investment in Russell Mineral Equipment. Russell Mineral Equipment is a 40-year-old manufacturing business that makes cutting-edge mining equipment which improves safety and productivity at mines right across the world. Their mill relining technologies are used in hard-rock mining for minerals and metals such as copper, gold, platinum, nickel, zinc and iron ore—all critical to the global energy transition. These impressive machines are made by highly skilled manufacturing workers in Toowoomba. This investment will help them grow their business, employing more workers and reaching new markets with their fantastic products. The government has always said that the role of the National Reconstruction Fund was to crowd in private-sector investment. That is what we've seen in today's announcement. The support of the RME is part of a broader $100 million co-investment partnership with the NRF and the Resources Capital Funds. This partnership is a clear signal to industry that government is serious about supporting companies who are making mining safer, cleaner and more efficient. I'd like to congratulate RME for their success in securing this investment and thank the staff of the National Reconstruction Fund for their work in supporting a future made in Australia. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland How does this investment in Russell Mineral Equipment fit into the Albanese Labor government's broader Future Made in Australia agenda and our support for Australian manufacturing? What challenges has the government's support for manufacturers faced so far? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Green for her question. Today's announcement is another feather in this government's cap and the minister's cap as they work to rebuild Australian manufacturing following a decade of neglect under those opposite. Our Future Made in Australia agenda is designed to strengthen our existing manufacturers and help new ones grow. It focuses on the priority areas where we have existing advantages thanks to our world-leading expertise and access to raw materials or cheap green energy. We are doing all of this despite the relentless negativity from those opposite. They voted against establishing the National Reconstruction Fund and energy-price relief for manufacturers. They opposed our support for the resources sector like the production tax incentive. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, I appreciate the additional information today about the Albanese Labor government's support for manufacturers across the country and our commitment to deliver a future made in Australia. What is standing in the way of Labor's Future Made in Australia, and what's at risk if a future made in Australia isn't implemented? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Green, for your second supplementary question. Australia's manufacturers cannot afford to go backwards. Under the former government, 100,000 manufacturing workers lost their jobs, many of those in regional areas. Since coming to government, we have created 70,000 more manufacturing jobs. Australian manufacturers need a government that will support great businesses, like Russell Mineral Equipment, to provide high-paying jobs to high-skilled workers in regional Queensland. There's a huge global competition to attract manufacturers in a net zero future. That's exactly what this Labor government is doing. An arrogant and reckless government run by Mr Dutton is the last thing that Australia needs if we want to secure good-quality jobs in a net zero future. Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 26

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is also to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. Minister, yesterday the government introduced the 400-page electoral reform bill that you, in your own words, said is once-in-a-generation electoral reform. Given that these reforms only come into effect in 2028, and the fact that JSCEM, which you mentioned, in their report were pretty broad—they recommended things like donation caps and spending caps. There was no detail, and yet you've got 400 pages of detail. Noting, with respect, a similar question from Senator Waters that you didn't answer, why shouldn't the bill be scrutinised through a Senate committee process? What is the government trying to hide with this if it's for the 2028 election? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for his question. Isn't it interesting, the line-up of people opposing this legislation? There's Clive Palmer, there's Senator Pocock and there's Senator Waters. What a combination of people opposing this legislation. Now, can I say to you, Senator Pocock, that I know you were able to spend $2.1 million at the last election. But, with all these fine people up here in the military, one day, some of them might be— Senator David Pocock 256136 A point of order: he is misleading the Senate. That's not how much I spent. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's a debating point. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I'd be happy to get you to clarify: if it wasn't $2.1 million, what was it? But to all of these people up here: the cap that we're proposing to introduce for a lower House election is $800,000. That must be enough money to get your message across. Think about this: you'll be subject to that $800,000 but so will your competition. Senator David Pocock 256136 On a point of order: my question was about why this isn't going to a Senate inquiry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, come to order! You began your question by referencing the 400-page electoral reform report. The minister is entitled to respond to the whole of your question. Senator FARRELL I0N I know Senator Lambie here, originally, was a United Australia Party candidate and a beneficiary of the great generosity of Clive Palmer. But these people up here, one of these days some of them are going to want to participate in the electoral process. I say to them: we're introducing a cap of $20,000 on donations. How many of you could afford to put your hand in your pocket and hand over to Mr Pocock, who you may wish to support, a $20,000 donation? These are reasonable limits. I believe they are limits that will survive a High Court challenge. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator FARRELL I0N It has taken longer than I would have liked. But we can't waste a day, because the important changes— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory President, with respect, surely ministers can address some tangents but actually get to some sort of answer within the time. Minister, you talk about the JSCEM review having done the work. One of the things that JSCEM recommended was more territory senators—from two to four. Given JSCEM has recommended that, why are you picking this other stuff that doesn't need a Senate inquiry, but Territorians can wait? What's going on here? 14:35 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia There's a certain irony here that perhaps you haven't noticed, Senator Pocock. You want more spending on senators in the ACT, but you're opposed to the parties getting more public contribution to the election process. There's a certain irony about the position that you're promoting. Can I say this: I've been in the role of Special Minister of State now for some years. I'm on the record as supporting increased Senate representation. And I've said this to you every time you've raised it with me—you grab me in the corridors here and say, 'Senator, can I talk to you about this?' I say to you: 'Look, we're going to have a look at this after the next election. Now is not the time to do it.' But can I say this? There was— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van? Just a moment, Senator Van. Please resume your seat. Senator David Pocock 256136 I'm keen for a second supplementary if possible, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Did I cut you short? Senator David Pocock 256136 Sorry; I know they're not comfortable questions! But— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, my apologies. I thought that was your second supplementary. Please go ahead. 14:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory No problem, President. I was joking. Minister, you've said time and again that you've consulted the crossbench on this bill, yet you gave Territory senators no detail and no advance copy of the bill. We haven't even had a briefing from you on this. Is that good-faith negotiation on a bill that you hope to pass in record time—in two weeks—without a Senate inquiry? 14:37 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Look, I want to make it clear. I'm not afraid of any of your questions, Senator Pocock, and I thought I was answering them as directly as I possibly could. You and I have had direct discussions. We've had face-to-face discussions about this issue. I bet you anything, if you look at the history of legislation that's passed this parliament, this bill would not be the quickest ever to have gone through the parliament. We have had 2½ years of discussions. The first JSCEM report laid out the plans. We've had a second report. Every time your colleagues have asked for meetings or the Greens have asked for meetings, I've had meetings. There won't be anybody in this place who votes on this legislation next week who doesn't know what they're voting about. (Time expired) Regional Security 27 14:38 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. In estimates, not last week but the week before, I put to you some questions about our relationship with Japan and Korea. Both you and officials talked about how very deep our strategic alignment is. Last week's announcement on Sea 3000 was that a Japanese and a German ship have been downselected. Can you tell the Senate how this reinforces our relationships in the region, please? 14:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Van. I do recall the exchange; I think it was in foreign affairs estimates. I know your interest in defence procurement. If I may, while I'm on my feet I will recognise the members of the ADF who are here today on the parliamentary program. Thank you for your service. In relation to defence procurement, I think the first point to be made is that the government first has to look to— Senator WONG 00AOU Sorry—I thought Senator McKenzie was saying something. The government has to first look through cost and capability. Obviously, there were a number of other countries who had an interest in this particular procurement. They made that interest public. They would engage, obviously, with the foreign minister and I would say to them: 'We deeply appreciate our strategic relationship with you. We will continue working to deepen that, but ultimately these procurement decisions have to be made on capability and on cost.' And that is the basis of the decision that you referenced, which the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery have announced. You talked about, I think, the importance of both the Japanese and the Korean relationships. I think I've responded to you before. The relationship with Japan is really second only to the United States in terms of its strategic significance. We have a special strategic partnership with Japan. In terms of Korea, there is such an important strategic alignment with the Republic of Korea. I've visited. We are one of the few countries with whom they have a two-plus-two ministerial meeting. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary? 14:41 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Minister, there are widespread rumours of the two bids that Navy took forward to NSC. One was the Japanese bid, and one was the Korean bid. Can you shed any light on why there was a change from the Navy's pick of the suitable capability to a different one? 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I think there are a couple of things I'd say. First, you shouldn't believe every rumour you hear. More importantly, I certainly am not going to comment on what may or may not have happened in any NSC meeting, but I would say, in relation to this procurement, that we understand the importance of this procurement. As I said in my primary answer, we were very transparent with the various bidders about the nature of the assessment that was going to be made. Of course, commentators will talk about the importance of particular strategic relationships, but ultimately our job as a government is to make sure we procure the capability that the Defence Force needs. And that is the approach the minister is taking. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Thank you, Minister. I understand. How would you rate the importance of Germany's participation in the Indo-Pacific as a priority for Australia? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make a few points. I suppose I'd go to the underlying proposition—which you're making politely but you are making—which is we think looking at cost and capability is a sensible, prudent and responsible way to handle procurement. In terms of our relationship with Germany, Germany is a major power. It is a major economy. It is central to the strategic and economic position of the European Union. It is an important player internationally and it has been much more forward leaning in terms of its role in the Indo-Pacific and its bilateral relationship with China in recent years. We welcome Germany's continued engagement, not only in our region, but also more broadly. It's a time where countries of similar values who believe in the international rule of law work together and we're very pleased to work with Germany. (Time expired) Comcare 28 14:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Watt. On 24 June this year, Minister Burke, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations at the time, announced that an independent panel would conduct a comprehensive review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, which underpins the Comcare scheme. The Comcare scheme hasn't been reviewed since financial year 2012-13, and it hasn't been subject to any major reforms since it commenced in 1988. Comcare covers more than 470,000 people, providing rehabilitation and workers compensation arrangements for Commonwealth and ACT government public servants and employees of almost 54 private corporations. A key part of the review is stakeholder engagement and obtaining feedback from injured workers that have real experience, which is being sought through a consultation process. Can the minister advise what announcement or advertisements were undertaken by Comcare or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to give the widest possible broadcast that the review was happening? 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you very much, Senator Lambie. You're right that under Minister Burke, my predecessor in this role, a review of Comcare was commenced, and you're right that it is a very long time since Comcare has been reviewed—back to 2012-13—and in fact it hasn't been subject to any major reforms since it started back in 1988. You've mentioned the fact that Comcare insures many thousands of employees across a range of different industries, not just in the public sector, and we did think it was high time that this scheme be reviewed. Thank you for acknowledging that there is a consultation process underway. I'm not aware of exactly what process was adopted in advertising the ability for people to participate. My understanding was that the intention was to consult as widely as possible, and if that hasn't occurred then I'm certainly happy to take steps to widen the opportunity for people to be involved in this. We do want this to be a very inclusive review, because we know that there are many people in the community who have an interest in a well-functioning workers compensation insurer. Of course, the workers who are covered under this scheme have a right to be involved in it. The employers who pay premiums have a right to have their views heard as well, so that is certainly the intention behind this scheme. I might just mention that I think we have managed to assemble a very high-quality panel of three highly qualified people to conduct this review. I have full confidence in the work that they are doing, but, as I say, if there's more we can do to widen the number of people who participate in the review and have the opportunity to have their say, I'll certainly take those steps. Senator Lambie, if there are particular individuals who you understand have not had that opportunity and you'd like to raise that, I'm happy to have a chat with you about that as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Lived experiences of people who not only were covered by the scheme but had cause to use it are critical for getting solid infeed for the review. Did Comcare or the department positively engage with entities relevant to the review or relevant unions to ensure they were aware and seek their assistance for the widest dissemination across their workforces and members? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. I've just been advised by my office that it is still possible for those who have an interest in the Comcare review to make a submission via my department's website, and they can do that up until 2 December this year. I do remember being briefed on the plans around the consultation process, and I would be very surprised if it were the case that unions weren't invited or that those with lived experience of these issues weren't invited. What I'm not so sure about is what was done to communicate the opportunity to be involved to every single member of the public. But certainly the intention is to consult the types of groups you're talking about to make sure that their views and experiences are heard. As I say, if there is more that we can do to advertise this, I'm certainly happy to do so. I make the point again that people do have an opportunity up until 2 December to make a submission via my department's website. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:49 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It's very sad to hear that you have a whole department yet I have to do this job for you, because it wasn't widely disseminated, was it? The public consultation for the independent review was opened on 21 October and is due to close on 2 December. As at today, the period for making submissions is almost 70 per cent complete. How many submissions has the review received to date? 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. I'm happy to come back to you, on notice, Senator Lambie, as to how many submissions we've received so far. I think what you generally would find in government consultation processes is that the number of submissions received increases as you get closer to the deadline, so it wouldn't surprise me if we hadn't had a huge number up until now and if that number were to increase in the run up to it. But I do reject the suggestion that we haven't attempted to involve people in this. As I say, there is consultation occurring. That has been advertised. I'm happy to provide you with the details about what was done to advertise it to individuals, but certainly there is consultation going on with the very types of groups that you've mentioned—and so there should be. We want to make sure that, as I say, the views of workers, the views of injured people, the views of unions and the views of employers are heard in this review. That's why there is a consultation process that's occurring over a number of weeks, and there's still an opportunity for people to be involved if they'd like to be. International Students 29 14:50 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is also to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. Australians understand the importance of a high-quality, robust education, and we hold the integrity of our system in strong regard. Multiple reviews have highlighted problems with the exploitation of international students, particularly in our visa system and by dodgy education providers. What is the Albanese Labor government's commonsense plan to manage international student numbers? And why is it so important to have a roadmap to sustainably manage international student numbers? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Bilyk, who, along with many of my colleagues, has had a lifelong interest in and support for education in our country. So thank you, Senator Bilyk, for your question. You'll remember that, back in May, the Albanese Labor government introduced legislation to limit the number of international students that can come to Australia. We took this responsible action to return the number of international students to a sustainable level and to encourage universities to develop new student housing. I want to make clear: we value our international education industry and we value the contribution of migrants to Australia, but we've also heard the message from the Australian people that they do want migration to come down to a sustainable level. That's why we've taken a number of steps, which, already, are bringing our migration levels down. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson. Senator WATT 245759 These include implementing managed growth for the international education sector. But, this week, what do you know? We learned that the 'no-alition' is back, with the Liberals and the Nationals again teaming up with the Greens to block our legislation in the Senate. Having spent months demanding that migration be cut, Mr Dutton recklessly tears up a bipartisan approach to cap international student numbers, simply to play politics— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Senator WATT 245759 just like, having spent the whole term demanding more homes, he teams up with the Greens to block every step we take to build more homes. In fact, Mr Dutton is so addicted to saying no, he's now even saying no to himself—because, remember: in his budget reply speech back in May, Mr Dutton told us that he would drastically reduce net overseas migration by, among other things, capping international student numbers. And now he votes against his own idea! In fact, more than six months later, they still have no ideas about how they will deliver their promise to reduce net overseas migration. As each day goes by, Mr Dutton proves why he is not fit to lead this country. He's reckless, he's arrogant, and, at a time people are doing it tough, he'll make things worse. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Bilyk, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thanks for that answer. Now, too often I hear stories of shonks and crooks who take advantage of students just to make a quick buck. How is the Albanese government shutting out the shonks and setting up our education sector for success into the future? And why is this so important? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Bilyk. And don't they get touchy when we talk about the shonks in the international education system! Is that the sound of cashie-cashie over there? I'm not sure—and I don't mean you, Senator Cash; I mean cashie-cashie. The Albanese Labor government has been working hard to address the serious quality and integrity issues we inherited in the education sector. The Parkinson review highlighted that the migration system we inherited from Mr Dutton was broken, and Christine Nixon's report revealed disturbing weaknesses in the system that flourished under the opposition's neglect. These included grotesque abuses of temporary workers and international students by organised crime groups—all on Mr Dutton's watch as home affairs minister. Now, we've already taken steps to address some of these issues, and student caps are an important next step to deliver critical reforms to address these wrongs. Our legislation includes a range of sensible and vital measures to protect the safety of international students and protect the reputation of this important industry. But, again, the 'no-alition' is back—the Liberals, Nationals and Greens teaming up to block our sensible measures. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, a second supplementary question? 14:54 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I noted that during his budget reply Mr Dutton said he would 'work with universities to set a cap on foreign students'. Can you tell us how the Albanese Labor government is working to create a fairer system for universities and students, and what will be the impact of Mr Dutton and the Liberals teaming up with the Greens— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, seriously! Your constant interjecting is disorderly and disrespectful. You are not asking the question. Please continue, Senator Bilyk. Senator BILYK HZB And what will be the impact of Mr Dutton and the Liberals teaming up with the Greens—if you can believe that—to block the government's policy reforms? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Bilyk—you're right. In his budget reply, Mr Dutton did say he would work with universities to set a cap on foreign students, and he has been saying that month after month after month. He has been saying, 'We need to set a cap on international students, we need to bring migration levels down,' but what do you know? We get to the second last week of the year and he says, 'no,' because the only thing he can say is 'no'. It doesn't matter what it is—if it's cost-of-living relief, it's 'no'. If it's housing, it's 'no'. If it's caps on migration, it's 'no'. If it's caps on international student numbers, it's 'no'. Every time, it doesn't matter what the measure is, he says 'no' because he is reckless and arrogant and Australian people are starting to work him out. At a time when Australians are doing it so tough, all Mr Dutton can offer is 'no' and no solutions. He wants to make things worse, even if it means contradicting the very same things that he has been going on about for months. We know that regional universities in particular want to see these changes made, and all those people over there who like put their RMs on and get out in the regions—go and explain that decision. It's people like you two in particular. (Time expired) Indigenous Australians 30 14:56 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister McCarthy. There was an election commitment from this government to establish a Makarrata commission to oversee truth-telling and treaty-making. At estimates two weeks ago your agency reported the $5.8 million budgeted for Makarrata had been moved from the National Indigenous Australians Agency to the contingency reserve, with officials confirming that we don't have specific resourcing for work on the Makarrata commission. Will the government keep its promise to establish a Makarrata commission before the end of this term of parliament, or has it now accepted that this was a bad idea—just as bad as the Voice? 14:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank the senator for her interest in truth-telling and for her interest in wanting to know about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. As I said at Senate estimates, our government supports, in principle, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, with voice, treaty, truth. We have never shied away from that. We accept that we lost the referendum and we accept the decision of the Australian people, but we also acknowledge that there is only one question that was put to the Australian people, and the question was on a Voice to the Parliament. There was no question on Welcome to Country, there was no question on Makarrata. There was no question on truth-telling. I would remind the Senate— Senator Hughes 273828 Shall we have another one? Senator McCARTHY 122087 I'll take that interjection. Let's remember that your leader, Senator Hughes, wanted another referendum. He wants a referendum. Well, where is it? You took to the Australian people that you wanted a referendum and, clearly, you're not even interested in that. You do not speak the truth to the Australian people. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have Senator Nampijinpa Price on her feet. Come to order. Senator, a first supplementary question? 14:59 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory If a Makarrata Commission will not be established in this term of parliament, why is the government keeping taxpayer money budgeted for it in the contingency reserve? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please wait. I haven't called you. Senator Cash I0M That's a good question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! It is a good question, Senator Cash, and it deserves an answer in silence, so I expect to not hear your voice. Minister. 14:59 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I do thank the senator for the question. As we know, the Senate is a place where we scrutinise and question our bills or pieces of bills before the Senate, and, of course, there is an inquiry underway by the Senate into truth-telling. In fact, there are senators opposite who are actually on that inquiry into truth-telling and into a bill introduced by Senator Cox. Senator Ruston 243273 What has this got to do with the contingency? Can't you answer the question? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. I asked for silence. That is what I asked for. It is disrespectful to continue those interjections. I tried to ask for silence in a lighthearted manner, but that didn't work. I'm asking and I'm requesting that there be silence. Senator McCARTHY 122087 As there is a bill before the Senate that is looking into truth-telling, naturally, our side of the parliament is involved in that committee. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator Nampijinpa Price 263528 On a point of order, the question was very specific in relation to the budgeted money, not the fact that there's an inquiry taking place. It's specifically to the contingency reserve. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. You started your question referencing the makarrata commission, and I believe the minister is being responsible and answering your question. Please continue, Senator McCarthy. Senator McCARTHY 122087 So, naturally, we are waiting for the outcome of that Senate inquiry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, second supplementary? 15:01 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory You're taking direction from the Greens. Minister, rather than shuffling money into backwards-looking programs like the makarrata commission, why won't the government agree with the coalition to focus all spending on programs that make a real and effective difference to Indigenous lives? 15:02 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Our government is contributing greatly to improving the lives of First Nations people. In fact, I continually reach out across the aisle to senators opposite to come and learn about that. I had a meeting yesterday morning, to which Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle were invited, to explain what we are doing. I'm more than happy to do that again— Senator Liddle 300644 No agenda! Senator McCARTHY 122087 but they clearly do not want to hear good news. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 31 15:03 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by the coalition today. I asked a very good question about housing and the fact that, in this country, we have major issues with housing affordability and housing availability. No matter where you go in this country, you will find that there are shortages. It's not just in our cities; it's not just in our regional towns. It's also in our more remote areas. No matter where we go across this country, we find that there are shortages. The government, when in opposition, committed to many things in the last election. They said they were going to fix these sorts of problems, including the problems around housing, but we're seeing, with the data that's coming out across the country, that very little progress has been made. In fact, really none at all has been made. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing about housing affordability and, indeed, the construction levels. We've seen that we're at the lowest level of construction since 1989 and that housing affordability has fallen to its lowest point since 1996. I asked a very direct question about that, and all we got was deflection in the answer that was given. In fact, the deflection went to the point of actually blaming us for the problems that exist in this country. The logic that they present in this place is absurd. The logic that was presented in this instance is, because we didn't support their housing bill or because we're not supporting their other Help to Buy bill, that somehow that's our problem. But the bill in relation to housing actually passed the parliament. It actually passed. It's now law. So how is it our fault that a bill they enacted, that they saw pass with the support of the Greens and the others in this place, is not working when it passed the parliament? The logic is absurd. It's because their policies are failing. Their policies are poorly constructed and are failing the Australian people. As I said, it doesn't matter where you go across this country, it is failing. All Western Australians know the housing crisis in my home state of Western Australia is very real for people of all economic statuses. In Greater Perth, the new residential property listings were 14.3 per cent lower in the year to 23 September compared to the previous year. And have a listen to this. If this doesn't send shock waves through the people listening and if it doesn't completely bell the cat on how poorly constructed this government's policies are, then this is one thing that will get you. The average wait time for social housing in Western Australia is 150 weeks. That means people are literally sleeping on the streets. That means people are literally going from couch to couch in other people's homes. That means people are literally sleeping in cars. We have instances of people sleeping in tents and caravan parks, and out in the bush and out in the national parks. This is absurd. We have families sleeping rough. We have mothers with children sleeping rough. You have to wait longer than you ought to wait, and it is because of the poorly constructed policies of this government. Don't come in here and blame us. Yes, we didn't support your policy because it's a dud policy—and the evidence of that is that we're not seeing any houses built. I asked whether or not there were any houses being built. Not one single house has been built, as we revealed in Senate estimates a fortnight ago. Not one house has been built. They haven't even built a doll house. They haven't even built a cubby house. There's nothing. There's no house that anyone can put over their head. There's no roof that they can point to that's over the head of any Australian who is struggling to deal with this issue. The Property Council of Australia predicts that in Western Australia we will face a 25,000 home-deficit increase by the end of 2027. Some serious action is needed. Australians need real solutions, and only the coalition government, under Peter Dutton, can see the results that we need in this country. We need houses to be built. We need to unlock the equity that people have so they are able to build their own homes, and not just have the largess of taxpayers and government to provide the solutions. Let's see Australians deliver it and let's get behind all Australians. 15:08 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Sometimes it's nice to have a little bit of positivity, and the positivity is that the Albanese government has an ambitious $32 billion Homes for Australia plan to make housing more affordable for all Australians, whether you're building, renting or buying. We've said many times that Australians are doing it tough, and we understand that housing is a big part of that problem. But the problem is a generation in the making. It is not something that has happened overnight. It's a failure of the housing market but also a failure of governments, many governments, over a period of time. And so the buck-passing stops with us. It stops with the Albanese Labor government through our ambitious $32 billion Homes for Australia plan. We have an ambitious housing agenda, with $32 billion of commitments to help Australians to build, to rent and to buy. Again, we have that ambitious goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. And, through the fee-free TAFE and other processes and policies that we've put in place, we're training more tradies than we've seen trained for a very long period of time. We're building more infrastructure and social homes and cutting red tape to make this happen. Personally, I've been involved in many openings of social homes that we have assisted state governments and social housing operators to actually build. Building more homes is a long-term fix. We know that. But we know that Australians are doing it tough right now. That's why we're helping renters by strengthening renters' rights and boosting rent assistance, and we're helping more than one-third of first home buyers get into the market with lower deposits. These are things that incrementally can help while we're building these other houses. You can't trust the coalition to fix the problem. They were in office for two of the last three decades when this problem got worse, and now they want to make it worse by cutting $19 billion from housing. And the Greens just want to play politics. They block more houses in their local community, and they block more houses in Parliament House. I want to go through a bit of a record and our solution. Since we've been in government, we've taken action and we're working to deliver more homes for Australians and to tackle the challenges left behind after a decade of little action in housing and homelessness by the former Liberal-National government. The opposition claim to care about housing, but their record shows otherwise. We're investing in 55,000 social and affordable homes, the largest Commonwealth investment in decades. The coalition have said that they will scrap Labor's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. This will halt construction on thousands of social homes across Australia. So, while they stand up here and say they want to help people, they actually want to cut the fund that is going to help thousands of people get into social housing right across Australia. We're strengthening renters' rights through our better deal for renters, and we've increased Commonwealth rent assistance by more than 40 per cent. The opposition have been silent on renters' rights and did nothing in 10 years to address this issue. This government's ministers for housing and homelessness—both Minister Collins previously and now Minister O'Neil—have chaired nine meetings with state and territory housing ministers to ensure all levels of government are working together to improve housing outcomes for Australians. Unlike our government, which is bringing states and territories together, the opposition didn't even have a meeting of housing ministers for almost five years. We've already done that, but they couldn't bring them together for five years. The government is proposing cutting taxes to build more affordable rental homes through our build-to-rent legislation. The opposition raised taxes on investment in build-to-rent housing, making it harder to build rental homes. Labor has introduced legislation to establish our Help to Buy Scheme, a shared-equity scheme to help 40,000 Australians get into homeownership. The opposition, as we know and as I've said previously, teamed up with the Greens to block the bill in the Senate, yet they come in here and ask: what are we doing for housing? We have got a long record of what we're doing. They have a record of saying no. They've got a record of blocking. The coalition operators up there in the back corner have joined with the Greens to block all the assistance for people to get into homes in a much quicker way. 15:13 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The government continue to play politics with our energy system, and all Australians are paying the price for the government's failure to deliver the cheap electricity they promised at the last election. At the last election, the Prime Minister infamously said almost 100 times that he would lower people's power prices by $275 a year. Of course, the opposite has happened, as everybody knows when their power bill turns up. The average power bill has gone up by more than $500 a year since this government took over. Today, though, we've got a new perspective on how the government have corrupted our whole energy policymaking process to suit their political needs, not the desperate cost-of-living needs of average Australians. Right now, there's another climate change conference going on in Baku in Azerbaijan. Over there, Australia has been invited by the UK and America to join a new agreement to develop advanced nuclear technologies that could deliver energy needs for the world in a low-emissions format. We have traditionally cooperated on nuclear energy initiatives around the world. It's true that nuclear energy is not a technology allowed under existing Australian law, but we do have a world-class nuclear reactor facility in the middle of Sydney, 30 kilometres from the CBD at a place called Lucas Heights. We lead the world in the production of nuclear medicines, and we have some of the best nuclear scientist in the world thanks to that facility. For example, we have been involved, predating this agreement, in the Generation IV forum that is trying to develop new nuclear technologies—so-called gen 4 technologies. We've been an active participant in that process thanks to the world-class nuclear scientists we have in this country. The government now, by refusing this overture—from our friends and allies in the UK and the US, mind you—is putting at risk that whole reputation of nuclear science we've built up over more than 60 years of operations at Lucas Heights. It is threatening our national security. It's not just an energy security issue now, although energy security is always a national security question. But it directly affects our national security if we distance ourselves from our friends and allies just to serve the domestic political needs of this desperate government trying to hang onto power. There is no justification for Australia not to join this forum. Joining this forum does not in any way necessitate that Australia change its law. It doesn't necessitate us building nuclear power plants. It would continue exactly the same arrangements we've had, such as the Generation IV International Forum we've been involved in for many years. The only rationale you can take from the government's decisions—from Chris Bowen's pigheaded decision to refuse entry to this agreement—is that they don't want to do this because it would be embarrassing for their political purposes here in Australia. Minister Bowen has been quoted as saying that he can't join the agreement because nuclear energy is outlawed in Australia. He may be right about that, but the fact is that, by Mr Bowen putting himself outside this agreement, he has left Australia isolated from our international partners and friends in a way that is completely and utterly unnecessary. I think even a government against building nuclear energy in this country should join this agreement, because it's right for our national interests to do so. It also demonstrates the bankruptcy of the government's energy policy. They won't even bother looking at nuclear. They refuse to consider nuclear energy in the most juvenile and amateur way, posting pictures of three-eyed fish and all this rubbish. It's just an insult to the intelligence of Australians. I think Australians are a lot more savvy than the government gives them credit for about these ridiculous scare tactics. The minister last year posted on X—or Twitter, at the time—AI-generated footage of radioactive waste barrels. They were rusty, yellow barrels. It was the most puerile thing you could see. It's an embarrassment to our country to be acting like that when nuclear energy is used by so many of our friends and allies. But the government has got its blinkers on here. It's got its blindfold on. It is blind to the pain it has caused to Australians by not lowering their power bills, and it's blind to thinking about any alternative way to change tack and think: 'Okay, we might not have got this right. Let's do something different.' Instead, they are cratering us into an economic disaster by keeping energy prices high. 15:18 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I thank Senator Canavan for the opportunity to talk some facts about nuclear and the fact that nuclear is not the right plan for our country right here in Australia. Of course, what Mr Dutton and his coalition have when they talk about nuclear is a $600 billion nuclear wasteland of a plan for our country's energy needs. This is a $600 billion nuclear nightmare that they want to unleash on Australians—a $600 billion nuclear black hole that will not even meet the energy needs that Australians have. This is an idea—a plan, if you can call it that—which would only account for 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy needs. There have been no feasibility studies. We know there have been no geological studies. What the coalition have done is just think up an idea of some nuclear power stations, get a map and plonk them around the country, and call that an energy plan. This is an idea that, even if it were feasible for Australia, would be decades away, and we know that our coal-fired power stations, which still generate energy here for Australians, are closing. They are due to close in the next decade, and this is not a plan to meet the needs that Australia will have as our coal-fired power stations are set to close. It is a decade away. It is not a solution for our energy needs, and it won't create a single job for a person who works in a coal-fired power station to be able to go to. The real solution is renewable energy. That is the solution for Australia, and under our government we have got 25 per cent more renewable energy in our grid. We are on track for our plan for 82 per cent renewable energy. We are approving more renewable energy projects than ever before. We are getting cheap, clean, green energy into the grid. This is critical for our future, and this is critical for creating jobs in our regions as well, and it is, of course, critical to meeting the cost-of-living challenges that Australians face right now. What Australians want to see from us right now, today, in meeting the cost of living challenges that they face is their wages growing and support with cost of living from their government. That is exactly what they are getting from the Albanese Labor government. Under Labor, wages are growing. Wages are growing now at over four per cent. Real wages are growing in our country. We are investing in the wages of our care economy workers. We are closing the gender pay gap in this country. Again, under Labor, wages are moving in this country. We know that those opposite love low wages. We know that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economy that they presided over. But, under Labor, real wages are growing. Wage growth is running at over four per cent, and the inflation figure now has a 2 in front of it. When we took over, it had a 6 in front of it. We are putting downward pressure on inflation, we are getting wages moving, and Australians are starting to get their heads above water again. That is also because we are providing cost-of-living relief for Australians: a tax cut for all Australians; historic investment in Medicare, meaning people can see doctors for free; historic investment in cheaper medicines; historic investment in fee-free TAFE; and historic investment in lowering Australians' HECS debt. We are providing energy bill relief. Of course, what Australians are also seeing is that every single one of these measures was opposed by those opposite. Mr Dutton doesn't want to see Australians get cost-of-living relief. If he did, he would have voted for it. Instead, he voted against every single measure of cost-of-living relief that we have provided. Australians don't have to look very far to see what their lives would have been like under the coalition. They just have to see him opposing every single cost-of-living relief measure we have put in place. 15:23 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania In rising to take note of answers provided in question time today, I will be taking some time to reflect on many of Labor's broken promises over their last 2½ years in government, but I want to particularly reflect on something that I don't even think can be described as Labor's broken promise; it's Labor's delusion where, every time they come into this chamber, they say, as Senator Urquhart said in her contribution earlier, that the buck stops with them. Sure, they're well within their rights to say that the buck stops with them. They're the federal government, so you'd certainly hope that the buck does stop with them. But, in the very next breath, rather than taking responsibility for the issues that are facing this country and rather than taking responsibility for the concerns of everyday Australians, they pivot very quickly to blaming anything but themselves for these issues. Their No. 1 suspect in blaming something for their problems is always the opposition, the coalition, and everything that apparently happened while we were in government. We know they like blaming the RBA for the economic situation that they find themselves in. We know that they like blaming the war in Ukraine for the rising cost of living. I think it is frankly remarkable that time and time again this government comes into this place—and I know they're out there in the community doing exactly the same thing—talking about the fact that they're the grown-ups and they want to take responsibility for all these problems but that they then start the blame game so quickly. I know that Australians, particularly Tasmanians, are sick of that blame game. They are sick of this government not seriously considering the issues that are facing Australians and coming up with solutions for them. My colleague Senator O'Sullivan today asked some fantastic questions of the government about how they have failed to address the housing crisis in this country. We know that Labor has failed to deliver on its core housing election commitments. We know that its target for 1.2 million new homes under the National Housing Accord is set to fall short by at least 260,000 homes, according to the Housing Supply and Affordability Council. We know that the opportunity to co-own a home, through the government's Help to Buy scheme, has been so unpopular because it has failed to pass this parliament. Particularly, in this place today, we heard about the failure of the Housing Australia Future Fund to actually make a single disbursement or build a single home. It's something that this government doesn't want to address. They do not want to come in here and front up to the fact that their housing policy has failed. They made a big song and dance about this at the last election, but the reality is that their policies in this area have done nothing to move the dial when it comes to improving housing supply in this country. I think, as a youngish Australian, that that's really sad. I know many people my age and younger that want to get into the housing market, and it is just so difficult for them to be able to afford to do so. This government has apparently listened to those concerns and done nothing to fix them. In the coalition we understand that homeownership is essential to the Australian dream and that owning your own home provides economic stability and economic security. Again, when I speak to young Australians and young Tasmanians, they want to be able to afford a house. The sad reality is that, because of this government's failures, they can't. Labor doesn't understand the essential value of that Australian dream and how owning your own home plays into that. The government's policy agenda has prioritised corporate homeownership and will see Australians rent in perpetuity. We are committed to backing the aspirations of Australians through our housing policy. I think that the policies that we've released in recent weeks to reduce the cost of headworks to be able to commence housing developments has been received incredibly positively throughout the electorate. But, frankly, this government's economic mismanagement is killing the Australian dream. They are failing Australians time and time again. I didn't get much time to touch on the government's other broken election commitments, but, certainly, many other times in this chamber I've mentioned their hesitancy to talk about taking $275 off everyone's power bill. This is a government that is letting Australians down time and time again. Question agreed to. Donations to Political Parties 35 15:28 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to donations to political parties. Any legislation to deliver electoral funding reforms must strengthen democracy and not just the political fortunes of the big parties. The Greens have long advocated to get the influence of big money right out of politics and to stop democracy being for sale. We've long supported donations caps, transparency, spending caps, limits on lobbying access and pay for policy outcomes. But, if there remain loopholes in these bills for electoral reform that only the two big parties can use, then this is a rort not a reform. For years, the Greens have championed reforms to clean up our democracy, including by getting big money out of politics and addressing the incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system. One in three voters chose to vote for someone other than the two big parties at the last election. They deserve to see their vote result in representation in parliament, and this will be our measuring stick for what makes good reform. The Australia Institute published some polling yesterday saying that more than four out of five voters think that the proposed changes to the electoral laws should be reviewed before they are passed by this parliament. That's no surprise, because rushed legislation is often very bad legislation. The government has said that this is the largest reform in 40 years of the foundations of the way that our democracy works. Well, the usual practice is that, either in this place or even in the other chamber, when bills are brought here, you scrutinise that legislation through an inquiry process. When bills go through that process of scrutiny, they're very often improved. Either there are some flaws in the bills that were unintended or, perhaps in this case, the flaws in the bills are intended to ensure that the two-party system gets some life support. For such extensive reforms, the Senate inquiry is all the more important, yet the government has the opposition with them to rush this electoral funding bill through without a Senate inquiry. Why the rush? These reforms aren't even scheduled to come into effect, to apply, until not this coming election but the one after, so there's absolutely no reason to race this through without a Senate inquiry scrutinising the details. So it makes me very suspicious when the two big parties are in agreement and want to ram through changes. For a very long time, and recently, the Greens in this place, together with some of the Independents, have been arguing strongly that the rules around who gets to fund and own politicians need to change. We need greater transparency. We need greater disclosure. There are some good measures in what the government is proposing—in many instances, it's because they have picked up measures that we've all been advocating for for a long time—but there's a lot more in the bill. There's a new nominated entity rule, which seems to allow the war chests of the big parties to be grandfathered in and then spent nationally under the extremely generous $90 million national spending cap, yet they want to cut off the opportunity for new political entrants, for people seeking to be elected, to fight on a level playing field. We want big money out of politics but not just new big money while the largesse of the two big parties carries on virtually unhampered. How strange that the government wants to race through the funding rules but their bill for truth in political advertising is on the backburner. There's no rush there. Apparently we don't have a problem with mis- and disinformation in the electoral context. Tell that to Australians. Public funding for political parties will increase, but there'll be no obligation for them to not make stuff up about their political opponents. The onus is really on the government to explain why, in what they're calling the largest reform in 40 years, they want to bypass the standard practice of this parliament to have a Senate inquiry into a detailed piece of legislation. Less than a third of the country voted for this government, a bit more than a third voted for the opposition and about a third voted for someone else. One-third of the country did not want either of the two big political parties. The government of the day could approach that reality by saying, 'Well, maybe we should listen to what a third of the country are saying and maybe lift our game and put forward some policies that might actually improve people's lives,' or they could say, 'We'll just try and change the rules of the game to shore up our diminishing vote.' By racing through this bill without a Senate inquiry, it sends a message to the public that the two parties are rigging the rules because they don't have the courage to implement policies that will actually help people and the planet. Question agreed to. NOTICES 36 NOTICES Presentation 36 Postponement 40 COMMITTEES 40 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 40 DOCUMENTS 40 DOCUMENTS Department of Education 40 Order for the Production of Documents 40 15:35 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move general business notice of motion No. 661: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 24 November 2024: (a) any modelling undertaken by the Department of Education (the department) on different wage increase rates for early childhood educators, including a 25% wage increase, relating to the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 (the bill); (b) all documents, correspondence or advice relating to the Minister's consideration of a wage increase for early childhood educators and care workers, including modelling of different wage increase rates and fiscal constraints; and (c) all documents, correspondence or advice provided to the minister by the department relating to the bill, including modelling of different wage increase rates for early childhood educators. 15:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion or No. 662. The documents sought go to cabinet considerations. It is a long-standing practice under successive governments not to release documents which go to cabinet consideration. Question agreed to. Department of Education 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:36 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move general business notice of motion No. 662: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 24 November 2024: (a) the government response to the Productivity Commission's report A path to universal childhood education and care (the report); (b) all documents provided to the Minister for Education (the minister) by the Department of Education (the department) relating to consideration of the report; and (c) all documents, correspondence or advice provided to the minister by the department relating to the report. The PRESIDENT 112096 I note your comments from No. 661, Senator Chisholm. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 41 COMMITTEES Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Select Committee 41 Reporting Date 41 15:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Faruqi, I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Premiums and Availability be extended to 26 November 2024. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 41 DOCUMENTS Independent Review of Commonwealth Funding for Strategic Policy Work 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:37 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Paterson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Monday, 25 November 2024: (a) the completed report of the independent review of Commonwealth funding for strategic policy work led by Mr Peter Varghese AO (the Varghese Review); and (b) all written submissions provided to the secretariat of the Varghese Review. Question agreed to. Department of the Treasury 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:38 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 25 November 2024, all written or digital correspondence, advice, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction from 2 July 2024 to 15 November 2024 between the Treasury and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office in relation to the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024. Question agreed to. Report on Outstanding Orders for the Production of Documents 41 15:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) procedural order of continuing effect no. 23 requires that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, not later than 2 calendar months after the last day of each financial year and calendar year, table a list showing details of all orders for the production of documents made during the current Parliament which have not been complied with in full; and (b) the Government has not tabled a list in 2024 and therefore has failed twice to comply with the order. (2) That the Government comply with procedural order of continuing effect no. 23 by no later than 9 am Wednesday, 20 November 2024. Question agreed to. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 42 Order for the Production of Documents 42 15:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) the Government tabled documents in response to order of production of documents no. 647 on 31 October 2024; (b) the Government has made a claim of public interest immunity over 3 documents, on the basis that disclosure of the documents could be expected to damage the commercial interests of the parties that provided those documents; (c) the documents subject to this claim of public interest immunity, based on what has been identified, but not tabled, in the response, are: (i) an attachment to an email from Responsible Wagering Australia, sent on 23 April 2024, which had previously been shared with Ministers Rowland and Rishworth in January 2024, (ii) a letter from the NRL sent to the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2024 detailing the NRL's 'position on the proposed reforms', and (iii) an attachment to an email from the AFL sent to the Prime Minister's Office on 1 October 2024; (d) the Senate cannot properly assess whether it should accept or reject this claim of public interest immunity if it cannot assess the character or scope of these documents; (e) it is unlikely that the entire contents of these 3 documents would damage the commercial interests of these parties; and (f) the Government is able to table the documents in a redacted form. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 20 November 2024, the 3 documents listed above, with appropriate redactions of any information that could specifically damage the commercial interests of the parties that provided them. Question agreed to. Avoca Drive Upgrade Project 42 Order for the Production of Documents 42 15:40 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 25 November 2024, all documents, including colour-coded spreadsheets, that were used in preparing the business case to justify the expenditure of $100 million of taxpayers' money on the Avoca Drive upgrade project. Question agreed to. Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 42 Order for the Production of Documents 42 15:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, by no later than 9:30 am on 20 November 2024, a list of the Minister's meetings with stakeholders and parliamentarians in relation to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 since 1 July 2024, including: (a) the date of each meeting; (b) the length of each meeting; and (c) attendees at each meeting. Question agreed to. BILLS 42 BILLS National Organic Standard Bill 2024 42

National Organic Standard Bill 2024

First Reading 42 15:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to regulate the sale and import of organic goods, and for related purposes. National Organic Standard Bill 2024. Question agreed to. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 43 15:42 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I table the explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard The speech read as follows— NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARD BILL 2024 The National Organic Standard Bill 2024 is about establishing much-needed clarity and fairness into the regulations which govern this crucial sector. It's about giving consumers genuine confidence in the products that they buy. And it's about increasing market access, and strengthening international trade, for Australian organic exporters. From the outset, it's important to recognise the essential role that our national organic industry has within the $80 billion agriculture sector. Organics is—both in a domestic and export sense—worth over $2.3 billion. It has a massive footprint nationwide, and internationally. Currently, Australia has 53 million hectares of certified organic farmland—which amounts to 12.5% of all agricultural land in our nation, and about 60% of all organic land worldwide. It's an industry that supports an estimated 6,000 Australian businesses. Ultimately, this is an industry that needs, and deserves, the benefits of a mandatory domestic organic standard. This is what our producers, our operators, and our exporters in the sector have been calling for. And that is precisely what this Bill will deliver. Because currently, it's clear that the current regulatory framework in Australia is not fit-for-purpose. It defies logic that domestic organic products are not required to be certified or comply with any particular organic standard—but still be designated as 'organic'. In fact, products with as little as 2% organic ingredients can use the word 'organic' on their product packaging in Australia. Meanwhile, for a product to be organic under OECD requirements, it needs to be certified. And under these certified organic requirements, 95% or more of the product needs to be comprised of certified organic ingredients. Right now, this inequality is holding the sector back. And it's preventing the Australian organics industry from reaching its full potential. After kick-starting the initial process in government to review the current regulations—the Federal Coalition has listened to the views expressed by the leading organisations who represent this sector. We've consulted with industry about this, we've heeded their advice, and we've studied the detail of what needs to be done. And today, we are proud to be taking decisive and effective action. This Bill is the culmination of years of effort by the Federal Coalition. In the former Government, the then Agriculture Minister David Littleproud established an Organics Industry Advisory Group to provide advice on the regulatory framework. I acknowledge other colleagues who lobbied for this reform, including Senator Davey.. This Bill brings all of that work together to finish what we had started, and what the Labor Government has failed to finalise. The National Organic Standards Bill 2024 will regulate the sale of organic products on the domestic market, as well as imports. There is a pressing need to establish a mandatory domestic standard for organic certification, because at the moment it's voluntary. This puts Australia out of step—and out of line—with other developed countries. When there is no domestic organics standard, there is a lack of consistency for our producers. Meanwhile for our exporters—it leaves them in a situation where they are hit with separate fees, to meet the different regulations which exist in each individual country that they export to. This is not ideal. The current system is messy, fragmented, and unfair. It puts a handbrake on the sector's capacity for growth. This $2.3 billion industry urgently needs the consistency and certainty that a National Organic Standard offers—and this legislation before the Senate will provide that. Taking this course of action will have significant and far-reaching benefits. One of the most crucial is the boost that it will give to consumer confidence. Australians can be assured, and have the trust and knowledge, that when they purchase certified organic produce—that they are getting what they pay for. The Federal Coalition believes that having a national standard in place will allow the community to gain a greater appreciation for what the definition of 'organic' truly means. With mandatory regulation—we anticipate that consumer confidence in organic produce will rise. For many organic producers, the certification process is a major commitment. And so, having a nationally consistent domestic standard will help create a more equal, fair, and economically sensible, playing field. And finally for our organic exporters, the measures in this legislation will help increase their access to lucrative markets and boost international trade. This is because Australia is the last remaining country in the OECD to not have a domestic regulatory framework for the use of the word 'organic'. So, when we consider all these factors—the reality is that the current system is not fit-for-purpose. It needs improvement. And this is how the Coalition's Bill proposes to do it. For any person who wishes to sell organic goods in Australia, the National Organic Standard Bill 2024 will establish a requirement for them to first obtain an organic certificate. The organic certificate will cover the regulated sales of the product for one year—which is the same time that an audit is required by the issuing body for this certificate. Given that an issuing body is one of the certifying authorities which is currently approved to audit businesses to facilitate the export of organic goods—this measure will make both the domestic and export process the same, and require only one audit to be conducted. Meanwhile, an importer of 'prescribed' organic products would also be required to hold a copy of an organic certificate issued by the foreign country—or a body that performs a role that is similar to that of an approved certified body in Australia. Importantly, this certificate will need to affirm that the organic produce meets the high standards and integrity of Australia's National Organic Standard—or similar. Moving to the enforcement of these measures, this Bill outlines the strict imposition of a range of penalties for selling, importing, or intending to sell, an organic product—in the absence of an organic certificate. These penalties are based on the Export Control Act 2020. However, it's worth noting that there will be exemptions in place for smaller operators. Under the provisions of this Bill, I can advise the Senate that the compliance arrangements under the National Organic Standard framework have been intentionally designed to minimise cost. This Bill also clarifies that the certifying authorities, approved by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, will be able to issue an organic certificate, revoke it, or refuse to grant one, if the produce doesn't meet the national standard. On this front, the Administration Review Tribunal will have the right to undertake reviews to examine the merits of any such decisions. Within the Department, the Secretary will have the powers to require an audit. This could occur in a scenario where—for example—the Secretary wants to determine whether an organic product that is on the wharf being inspected for biosecurity reasons is covered by an organic certificate. Meanwhile, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—the ACCC—will have the compliance and enforcement powers. This legislation also stipulates that after six years, an independent review will be conducted—to ensure that the National Organic Standard framework is operating effectively. This review will also be able to determine a valuable indication of the benefits that this domestic standard will provide to Australian exporters—as it applies to their access to new potential markets and gaining equivalency with the requirements of other nations. Furthermore for businesses, the provisions in this Bill have been carefully and specifically designed to ensure that there is a seamless and efficient interaction with Australia's current export system—causing minimal disruption. Ultimately, this legislation is about streamlining, modernising and simplifying the regulations that govern our national export organics industry. Regulations that, if left untouched in their current form, are simply not up to scratch. And as I've mentioned in my opening remarks, we know that the current regulations are not up to scratch, because this is precisely what the industry has been consistently telling government. So, it's time not just to listen, acknowledge, and understand—but to act. Because this has been an issue that has confronted the Australian organics industry for some time. It's why, in December 2020—during the term of the last Coalition Government—that we established an Organic Industry Advisory Group, to review the regulations and advise how the system could be improved to allow this vitally important sector to reach its full potential. It's precisely why, after considering the Advisory Group's advice, that the Coalition acknowledged that the system needed reform, and we committed to establish a Domestic Organic Standard at the 2022 election. It's something that we—on this side of the Chamber—are serious about delivering. So we urge the Albanese Labor Government to appreciate the expertise, the advice, and the knowledge offered from across the sector about the need for a National Organic Standard. We urge the Government to support this sensible, industry-led solution to what is a real and longstanding issue. In conclusion Madam President, the Coalition is proud to have introduced this Bill into the Senate. We are proud to stand in solidarity with the Australian organics industry, which contributes so much to our nation. We are proud to propose a comprehensive framework for a National Organic Standard. A National Organic Standard which will directly benefit consumers, provide much-needed clarity to producers, and boost our trade capability. We say to the Government, in the spirit of bipartisanship—that this measure is about the following priorities: It's about listening to the voices of the sector, and taking action. It's about embracing some regulatory common sense. And it's about delivering a decisive reform which will help our organics industry grow, and thrive, into the future. It's time to get this done, and we are seeking the Government's support to make it a reality. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 45 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 45 Reference 45 15:43 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Green, I move: That the provisions of the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2024. 15:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 We support the referral. Since the High Court held that forced ankle bracelets and curfews on ex-detainees are unconstitutional and punitive in the case of YBFZ, the government has indicated it wants to legislate to empower the minister to enforce these measures for the purpose of achieving safety in the community. This bill will fail for the same reason the High Court held in YBFZ. What is needed is legislation to widen the power of the judiciary to order these measures instead of leaving it to the minister who is part of the executive, thereby ensuring the separation of powers. 15:44 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: Omit "26 November 2024", substitute "4 February 2025". Just so folks are clear, the amendment omits the words 26 November 2024 and substitutes instead 4 February 2025. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim to business of the Senate No. 3 be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Thorpe 280304 President, you stopped me from going overseas next week, did you? You didn't even have the courtesy to tell me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Come to order, Senator Thorpe! Senator Thorpe 280304 You stopped me from going overseas. Shame on you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, come to order!    

The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 14 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 32 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.

 NOTICES 46 NOTICES Postponement 46 15:51 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4, standing in my name for today, until the next day of sitting. Leave granted. PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 46 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Approval of Works 46 15:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, relating to the Senator Neville Bonner commemorative sculpture and associated works. Question agreed to. NOTICES 46 NOTICES Postponement 46 15:52 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to postpone general business notice of motion No. 638, standing in my name for today, until the next day of sitting. Leave granted. DOCUMENTS 46 DOCUMENTS Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 15:52 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: (1) That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that on 9 October 2024 the Senate ordered the Minister representing the Treasurer to table the government response to the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on bank closures in regional Australia (order no. 653), and (ii) in a letter of response, dated 29 October 2024, the Assistant Treasurer stated that 'there are no documents in scope of the order'; (b) affirms that the Senate has the power, arising from section 49 of the Constitution, to order documents both in existence and created for the purpose, a view endorsed by the Privileges Committee in its 153rd report; (c) draws the attention of the Assistant Treasurer to the many orders requiring the production of government responses to Senate committee reports, including most recently an order requiring the production of the government response to the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the shutdown of the 3G mobile network, which was complied with on 19 August 2024; and (d) insists that the Minister representing the Treasurer comply with the order by midday on 25 November 2024. (2) That if the above order is not complied with by the required time, a senator may utilise the mechanism provided under standing order 164(3) on any subsequent day regardless of whether the 30 day period referred to in that standing order has passed. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 667 standing in the name of Senator Rennick be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 45 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 48 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 48

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 48 15:59 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I, and on behalf of Senator Lambie, move: That the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 3 March 2025. 15:59 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 These bills are implementing the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report into the conduct of the 2022 federal election. They've been through the inquiry process, and information on the merits of these measures is publicly available for all senators. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion number 674 standing in the names of Senators Lambie and David Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 18 AYES Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 38 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 49 DOCUMENTS Australian Prudential Regulation Authority 49 Order for the Production of Documents 49 16:04 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by midday on Wednesday, 20 November 2024, the report provided by Mr Graeme Samuel AC to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority concerning an independent inquiry about the influence of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union on the Cbus Super Fund. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 675 moved by Senator Askew at the request of Senator Bragg be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Housing 49 Order for the Production of Documents 49 16:10 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: (1) That the Senate— (a) notes that the order for production of documents no. 563 made on 13 August 2024 requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to provide, by no later than midday on Tuesday 20 August 2024, any reports prepared by external consultants engaged by the Commonwealth to identify planning reforms that states and territories should consider undertaking to meet their commitments under the Housing Accord, has not been complied with; and (b) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made by the Treasurer on 8 November 2024 on the basis that it does not comply with the Senate's requirement that such a claim should provide sufficient detail about the actual harm that would be caused by providing the information. (2) That there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Wednesday, 20 November 2024 by the Minister representing the Treasurer, any reports prepared by external consultants engaged by the Commonwealth to identify planning reforms that states and territories should consider undertaking to meet their commitments under the Housing Accord, in full compliance with the order made on 13 August 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 676 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.    

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

 45 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 50 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 50 Reference 50 16:14 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that yesterday evening a vote was deferred. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold that vote. The Senate shall now deal with the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young, concerning a proposed reference to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 February 2025: Gambling harm in Australian society, with particular reference to: (a) the impact of gambling on Australian communities, families and children; (b) the harm caused by gambling advertising and inducements, and their role in gambling addiction and the grooming of young gamblers; (c) the relationship between gambling advertising, media companies and sporting codes, including consideration of alternate funding streams; (d) the influence of the gambling industry and their political donations on public policy and responsible ministers; (e) the Government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, chaired by the late Ms Peta Murphy; and (f) any other related matters.    

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

 15 AYES 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 51 Reference 51 16:18 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now move to the second deferred vote, a proposed reference to the Senate Legal and Constitution Affairs References Committee, moved by Senator Rennick. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Rennick be agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 March 2025: The benefits of establishing an independent and transparent judicial commission to encourage public confidence in the justice system and uphold the separation of powers, with particular regard to: (a) current and best practice complaints handling and resolution processes related to judicial officers and courts administration; (b) the financial cost associated with establishing such a commission; (c) current and best practice processes to support appropriate scrutiny and accountability of courts, commissions and tribunals, to ensure equity is upheld; (d) processes to improve efficiency of the justice system; (e) how the Commonwealth Government can support the effective and efficient administration of state and territory courts, tribunals and commissions; (f) how costs are awarded and whether reform in this area is required; and (g) any other related matters.    

The Senate divided. [16:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 18 AYES Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 52 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Hong Kong 52 16:23 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 A letter has been received from Senators Sharma and O'Neill: Pursuant to standing order 75, we propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "Hong Kong's widespread application of national security laws to repress civil society and prosecute journalists, including Mr Jimmy Lai." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:23 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Unfortunately and alarmingly, the issue of public importance we are discussing today, Hong Kong's widespread application of national security laws to repress civil society, has just taken on a new level of urgency and crisis. Earlier today, a court in Hong Kong sentenced 45 former politicians and activists to up to 10 years in prison in the biggest prosecution brought under Hong Kong's national security laws to date. The alleged crime of these individuals was to participate in an unofficial primary election for opposition candidates for the Hong Kong legislature. This is normal political activity, but, somehow, participating in this most basic democratic exercise was labelled by authorities as a conspiracy to commit subversion. An Australian, Gordon Ng, was one of those sentenced, and we feel for him and his family. Let me be absolutely clear. This is part of an ongoing and relentless assault by authorities in Beijing and their local enablers against fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong. It is designed to silence criticism, stifle dissent and enforce obedience. It's a complete repudiation of the rights enshrined in Hong Kong's Basic Law. Tomorrow I fear we will see yet another of the remaining embers of Hong Kong's freedoms stamped out because Jimmy Lai's trial on national security charges is due to recommence. Jimmy Lai is a journalist, publisher, writer and pro-democracy campaigner. He was the founder of Apple Daily, one of Hong Kong's most popular newspapers and the largest independent Chinese-language media outlet in the region, until authorities forced it to close in 2021. Mr Lai was first arrested in August 2020 and has been detained in prison since December 2020, in solitary confinement for much of that time. His current trial is for alleged 'sedition' and 'conspiracy to collude with foreign forces'—and I put that in quotation marks. But, as the prosecution case makes abundantly clear, Mr Lai is being charged for practising journalism, for holding political authorities to account, for scrutinising their conduct and for raising concerns about the respective authorities for fundamental human rights. As the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found, Mr Lai is being unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. This same working group also found that Mr Lai's ongoing detention and imprisonment is a violation of his rights to freedom of expression, to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, his right to a fair trial and to freedom from arbitrary detention. As the group concluded, Mr Lai's ongoing imprisonment is unjust, and he should be released immediately and have his trial discontinued. I add my voice to those calls today: Mr Lai should be immediately and unconditionally released. I also urge those four Australian judges—Patrick Keane, Robert French, William Gummow and James Allsop—to urgently reconsider their roles as non-permanent judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and to reflect on how their continued service on this court confers a legitimacy on Hong Kong's respect for the rule of law which is, clearly, unwarranted. I know that many Australians who have visited and grown to admire and love Hong Kong over the years—myself amongst them—for its vibrancy, its energy and its entrepreneurialism and, most particularly, its liberal institutions and freedoms, are distressed by the path that Hong Kong is taking. It is a tragedy for many of Hong Kong's residents but it's also a tragedy for Hong Kong itself. With its hasty and unchecked abandonment of its freedoms and its commitment to the rule of law, it is quickly turning itself into a backwater city of mainland China. I urge Hong Kong authorities to correct course and I urge the government in Beijing to recognise that the preservation of Hong Kong's essential freedoms is in its own national interests. This should begin with the cessation of prosecutions under the national security law and the immediate and unconditional release of Mr Lai and the 45 political prisoners that were sentenced just today. 16:28 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Democracy and the rule of law are precious elements that enable and preserve the form of government that we Australians and all citizens of free nations hold dear. It's this commitment to fundamental freedoms that has driven me today to join with my colleague Senator Sharma in calling out Hong Kong's widespread application of the national security laws to repress civil society and prosecute journalists, including Jimmy Lai, as a matter of public importance. Today, concerningly, we have reports—indeed, from Hong Kong—that dozens of prominent pro-democracy activists will be jailed for up to a decade in the territory's biggest ever national security case, including an Australian citizen, Mr Gordon Ng. Hong Kong possesses a long and complex political history with varying forms of governance and authority. But, within that experience, a yearning has developed for self-rule and an expectation that all will be treated fairly. At one point not so very long ago, Hong Kong represented a robust civil society that contained respect for a variety of opinions, faiths, languages, persuasions and political perspectives. In 2002, when the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders launched, Hong Kong ranked 18th in the world. Now it sits at 135th out of 180 jurisdictions. Hong Kong's once lively press that epitomised its active civil discourse has since been muzzled by two national security laws and a revival of a colonial-era charge of sedition. I call out these developments with regret and with a particular fear that this intense deterrence has created a culture of self-censorship and appeasement. On 3 July this year, I met with Sebastian Lai, who shared with me and others in this place his fear, sadness and hope for his father, Jimmy Lai. Jimmy Lai is currently being held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison on spurious charges. His story started when he stowed away on a boat to safety in Hong Kong and began an entrepreneurial career in the fashion industry, before founding the pro-democracy publication Apple Daily. Apple Daily is a seemingly unlikely vestige of defiance. While it used to sit in the newsstands alongside other, more refined, publications, its tabloid-infused criticism of the government stood alone in the world in the end. After being raided by no fewer than 200 representatives of the state and forcibly shut down in June 2021, its final edition reached a record circulation of one million copies—10 times the amount usually sold. The final issue's popularity offered a tacit protest against the growing authoritarianism dominating the region and a sombre reminder of the Hong Kong that once was. Jimmy Lai has been a leading figure in the pro-democracy movement, and an advocate for peaceful assembly and the right to expression. Because of his courage, Jimmy Lai was first arrested in August 2020, and he has since been continuously detained in custody since December of that year. He is also currently having his rights denied as a Catholic. As a fellow Catholic, I note he is being denied the sacrament of Holy Communion. He's accused of communicating with foreign forces—foreign forces such as Australia and Europe—in advocating for the suspension of extradition treaties and calling out human rights abuses, acts that many others would simply refer to as journalism. Jimmy Lai is now looking at being wrongfully detained and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. I think it is appropriate for this parliament to join with the United Nations, the United Kingdom and the US in calling for the repeal of the national security law and for Mr Lai to be reunited with his family. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Friday 15 November published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is being unlawfully and arbitrarily detained. The rule of law, media freedom and human rights is being eroded and undermined in Hong Kong. The world is watching. 16:33 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Jimmy Lai has been held in maximum solitary confinement in a security prison in Hong Kong for almost four years. This is inhumane: He is being tried on trumped-up charges arising from his peaceful promotion of democracy, his journalism and his human rights advocacy. His trial, like so many in Hong Kong since the passage of the authoritarian national security law, lacked procedural and judicial fairness, with hand-picked judges and evidence obtained via torture. The Hong Kong and Chinese authorities have repeatedly delayed his trial, compromising his right to a speedy trial. His release has been called for by the UK government, by the US government, by the Canadian parliament, by the European Parliament and by five UN special rapporteurs, and today many in this place join that call. We are united in our call that Mr Lai may return home to the UK before it is too late. These calls are supported by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which on Friday 15 November published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is unlawfully and arbitrarily detained and called for his immediate release. The working group found multiple violations of Mr Lai's rights and freedoms and stressed that he should not be on trial at all. The world is watching as the rule of law, media freedom and human rights in Hong Kong are eroded and undermined. We must work together to uphold these fundamental freedoms and demand that Jimmy Lai be released and immediately and unconditionally allowed to return home. We are seeing a global trend to silence journalists and those speaking truth to power. We must work together to call out for those wrongfully and arbitrarily detained wherever they are and whichever group or government is holding them. Today, the Australian Greens add our voices to the calls for the release of Jimmy Lai, just as we did with Julian Assange and Cheng Lei and just as we do with Robert Pether in Iraq and with Daniel Duggan, who is wrongfully detained here in Australia. 16:36 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I'm pleased to speak in support of this matter of public importance along with colleagues from across the chamber. The erosion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong is of huge concern, and we see that concern playing out today with reports of an Australian citizen and democracy campaigner being sentenced to seven years in prison by a Hong Kong court. The application by Beijing of the national security law in 2020 has seriously eroded the rights of citizens, protesters and the press in Hong Kong. Jimmy Lai is one of many Hongkongers who have been paying the price for the dismantling of proper legal process and the rule of law since the implementation of that national security law. Mr Lai's case has been independently verified by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as being a case of unlawful and arbitrary detention. He's been detained and held in solitary confinement since December 2020, soon after the implementation of the national security law. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that evidence from a key prosecution witness may have also been obtained through torture. Mr Lai has already been prosecuted and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment for peaceful participation in pro-democracy protests. We must remember that the people of Hong Kong were promised the protection of democratic rights and freedoms when the handover of Hong Kong from the British to the Chinese government occurred. It is without question that these rights have not been protected but indeed have been severely undermined by Beijing's actions. Mr Lai should not be in prison. He should be released immediately and unconditionally. The transnational application of the national security law puts Australians at risk, and we have already seen evidence of this. It is unacceptable to us as Australians that our citizens and residents can be targeted for arrest and conviction under the national security law for exercising their rights to free speech, even here in Australia. It's also unacceptable that there should be any threats or risk of detention for Australians supporting the rights of Jimmy Lai or other citizens of Hong Kong targeted by the national security law. Australia, along with other nations, has an important role to play in speaking up about the treatment of Jimmy Lai and the national security law. The US and the United Kingdom, as well as the United Nations, have called for Mr Lai's immediate and unconditional release, and Australia, I believe, has a particular obligation to speak up because of the very unfortunate situation in which there are four Australians still serving as judges in the Hong Kong legal system. It is both appropriate and necessary that we in the Australian parliament speak up about our severe concerns about the repression of pro-democracy protests, the prosecution of journalists, and call for the release of Mr Lai. We have a responsibility to do so and it is pleasing that government, opposition and crossbench senators are joining together to make clear the views of the Australian Senate with this motion here today. It is welcome that officials confirmed at Senate estimates recently that the Australian government has been raising Mr Lai's case with Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. That should continue to happen, and the government has the full support of the coalition to continue to raise those concerns in bilateral engagements as well as in multilateral forums. The protection of media freedom and the freedom of citizens to protest and criticise their government are fundamental to the protection of human rights. In jurisdictions where media freedom and freedom of speech are severely curtailed and where the press is pressured or compelled to comply with the government, inevitably citizens are subjected to other breaches of their human rights, such as arbitrary detention or torture, and that is exactly what is being reported as happening in Hong Kong, which is why it is so important for Australia as a responsible democracy to stand up for press freedom and against arbitrary detention. Thank you to my colleagues Senator Sharma and Senator O'Neill for moving this motion, which I urge all senators to support. I encourage the government on behalf of Australia to continue to strenuously object to this dangerous national security law, its application to repress civil rights and particularly the targeting of Australians as a result. 16:41 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Along with my colleagues across the Senate, I rise to speak in support of this matter of public importance on the ongoing detention and prosecution of Jimmy Lai. Today is a day of reflection because of the horrendous backdrop of 45 pro-democracy activists now facing up to 10 years in jail. Mr Lai is a 76-year-old publisher and pro-democracy campaigner who, for decades, has been a high-profile figure in the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. He founded and ran the largest independent Chinese-language media outlet in Hong Kong, Apple Daily, until its forced closure in June 2021. Since December 2020, almost four years ago, Mr Lai has been detained in solitary confinement awaiting trial for charges of alleged sedition and conspiracy to collude with foreign forces. Importantly, for the purposes of this debate, Australia is directly implicated in these charges. The charges relating to the alleged collusion with foreign forces stated Mr Lai has encouraged eight countries to impose sanctions or engage in other hostile activities towards China. One of the eight countries implicated in this suit is Australia. Mr Lai's trial is due to recommence this week. If convicted, he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison. We are deeply concerned by Hong Kong's widespread application of national security laws to repress civil society and prosecute journalists like Jimmy Lai. The national security law, which Mr Lai is charged with breaching, has been applied broadly to arrest or pressure pro-democracy figures, opposition groups, the media, trade unions and civil society. And Hong Kong's article 23 legislation has further eroded rights and freedoms as guaranteed under basic law in the Sino-British joint declaration. These laws have had far-reaching impacts on individuals in Australia. We saw that with Hong Kong authorities issuing arrest warrants for Australian citizens. Just today the foreign minister expressed our grave concern at the fate of Gordon Ng, an Australian citizen who has been sentenced under the national security law for organising a democratic primary. I call on China to cease its oppression of media freedoms and repeal the national security law. Earlier this year, I met with Mr Lai's son, Sebastian Lai, and his legal team to discuss the state of the case. I'm aware that this delegation also met with the foreign minister and other leaders across the political spectrum. Mr Lai's case and the case for greater civil liberties and political freedoms in Hong Kong has broad support in Australia and around the world. UN special rapporteurs have called on the Hong Kong authorities to drop all charges against Mr Lai and release him immediately, citing multiple and serious violations of Mr Lai's rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and his right to a fair trial. Mr Lai has been denied a fair trial and his choice of legal counsel, making it impossible for these charges to be fairly tested. As Mr Lai's son said earlier this year: 'They've made it pretty clear: no juries; three government-appointed judges; the security minister boasting of a hundred per cent conviction rate. So, in my mind, they just want to keep dad in prison for as long as they want to, and they'll just write the sentences around that.' The crackdown on political freedoms and civil liberties in Hong Kong is a tragedy for the people of Hong Kong and for the many Australians who know and love the city and its people. We urge the Chinese government and Hong Kong authorities to uphold and protect those elements which have been so crucial to Hong Kong's success, including its high degree of autonomy; rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the basic law; and the Sino-British declaration, to which Beijing committed. 16:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Hong Kong is a lesson in what happens when communism is imposed on democracy. China assured Hong Kong citizens that they would be respected, and then promptly broke that promise. In Hong Kong, the top 10 per cent of income earners now own 40 times the wealth of the bottom 10 per cent. Every year under communism makes income inequality in Hong Kong worse. It confirms that free enterprise lifts people out of poverty, while communism puts them in poverty. Communism promises joy and inclusion, while delivering misery and repression. Repression leads to everyday citizens having less, leading to more repression, which leads to more inequality, and on it goes. China is improperly imprisoning freedom journalist and businessman Mr Jimmy Lai. China is taking a well-worn path of totalitarian governments across history. Australia has cause for reflection. We're discussing this motion in the shadow of a looming Senate legislation guillotine. In a guillotine, the government gets the numbers to do whatever it wants, and it does just that, which is how communism starts—with unchallenged power. Senate guillotines have become commonplace. They should not be. Both parties have silenced democratic debate during guillotines, although it seems that Labor is wearing out its guillotine faster than Robespierre. Three days of hearings into the misinformation and disinformation bill heard from expert witness after expert witness, all criticising the government for introducing a ministry of truth tasked with issuing sanctions against any social media platform which resisted removal of what the ministry considered 'misinformation'. This is how communism starts. The committee report had little in common with witness testimony. The report was nothing more than the government's 'truth'. The first target for the Albanese government's ministry of truth should be the Albanese government. I welcome calling out Chinese communist repression, and I look forward to a wider conversation on where our actions in this chamber are leading Australia. 16:48 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public importance and I thank my colleagues Senator Sharma and Senator O'Neill for moving it in this place. For many Australians, the issue of human rights or what happens in other nations is of second-order importance to the cost of living—to issues that they face in their daily lives—but I encourage people just to pause and consider the import of what is happening here, because this does indeed not only affect the underpinnings of the governance that has seen human rights, the private sector flourishing, prosperity and increasing health for populations around the world, but it goes to the very freedoms that we so often taken for granted. And, in this case, an Australian citizen is in fact involved. So, whilst people will hear terms like 'rule of law', they should also understand that, in some countries, it is rule by law, not rule of law. Now, what's the difference? When it's rule by law, the law is applied arbitrarily, in the interests of the state, not in the interests of the people. Rule of law means that, no matter how wealthy you are or how much influence you may have in a government, everyone is subject to the law and is required to obey the law. That means that even people who don't have a huge amount of influence are protected, and institutions such as this are designed to make sure that those people have a voice and that the laws that are put in place in the land consider the interests of all citizens, not just the powerful. How do we see that work out in practice? Well, Tiananmen Square in the People's Republic of China in 1989 is an example where citizens decided that they wanted change and they wanted more freedom. In response, the Chinese Communist Party sent in the troops and the tanks, and to this day it is not clear how many hundreds or thousands were killed or arrested. In contrast, in a country where there is rule of law, in Lafayette Square in America, after the riots following George Floyd's deaths, again the authorities used force to clear a square. But the people who were held to account were not the protesters but the authorities because it was deemed that that use of force was excessive. If we want to live in a nation where the government and the state exist for the people then we need to be prepared to support the democracy that we have and the system of government that we have, which, while imperfect, is designed such that the people choose who is their government. That goes to the heart of what is happening in Hong Kong at the moment, despite a legal agreement that the Chinese Communist Party signed with the British, the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984, regarding the transfer of Hong Kong back to the Chinese Communist Party. The agreement that was signed was that it would be one country but two systems and the system of governance and the economy would remain the same and the freedoms that the people of Hong Kong had grown up with and were used to living by and had underpinned their economy would be respected. Instead what we see is that today, as we are here in Australia, there are 45 people, including an Australian citizen, who took part in the most basic of democratic processes, which was to choose their chosen representative to run for election to represent them in the legislature of Hong Kong. Under the national security law, which has been imposed by Beijing on the people of Hong Kong, that is deemed to be a crime and people who took that most basic of actions are facing anywhere between three years in prison and life imprisonment. Likewise we see the crackdown not just on those democratic people but on other pro-democratic figures, opposition groups, media, trade unions, civil society and media leaders, such as Jimmy Lai, who at age 77 is still detained and facing trial. Despite the clear indication from the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which has found that it's unlawful and he should be released, he still faces jail. We call on the Chinese authorities to respect their obligations under the ICCPR and their obligations under the treaty to respect the people of Hong Kong and their freedoms. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The time for this discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 57 MATTERS OF URGENCY AUKUS 57 16:53 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 19 November, from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: With the election of Donald Trump in the US, Australia must end the attempted acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, estimated to cost over $360 billion, and the AUKUS agreement must be cancelled." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:53 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: With the election of Donald Trump in the US, Australia must end the attempted acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, estimated to cost over $360 billion, and the AUKUS agreement must be cancelled. Half of Australians want to scrap AUKUS, and they're saying loud and clear that we need to end this $368 billion nuclear submarine gamble, it turns out, with President Trump and the US. This deal was toxic from day one. Then Prime Minister Morrison introduced it as a political wedge, and Labor just rolled over. It turns out a short-term political sugar hit and fear of the coalition were more important to Labor than Australia's long-term national interests. So now Prime Minister Albanese has a $368 billion nuclear gamble, and the cards have turned up trumps—just the wrong sort of Trump. If you go back two years, when it was all still shiny and unknown, barely 20 per cent of Australians wanted to dump AUKUS, but the closer we look, the closer the parliament looks and the closer they look, the worse it gets. Every week that goes by, more and more people are realising how dangerous and irresponsible the two pro-AUKUS war parties are. This week, we saw 48 per cent of Australians come out and say they want to renegotiate our way out of AUKUS. Not even 20 per cent are in love with this pro-nuclear deal that Labor and the coalition have come up with. What do we get out of AUKUS? We don't get submarines, I can tell you that much. Every single AUKUS agreement this government has signed has a get-out-of-jail-free card for the United States if they don't like it. Just recently, the head of the US Navy's Virginia class submarine program—they're the submarines Albanese is begging the US to give us a couple of—dropped a truth-bomb on AUKUS by making it clear that the US are making nowhere near enough nuclear submarines for themselves. So why would they give any to us? Let's do some maths. The US is making about 1.1 to 1.2 Virginia class submarines a year. To make enough submarines to give some to Australia, they need to make 2.33. In case those in Labor aren't following along—because your defence minister sure isn't!—making one submarine a year is less than making two. What do you think will happen when President Trump, son-of-President-Trump or whatever the future US president is looks at a US military that has about half the number of submarines it was meant to have? Do you think they'll sign off on giving Australia some? Of course they won't, which is exactly why they've been putting all these escape hatches in the AUKUS clause. If that isn't bad enough, we have no way of getting back the $10 billion we've already forked out to the US and the UK, even if they decide to give us no submarines. The question isn't, 'Will we get nuclear submarines?' The question the Australian public is asking is, 'How many tens of billions of dollars will Labor and the coalition fork out to the United States and the UK before the US jumps out?' The only thing we will get from AUKUS is a big, fat target on Australia's main cities and tonnes and tonnes of toxic nuclear waste. Last time we were sitting, the war parties teamed up to ram through legislation that will see nuclear waste dumped right next to Adelaide and Perth. Who is Labor doing this for? Why are they making major cities nuclear targets, making toxic waste dumps and forking out public funds to the US? It's not in the national interests of Australia. It's not in our defence interests. In fact, the only people winning and grinning over this are the likes of Donald Trump, who keeps getting bucketloads of Australian dollars shovelled towards him. And that's Trump, who controls multiple US spy bases in Australia. That's Trump, whose commander in chief is in charge of thousands of US marines in Darwin. That's Trump, who is in control of US nuclear-capable bombers sitting there in RAAF Tindal in the Northern Territory. It's Trump who has control of nuclear-powered submarines coming through Australia's ports—ports that the Labor government is spending $7 billion to build for US nuclear submarines. In what world does any of this make us safer? It is long past time to scrap AUKUS. 16:58 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia You take your pick. Is it reckless indifference, or is it fairies at the bottom of the garden? It's one or the other from the Australian Greens when it comes to the positions and statements we've just heard from Senator Shoebridge. There is reckless indifference to Australia's national safety and security and to how we keep our country and region stable, secure and with a prosperous future ahead. Or, indeed, there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, not having any knowledge at all. I assume the former, frankly, because Senator Shoebridge is actually a smart person. He does actually understand what's happening. But, indeed, it is an indifference. It seems to be a belief that there in a parallel universe that we can tread, where the security and defence of our nation isn't something we have to take seriously. Well, it is something we have to take seriously. What was completely absent from Senator Shoebridge's remarks was any acknowledgement of the context that Australia finds itself in. There was no acknowledgement at all of the reality that world military expenditure increased for nine consecutive years in the lead-up to 2023, and it has certainly continued since then. We're up to 11 consecutive years, no doubt, of continuous growth in world military expenditure. Indeed, in 2023, it was a 6.8 per cent increase, seeing the steepest year-on-year rise in more than a decade, and, of course, it's coming off ever-higher bases as that global growth in military expenditure is undertaken. We wish it were not the case, but, tragically, we face the highest level of global military expenditure in real terms since the end of the Second World War. That is the reality of the circumstance we face. That growth is being driven in our region. East Asia's military expenditure increased by some 6.2 per cent in 2023, reaching on the publicly-accounted-for records—and I'll come to that public accountability—some $411 billion. It was 52 per cent higher in our region in 2023 than it was in 2014. Where is this coming from in terms of that growth of global military expenditure and East Asian military expenditure? As we and certainly the parties of government know, it's China's military expenditure, which has risen consecutively for more than 30 years. It's the longest unbroken streak recorded by any country, according to independent measurement. Just pause and reflect on that for a minute. There have been 30 consecutive years of China increasing its military expenditure—the longest unbroken streak of any nation, according to independent assessment. As I said before, that's only on the publicly available data. Some of those who undertake assessment have indicated that, from public data in 2022-23, China's public defence budget was around $229 billion. But estimates take that to, potentially, in excess of $700 billion. The security challenges we face in our region are real, because, sadly, we see China not behave as we would wish a great power to behave but exert its military influence in ways that are counterproductive to the peace and stability of our region. We all wish that were different, and it's important that we convey that message. To secure peace and stability, we need to have effective deterrence in place. That was the lesson out of World War II, where, indeed, lack of deterrence and choice of appeasement tragically led the world into enormous conflict. Deterrence is the way to create the scope for diplomacy to do its job and to create peace and security, which is the objective we all want. Out of World War II the architecture was built to try to ensure that we had not only stronger bases for diplomatic efforts but also shared deterrence umbrellas. The alliance with the US under the ANZUS Treaty, an important achievement of the Menzies government, has been built upon with AUKUS. AUKUS is about ensuring Australia achieves the defence capabilities, as well as the defence industrial capabilities, we need for the future. They are two pillars where we share an interest with the US and the UK. No amount of demeaning the United States or our relationship with them by Senator Shoebridge or the Greens will deter us from the fact that together we are stronger and together we can build those capabilities for both our defence forces and our defence industry and create the type of deterrence that can give us room for diplomacy to secure peace for the future. 17:03 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also join to speak on this urgency motion moved by Senator McKim and the Australian Greens. I must say it is quite absurd for Senator Shoebridge and the Australian Greens to come into this place to lecture us about national security. The Greens, as we know, have a history of jumping to false conclusions. I do trust that the Australian people will see through these very much misleading statements that have been made not just today but on an ongoing basis. The Greens allege that the trilateral AUKUS treaty that was signed in August last year was secretive and 'driving us further into US war plans with China'. This is simply false—a baseless claim. The full agreement was tabled in the parliament in the first sitting after it was signed, in line with all the signed treaty processes that every Australian government has gone through since Federation. The Greens also know that the government has also ruled out Australia disposing of any intermediate and high-level radioactive waste from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, yet they continue to spread misinformation on this very issue. Suggestions by the Australian Greens, including Senator Shoebridge, that this is a one-sided deal dismiss the fact that the United Kingdom and the United States have also agreed to share their prized military capabilities and technologies with our country, something that the Greens always choose to ignore. The Albanese government is united with our AUKUS partners in our commitment to a peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific region, and this will not change. In all the government's engagement with the United States across the full political spectrum, there has been a very consistent message in support of AUKUS. Furthermore, our trilateral security partnership is yet another example of the government's proud record on positively engaging in international affairs, defending Australia's national interests and, more importantly, creating Australian jobs, and we will continue to accelerate the delivery of the capabilities to ensure that the ADF can keep Australians safe and our region secure. That is our No. 1 priority. It's also worth mentioning that this is the single biggest investment in Australia's defence capability in history. AUKUS is a key pillar of our national security policy, and it is really good to see that there is bipartisanship on this matter. But again what we hear from the Australian Greens is talking down our national security and talking down Australia's standing in the Indo-Pacific, rather than actually working with colleagues in this place on how we can have a much more secure, safe region. What we hear from the Australian Greens is that they are anti jobs, anti defence and anti national security, yet they are pro misinformation. That is their No. 1 priority—to try to spread mistruths within the Australian community in the lead-up to the federal election. The fact that AUKUS is a key transformative matter for Australia's defence policy and for enhancing our capability is something that is really important for future strategic challenges. It's not just about developing capabilities to acquire and sustain conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines; it's also, as I mentioned earlier, about jobs, which are at the front and centre of this policy. The AUKUS plan for Australia will see around 20,000 direct jobs created here in Australia, right across the industry, in many places, like South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and other parts of the country. Senator Shoebridge 169119 In New South Wales? Senator CICCONE 281503 The whole supply chain, Senator Shoebridge. Yes, New South Wales will also benefit. All those small SMEs in defence industry will benefit greatly. But again Senator Shoebridge is talking down the industry and Defence. He is talking down all the fine men and women who put on that proud uniform every single day, defending our national security, like the men and women who were here in the public gallery earlier today. All those individuals who are spending millions of dollars— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Excuse me, Senator Ciccone. Senator McGrath? Senator McGrath 217241 On a point of order in terms of the interjections from Senator Shoebridge: Senator Shoebridge was heard in silence. Senator Ciccone has had constant interjections since he commenced speaking. While he does not need a member of the opposition to come to his defence, I would ask that you call Senator Shoebridge to order, because interjections are disorderly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Thank you, Senator McGrath. Before I allocate the call, I do want to remind senators that they have also had their opportunity to make their contributions. If they need an adjournment speech, they should take up that opportunity. Senator CICCONE 281503 Thank you very much, and I do thank Senator McGrath for that. As I was saying, AUKUS will allow for deeper information and technology sharing and greater integration across security and defence related matters. 17:09 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria If comedy, hubris and, I guess, wishful thinking could be used in defence of our great nation, many of you in this place could single-handedly keep Australia safe. Between alarmist descriptions of nuclear subs as floating Chernobyls and the insistence that we cancel the AUKUS agreement, Australia's enemies could all just die from laughter. How would we defend ourselves, defend this country from the myriad threats that we face in this world—a world that teeters on the edge of war? Is the plan to just potentially glue ourselves to the road? Is that the plan? Or maybe tie ourselves to a post in front of an advancing army? Is that the plan? If only world affairs were that simple. But this is no time for Australia to be led by simpletons—no time, with major threats to our north. There are wars and rumours of war as well. Just how prepared are we? How prepared are we as a nation? Australians watching at home: we've got only six submarines, only one of which is fully operational, I'm told. Our Defence Force numbers are below minimum fighting strength, and a recent report indicated that we have enough ammunition to fight for just around a week. We need our allies more than ever, and we have no better, no stronger ally than the United States of America. What a pity, then, that some in this place just simply prefer to hate on their political rivals rather than taking seriously the defence of our nation. Now, I get it why some in this place dislike the great Donald Trump, because he loves free speech. He loves economic growth, democracy, small government, lower taxes and affordable reliable power—all of the things that far too many of you in here detest, in my opinion. While foreign powers build their armies and shore up their alliances, we in Australia are led by small, petty men and women whose ignorance and refusal to accept reality could get us all killed. History shows us that peace comes through strength and strength alone. The sooner we have serious people leading our country, the sooner we will have a fighting chance of defending our nation. People at home: make better choices at the ballot box. The election is just around the corner. It is time for you to vote one, UAP. Vote one, Babet. 17:12 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The election of Donald Trump earlier this month is a sobering reminder that the foreign policy of the United States is fickle and tumultuous. Yet both major parties—the previous government, with Scott Morrison, and this Labor government—have persisted with an unpopular, unrealistic and dangerous AUKUS political pact that signs Australia up to the foreign policy whims of Donald Trump. Here are three things that Donald Trump has promised to do when he takes office. One, he has announced that he will immediately withdraw the US from the climate Paris Agreement again. This would send a message to the world that fighting climate change isn't essential, and it will send progress back decades. Two, he supports a nationwide abortion ban that will completely dismantle a woman's right to choose. Three, he has hand-picked billionaires for the top jobs of his administration that will make the mega-wealthy richer, while the price of everyday goods goes up higher and ever higher. It beggars belief that Mr Albanese and his Labor government think it is acceptable for Australia to spend billions of dollars on the AUKUS political pact, to sign us up for 40 years of being in lock step with the decisions of the United States, all with the promise of getting a few outdated submarines that aren't even guaranteed to be delivered. Our community is concerned about the incoming Trump administration. We are concerned about the effect on our economy, on global peace and on climate change. We want a review of the AUKUS political pact and the decision to spend billions of dollars on nuclear submarines. We want a calm and reflective reconsideration of the US alliance in this era of Donald Trump. 17:15 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia So many Australians have been pretty anxious since the results of the US election. The majority of Australians, actually, when they're asked about how they would have voted and how they would have felt about the results, say they would have rejected the Trump election. They didn't want Trump to be elected—and rightly so—because he's extreme, he's unstable, he's irrational, he's dangerous, he's nasty, he's a felon, he's a crook, he assaults women, he attacks minorities and he takes away women's rights but gives all the power to his billionaire mates. Yet this is the person that Australia is now hooking our wagon to under the AUKUS agreement. When Australia first signed up to this and the Labor Party followed the Liberal Party in lockstep, Paul Keating of course called this 'the worst deal in history'. That's how dudded Australia was, according to the former Prime Minister. He said, 'AUKUS turns Australia into the 51st state of America.' Now the United States of America has a dangerous, right-wing nut job back at the helm. Of course, we know what's going to happen. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, is already parroting Trump's lines, his dangerous rhetoric and his nasty strategies. We urge the Labor Party: stop, think and act. It's time to get out of AUKUS before it's too late. 17:17 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to speak on this urgency motion of the Greens, which I think demonstrates some intellectual dishonesty, because anyone who studies geopolitics and our national security will understand this: it matters little who is in the White House; competition in the Indo-Pacific will persevere no matter who is the President of the United States. As we know, AUKUS is not just about submarines. It's mostly about signalling that we have allies and friends that will come to our aid and provide us with what we need to be able to contest any battle. Those battles may arise even if Australia is not involved in a war on one side or the other. If there is contestation in the Indo-Pacific, more than anything we are going to need to protect our ships bringing in goods that we need to run our country, like fuel and medicines, as well as our ships getting our exports out of the country. We are a nation girt by sea, as the poem says, that trades with the world. To protect that trade and to ensure our economic survival and our ability to thrive, we must be able to protect our sea lanes of communication. So cancelling AUKUS because of who is in the White House is just nonsensical. Yes, the submarines are important, but the Greens seem to ignore that there is a second pillar to AUKUS. Pillar 2 is all about quantum computing, AI and hypersonic things—things that we will use, that will benefit Australians in their everyday lives and that have nothing to do with the military. They are things that are going to propel Australia in the competition for technological advances faster than anything we could do just on our own. So, yes, nuclear submarines act as a capability and are capable of deterring aggressors from taking any action against us because they know we can hold them at risk, so AUKUS must stay. 17:20 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Let's be very clear, AUKUS under Trump will mean nuclear waste, taxpayer waste and a big fat nuclear target on Australia. It will be $368 billion on nuclear submarines in a cost-of-living crisis where people are struggling to pay for groceries and rent, $368 billion on nuclear subs when almost half of Australians want this reviewed after the election of Trump and $368 billion on nuclear subs that we might, but very likely won't, see by the 2040s. By then we will probably need submarines to navigate rising sea levels because we did not invest in renewables. Labor say we need to tighten our belts, even with cuts to JobSeeker and the NDIS, but somehow they have got $368 billion to spend on something Australians do not want. And let's not forget the nuclear waste, because, clearly, what Australia needs is a more toxic nuclear waste to dispose of. AUKUS is not making us safer; it is tying us to conflicts that we do not want and decisions we do not make. Do we really want our defence policy shaped by a demagogue like Donald Trump, who once suggested nuking hurricanes? Albanese is busy buttering up Trump—and Dutton is trying to beat him. Meanwhile, Australians are struggling to afford basic needs. Imagine what $368 billion could do: build affordable housing, provide life-saving health care and drive a renewable energy revolution. These are the real foundations of a secure nation. This is not just bad policy; it is a betrayal. Australians deserve leaders who will prioritise their wellbeing over weapons deals. The Prime Minister must remember who he works for. He must pull the plug on AUKUS and instead invest in housing, health care and renewable energy—things Australians need today for a safer, fairer tomorrow. 17:22 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Not surprisingly, the residents of Port Adelaide are asking: What is the plan, Labor? What is the plan for the disposal of nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines? Apart from the monster spend—$365 billion—which could fix the cost-of-living crisis, put dental and mental into Medicare, wipe student debt and fund our schools properly, what is the plan for nuclear waste disposal out of AUKUS? Well, there is not one, as the residents of Port Adelaide learned this week. They have had no consultation despite Labor's legislation to allow nuclear waste to be stored at the Osborne shipyard, an area in which 30,000 residents live that is on a waterway. This week, the local council voted unanimously against it. They have not had any consultation, not so much as a letter. South Australians know about being kept in the dark on nuclear issues. We lived through the fifties and sixties of the British atomic nuclear bomb testing, which cost too many First Nations people their health, their land and their lives. We have lived through the last two decades and two proposals to foist Australia's nuclear waste on our state and, in 2016, an outrageous proposal to take the world's high- and intermediate- level waste. We have said no, no and no again. AUKUS cannot be another nuclear Trojan horse to trick and con our community. Margaret Brodie and her First Nations community say no. Eileen Darley and her local community say no. Claire Bowen, the Mayor of the City of Port Adelaide and Enfield, says no. South Australians say no again and again to AUKUS and its nuclear waste proposals, which have no proposals for waste disposal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:28]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Cox)

 12 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 62 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 62 Report 62 17:32 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator Sterle, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 together with accompanying documents. Human Rights Joint Committee 62 Report 62 17:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the human rights Scrutiny report No. 9of 2024. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 62 Report 62 17:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the 505th and 506th reports of the committee as well as a statement concerning the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Public Works Joint Committee 62 Report 62 17:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's seventh report of 2024. Treaties Joint Committee 62 Report 62 17:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I present the 222nd report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Environment and Communications References Committee 62 Additional Information 62 17:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I present additional information received by the Environment and Communications References Committee on its inquiry into the Optus network outage. I just need to table that. There you go. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Thank you. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 63 Government Response to Report 63 17:34 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Government Response t o t he Finance And Public Administration Legislation Committee Report o n t he Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 [Provisions] a nd t he Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 [Provisions] Introduction On 27 March 2024. the Senate referred the provisions of the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 (the Bill) and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 (the Bills) to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration (the Committee). The Committee tabled a progress report on 10 May 2024. and its final report on 13 May 2024. in which it made five recommendations about the design and operation of the Bills. The Government accepts all of the recommendations made by the Committee. and responded to them by progressing the Bills through the House of Representatives on 5 June 2024 (Recommendation l) with amendments that seek to give effect to the clarifications suggested by the Committee. Specifically. the Government moved amendments to address: Recommendation 2: The Committee recommended that the Australian Government consider the introduction of technical amendments to bring the operation of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan into greater alignment with existing dispute settlement and enforcement settings under the Fair Work Act 2009. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommended that the Australian Government consider the introduction of amendments to further clarify how existing obligations under enterprise agreements and other instruments will be considered at various stages of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommended that the Australian Government consider the introduction of amendments to ensure that employers and their representatives are adequately consulted and have reasonable time to comply with their obligations under the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommended that the Australian Government consider the introduction of amendments that clarify how personal information collected by the Net Zero Economy Authority will interact with provisions of the Privacy Act 1988. The table below provides more detail on the amendments made to address the Committee's recommendations. Government Response to Committee Recommendations Government Response to Australian Greens· Additional Comments Government Response t o t he Senate Legal a nd Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Report: National Emergency (2022 New South Wales Floods) Declaration 2022 Introduction On 30 October 2020, the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (the Royal Commission) released its Final Report. Recommendation 5.1 stated: The Australian Government make provision, in legislation, for a declaration of a state of national emergency. In response to this recommendation, the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 (Cth) (the NED Act) and National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Act 2020 (Cth) (together, the Acts) received Royal Assent on 15 December 2020. The Governor-General made the first national emergency declaration on 11 March 2022 in response to widespread flooding across New South Wales. That declaration is the only national emergency declaration made to date. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (the Committee) conducted a statutory review into the national emergency declaration in accordance with section 14A of the NED Act and tabled its report on 8 February 2023, making two recommendations. The Committee's report made reference to an earlier statutory review of the Acts tabled by the Committee on 30 June 2021, which the Government has responded to separately. Australia's domestic emergency management and geopolitical landscape continues to change significantly. Australia will face more frequent, concurrent and severe weather events, in addition to pervasive challenges to our national interest, including from cyber-attacks and foreign interference. Considering these changes to Australia's domestic emergency management landscape, the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) undertook a classified non-statutory review of the Commonwealth's emergency management powers (the Department's Non-Statutory Review). The Department's Non-Statutory Review considered whether current Australian Government emergency management legislation and powers, particularly those within the NED Act, are sufficient to support the states and territories, and enable the Australian Government to manage increasingly challenging crisis events. The Department's Non-Statutory Review took account of the Committee's 8 February 2023 Report, as well as the Committee's earlier statutory review of the Acts. The Australian Government is considering the findings of the Department's Non-Statutory Review. In relation to the Committee's 8 February 2023 Report, the Australian Government agrees to the Report's first recommendation and notes the second recommendation. The Government will consider the Committee's substantive recommendation in the context of any future reforms to the NED Act. The Australian Government thanks the Committee for considering the operationalisation of the NED Act. Australian Government Response to the Committee's 8 February 2023 Recommendations Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that any changes to the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 consider the findings of the two operational reviews conducted by the Senate to date. Response: The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation. The Australian Government will consider the findings of the Committee's Reviews in the context of any future reforms to the NED Act. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Senate takes note of this report. Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation, as it is a matter for the Senate. Perth Mint and Commonwealth Regulatory Compliance Select Committee 67 Additional Information 67 17:34 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present additional information received by the Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth Regulatory Compliance. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 67 Additional Information 67 17:34 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Chandler, I present additional information received by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on its inquiry into Australian support for Ukraine. Cost of Living Select Committee 67 Report 67 17:34 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise today to speak on this final report of the cost-of-living committee, of which I've been a member. It shines a light on an issue that is now urgent for all Australians: the cost-of-living crisis that is placing unprecedented pressure on households and businesses across the country. This crisis, fuelled by the Albanese Labor government's policies, is not just about rising prices but about a government that has abandoned Australians in need and turned its back on commonsense solutions. The Australian people are becoming increasingly agitated, and their disillusionment with the Labor government is quickly turning to unrest. The clock is ticking for Prime Minister Albanese, Dr Chalmers and every Labor senator in this chamber. Australians are feeling the pinch of the cost-of-living crisis, and they are holding this government accountable. In particular, this crisis is having a devastating impact on our most vulnerable citizens. More than two million Australian households—a staggering 19 per cent—have experienced severe food insecurity in the past year. People are being forced to make impossible choices between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. The demand for services provided by not-for-profits, the lifeblood of our communities, has surged, stressing the widespread impact of the crisis. Tragically, this is happening while over 7.6 million tonnes of perfectly edible food is wasted each year in Australia, because it's cheaper to throw it away than it is to donate it. Yet the government has chosen to reject a simple, practical solution that could help alleviate this suffering and reduce food waste. My private senator's bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024, proposes tax offsets to encourage businesses to donate food to charities. It was met with overwhelming support from industry groups, food relief organisations and even Labor's own committees. Its passage was also a recommendation of this cost-of-living committee report. However, the government, in a move that can only be described as putting politics before people, chose to ignore the groundswell of support and announce that it will reject bill. This rejection is particularly shocking given its potential benefits. Stakeholders emphasise its ability to support struggling households, charities grappling with increased demand, and farmers and producers battling rising business costs. Instead of embracing this opportunity to help those in need, the government chose to attack the very organisations that are working tirelessly to support struggling Australians. They accused the bill of preferring large food-relief charities at the expense of others—a claim that is not only unfounded but deeply offensive to those dedicated to helping others. This is another slap in the face for struggling Australians and the charities working tirelessly to support them. This is unconscionable! The government needs to reverse its decision and introduce a policy that incentivises food donations and reduces waste. I also challenge the Greens to join this call for action and support practical solutions to address this crisis. The findings of the cost-of-living committee complete the picture. Australians are undeniably worse off than they were 2½ years ago. This isn't just about abstract figures in a report. This is about the real struggles of everyday people who are finding it increasingly difficult to provide for themselves and their families, keep a roof over their heads and maintain a reasonable standard of living. The government's big-spending approach has only added fuel to the fire of inflation, forcing the Reserve Bank to repeatedly raise interest rates. These rate hikes have added thousands of dollars to the average mortgage, pushing many Australians towards financial ruin. Projections from the International Monetary Fund suggest Australia will have the highest inflation rate amongst advanced economies by the end of 2025, trailing only the Slovak Republic. Just as the report does, I implore the government to listen to the anxieties and the suffering of the Australian people and to listen to the voices of the experts. The time for talk is over. The government must act decisively, embracing measures like those contained in the cost-of-living report and particularly in this particular private senator's bill. It is time to act on the cost-of-living crisis that is hurting many Australians. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:42 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I would like to acknowledge the Select Committee on Cost of Living and thank them for their final report. The communities of Western Australia are being smashed right now. From the Kimberley to Perth to Esperance, the effects are being felt by all of us. The cost of living is hitting our communities, and it is hitting our communities hard. Not a single element of our lives is not being affected by the rising prices being forced out into the community and causing us to need to consider deep cuts to our lives. It is felt at the checkout when you suddenly experience the jolt in your stomach when you realise that what you previously thought you could budget for to get the food that you need is not longer able to go that far. It is felt at home when the prices of rents and mortgages are skyrocketing with no relief in sight and seemingly little care from this government. The cost-of-living crisis has grown and grown for years, and this government has sat by and watched. Let's start with groceries, shall we? The average Australian household is spending nearly $10,000 a year at the supermarket check-out. It's putting immense pressure on the day-to-day budgets of families. In 2020, 19 per cent of households expressed that food and groceries were a point of financial stress. As of 2024 that number has doubled to 40 per cent. That is 3.7 million households across this country that are worrying about how they are going to pay for food. The price increases are felt across the board with 31 per cent reporting, according to the data, an increase in oils and fats; a 25 per cent increase in breakfast cereals, bread, cheese, eggs and milk; a 15 per cent jump in the cost of poultry; and a 14 per cent rise in the price of fruit. This isn't an inevitable outcome of some uncontrollable economic factor. This is largely driven by greedy corporations and by a government unwilling to legislate any safeguards for our community. Coles and Woolworths have an unchallenged duopoly on our access to food and groceries, controlling 67 per cent of the market. These two corporations run some of the highest profit margins for supermarkets in the world and have consistently run higher profits in the last three years as the cost-of-living crisis has spiralled out of control. This is a very real and lived trial and struggle for so many, and there are very real and meaningful actions that the government could take right now to ease the cost-of-living crisis in our community. It could break up this unconscionable duopoly and make supermarket price gouging illegal. In the housing space, after getting home from being robbed at the check-out, we then get back into our homes only to be robbed again by the corporate landlords and by an RBA that is out of touch and uninterested in the struggles faced by everyday folks in our community. The median rent price across the nation is now $627, a jump of nearly 10 per cent from last year alone. In my home state of Western Australia, vacancy rates are at record lows, which means that, even if you have the money to pay, you will have to go through open houses with 50-plus people, rent bidding, and, whatever conditions the landlord decides on, that's what you get. Additionally, Western Australia has had the sad title of being the only state left in the country with no-fault evictions, meaning that, if you raise a maintenance request or something else that your landlord doesn't like, then there is nothing you can do to prevent yourself being evicted. You are completely at the mercy of your landlord. There are so many stories across WA of people being pushed out of the market. Those who can rely on parents or friends are doing so, but those who can't are being forced into homelessness. Tonight, 9,000 Western Australians will experience a form of homelessness, 12 per cent of them under the age of 12. It is unacceptable that, in a wealthy country like Australia, so many have to go without access to a basic human right like housing while others hold so much and treat them as commodities and investments. First home buyers are on the front line of this manufactured cost-of-living crisis, with interest rate rises putting them under pressure and making life harder. The Greens are the only party that want to institute both a rent freeze and a cut to the interest rate to help people in this housing crisis. The impacts of the cost-of-living crisis go beyond housing and groceries and stretch all the way to health care. More and more people are avoiding medical treatment because of costs. In a recent survey I conducted, 80 per cent of people said that they avoided seeing a GP because they couldn't afford it at the time. In Perth, the average out-of-pocket cost to see a GP is nearly $50, and that is assuming that you have the upfront cash in the first place. This is leading many to resort to going to emergency rooms, because now the emergency room is the only fee-free way of receiving healthcare. This applies to dental and mental health care as well, where Medicare doesn't even cover the most basic costs of services, leading many to avoid them altogether. So you rock up to an emergency room because it is the only fee-free place to get health care, and when it comes to your teeth or when it comes to your mind, you cannot even get the help you need there. This simply cannot go on. In an economic crisis, statistics can only go so far, only tell us so much. The real story is the individual experiences of people in our community, the people we know or even ourselves being affected. It is people making hard choices like putting food on the table or seeing a GP. It is the young family having to move back in with their parents because their landlord forced them out and they cannot afford a new rental in this market. It is the first home buyer who is at risk of losing their house because of these unacceptable and devastating rate rises. It is our friend suffering a mental health crisis but being unable to do anything about it because they can't afford a specialist. These are all issues that government policy could solve tomorrow. These are all issues that this place could act on now. But the government chooses not to and the parliament sits by. This election will be a cost-of-living election, so I urge people, when they go to vote, to vote for a new government, for a new parliament. I urge people to remember that in this crisis both parties decided to let the suffering continue and to hold them responsible for every single one of the consequences created. Because at the end of the day, MPs are elected by their communities and when they fail to serve those communities they should be replaced. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 69 Report 69 17:53 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales by leave—I rise to speak to the Corporations and Financial Services Joint Statutory Committee report: Ethics and Professional Accountability: Structural Challenges in the Audit, Assurance and Consultancy Industry, which was presented out of sitting on 7 November this year. Illuminated on the skyline of major cities across the globe are the alphabet logos of the so-called 'Big Four' accounting and consulting firms, KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PwC. Their colourful banners might catch the eye but most Australians know little of these massively influential entities that are so important to the proper functioning of our financial markets. For those of us who use their services, and that in fact is every working Australian, it is almost impossible to think there was a time when they did not exist. These entities have entrenched themselves as the trusted and independent ethical providers of audit and assurance services who purport to verify the truth and accuracy of financial statements of companies of all sizes. Therefore, it's of paramount importance that there is trust in the auditing services provided by these firms and that their function of providing independent truth is not marred by their own opaqueness. Given every working Australian has superannuation, we each have a stake in the investment decisions being made on our behalf based on the audited financial statements that inform the decision-making of the superannuation trustees, superannuation holders through SMSFs and in any form of superannuation. The investment is determined on the basis of what these companies say. What EY, Deloitte, PwC and KPMG do has real impact on our lives, particularly for our retirement, and I remind Australians that we have $4 trillion under management. This is no small thing. The big four are all partnerships. Together they audit 193 of the top 200 companies in Australia. What they do matters. It matters to all of us. In the course of this inquiry, we heard from many former senior members of this profession who understood their centrality to the financial ecosystem. They were deeply proud of that work in previous times, but many of them bemoaned the current state of their profession and speak of an ethical decline and an increase in risk to everyone who relies on the integrity of audit. Colleagues, the reality we faced when we commenced this inquiry was to have a look at the challenging behaviours that manifested themselves through evidence that we received in the Senate. The final report that we adopted without dissent did have additional comments on a couple of matters that will be probably spoken to by my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock, with regard to the Greens, and Senator Scarr from the Liberal National Party. But the inquiry delivered an essentially unanimous report with 40 recommendations. We held 12 public hearings. We received 83 submissions and we published 196 responses to questions on notice. Those 40 recommendations directly respond to regulatory, cultural and legislative issues raised throughout the course of the inquiry. On the evening of 15 February 2023, in response to my question to the CEO of the Tax Practitioner Board, Michael O'Neill, it was revealed at the Senate economics committee in estimates that Peter-John Collins, as a partner at PwC, conspired, along with 20 or 30 people—that was the evidence on the night—to monetise confidential Australian government information for the benefit of PwC and its clients. Following this revelation, questions on notice to the Tax Practitioner Board led to the release of 144 pages of internal emails detailing the depths of that deceit and a disturbing cultural failure within the major international accounting and consulting firm. The emails revealed the hidden inner workings, the cultural realities of one of the most important entities in the architecture of the Australian financial sector. The resulting scandal shook corporate Australia to its core as PwC, those three letters, became synonymous with a profoundly disturbing breach of trust. The public outrage that has ensued has ensured the strength of this largely non-partisan and deeply comprehensive parliamentary response, of which this report is a central component. So egregious and shocking were the PwC revelations that the Albanese government implemented significant legislative change as the Treasurer, the finance minister, the Attorney-General and the Assistant Treasurer introduced immediate reform. But still, as this report indicates, there is much yet to be done. Concerningly, the committee documented a broad and relentless pursuit of profit at any price with the revelation of practices that jettisoned even the most basic principles of ethics and professional accountability by far too many in this sector. That sort of culture thrives on conflicts of interest, which are frequently ignored, ill-managed or even exploited. With regard to the structure of these firms, the committee has recommended that the proliferation of partners be recalibrated to match the number of the legal industry and to realign it to a more operable form of joint and severable liability. Further, the make-up of multidisciplinary professional services firms should also be altered with the operational separation of the audit component of the firm to be utilised at the exclusion of other services to the client. These recommendations will change the shape of the industry and implement evidence based solutions that have proven successful in other sectors and jurisdictions. Such changes, as recommended by the committee, will return the focus of these very important entities back to providing objective and independent services and eliminate many of the current and prevailing inherent conflicts of interest. On the regulatory side of the equation, mechanisms to strengthen the standards, liabilities and independence of boards that actively monitor and enforce compliance should be considered by the Australian government. It is also essential to promote healthy competition within audit and consulting sectors. The recommendations of the report have been framed by an explicit intention to protect the viability of smaller entities as we move to an increasingly robust regulatory framework. The committee also recommends increasing the small and medium sized consultancies, particularly those that solely undertake government work as a means of uplifting these businesses and reducing potential conflicts of interest among consultants undertaking government work. Throughout the course of the inquiry, the committee contended with varying levels of transparency and willingness—or unwillingness, I should say—among large firms with respect to their engagement with the committee. In particular, engagement from PwC's past and present leadership proved to be extremely challenging and highlighted an absence of meaningful commitment to reform. Evidence given verbally or in documents was far too often constructed in compromising half-truths and obfuscation. Far too often, evidence was provided only after protracted delays and resistance to requests from the committee. This behaviour failed to meet the standards required by the parliament and also fell short of public expectation. The inability of the PwC firm's former CEOs, Mr Luke Sayers and Mr Tom Seymour, to robustly describe, evaluate and take sincere accountability for the culture they created is a failure of leadership by any measure. Further, Mr Sayers's and Mr Seymour's relationship with the treatment of the Commonwealth officials of our regulatory bodies, especially the ATO and the Tax Practitioners Board, revealed that same practice of ignoring, avoiding and delaying proper scrutiny that this committee has had to confront and manage. It has to stop. It has to change. I also hold grave concerns about the leadership of the current PwC Australia CEO, Mr Kevin Burrowes. PwC's international secret side payment to Mr Burrowes of $1.2 million and the firm's continued refusal to hand over a report, known to us as the Linklaters report, and related documents about the foreign PwC partners involved in the Peter-John Collins scandal that emanated from Australia demonstrate a depressive attitude towards the Australian parliament and a failure to identify clear conflicts of interest. It's for these reasons the committee has taken the view that PwC and related entities should be excluded from tendering for government work until the completion of ongoing investigations and resolution of outstanding matters still at large in the public sphere. We've also recommended that government consulting firms should be required to publicly declare if and when they are subject to international remediation and reveal the terms involved. Australia's sovereignty should never be compromised by an international franchise's need, actions or contracts. I'm very proud to have chaired this report. I want to thank and acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the deputy chair, the Hon. Alex Hawke MP, Senator Paul Scarr, Senator Barbara Pocock, Senator Louise Pratt, Dr Daniel Mulino MP, the Hon. Luke Howarth, Ms Zaneta Mascarenhas and Mr Steve Georganas, along with their staff and former member of the committee the Hon. Keith Pitt for their very close attention to this inquiry and their regular attendance. This is a body of work that needs sincere and prompt implementation. I also want to thank the Fourth Estate for their continued focus on this matter of national importance. 18:03 Senator BFQ South Australia BARBARA POCOCK () (): I take note of committee report No. 12 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into ethics and professional accountability: structural challenges in the audit, assurance and consultancy industry. This is an important report that responds to a public scandal in PwC and the consulting industry more broadly, including all of the big four—PwC, KPMG, EY and Deloitte. I thank our chair, Senator Deborah O'Neill, and my parliamentary colleagues for their cross-party collaboration. And I thank the committee secretariat and my own staff for their very hard work. This scandal has shocked Australians and many beyond our shores. For far too long, reprehensible behaviour has thrived in gaps in our regulatory framework. This evidence is of international significance. It reveals global challenges that beset effective governance behaviour and structures in some of the world's largest entities, which too often put their own interests before those of the public. Meaningful reform cannot wait. The evidence is in. The PwC tax scandal first came to light in January last year, when the Financial Review posted its bombshell report into Peter-John Collins and his use of confidential government information. While PwC was advising the Australian government on new tax laws for multinationals, some of its senior partners were using the intel to court clients seeking to sidestep those same laws. PwC initially tried to shrug off the story as an isolated incident affecting only a few bad apples. It's far from that. Eighteen months and two parliamentary inquiries later, this parliament has uncovered rot after rot within PwC. PwC are yet to engage with this parliament in a truly transparent, open and honest way. They have yet to provide this parliament with the Linklaters report. We still don't have the full story on the extent to which international partners were involved. Just the other week, the Australian Federal Police raided PwC's Sydney headquarters for a week. Some of the former partners at the centre of this misuse of confidential government information could face up to 10 years in jail for breaches of sections 70 and 90 of the Crimes Act, if they were convicted. This whole scandal is outrageous, and it is far from over. However, this is about far more than just PwC's misdemeanours, as concerning as they are. While these inquiries may have started with PwC, they have uncovered mountains of evidence demonstrating an unethical, shadow, privatised public service with no accountability. The extraordinary expansion of consultants into our public sector over recent years has had dire consequences. It has gifted billions to the big four while cannibalising funding for essential public services. It has given too much power to small numbers of influential people who have deliberately farmed a tight network of close relationships for personal benefit, across the big end of town and into government and regulatory bodies. Like many Australians, the Australian Greens have long been aware of the ethical failures, unchecked conflicts of interest and lack of regulation in the consulting and audit sectors. The scandals in these sectors are frequent. They're global in nature. And many never see the light of day. However, this parliament has seen enough to know that serious change is needed. These inquiries exposed numerous conflicts of interest, poor governance, ethical failures, state capture and regulatory weaknesses across the larger consulting sector and parts of the public institutions that deal with it. We now undeniably have the evidence base we need to enact vital structural reform. That brings us now to this report and its 40 recommendations. There was unanimous agreement for many important recommendations in this report, and that should give momentum to their realisation and enactment. It's not often in this chamber that you have Labor, the coalition and the Greens united on a vital issue, but we have all witnessed the big four's repeated resistance to the accountability and transparency that parliamentary inquiries bring, and we have shared the outrage. The committee unanimously recommended that the Australian government not permit PwC or any of its related entities from tendering for government work until the completion of all ongoing investigations and their recommendations. The Greens also achieved some important wins in this committee work, as we have pushed for certain outcomes. We have pushed for recommendations that any government regulatory bodies or related standards boards are independent, including by ensuring that the bodies do not include individuals with a current financial interest in entities under the direct governance of the body. This mirrors our change to the Tax Practitioners Board which made sure that the foxes were kicked out of the henhouse and fixed the loophole that allowed big consultants to regulate themselves. We pushed to recommend a review into improving the ATO's tax settlement procedures, with a view to making their details more transparent. We pushed to recommend a whistleblower protection authority, covering both the public and private sectors, to provide practical support for our whistleblowers, without whom a great deal of the information in this report and through our inquiries would never have come to light. We thank them most sincerely. The 40 recommendations of this inquiry are a vital step towards change, and they deserve strong support. The Australian Greens would have liked a number of areas in the report to have gone further. Our additional comments make five supplementary recommendations that also deserve attention. First is the issue of partnership reform. While the committee's recommendations to cap partnership size at 400, a very good starting point, there's considerable evidence in favour of it being lower. I, alongside others who gave evidence to the inquiry, think it should be around 100. Even Adam Powick, the CEO of Deloitte, told our inquiry that, once you get over 100 partners, it becomes impossible to effectively manage the partnership. Second, we think separation between audit and non-audit functions should be clear and structural. We need to eliminate that built-in conflict of interest. We'd also like to enforce that structural separation so that audit divisions of consulting firms are forced to incorporate as a separate entity, eliminating, as former ACCC chair Allan Fels put it, 'that built-in conflict'. Third, we'd also really strongly recommend the need for an independent regulator for the consulting industry. The report calls for a code of conduct for consultants and a register, but we really need an enforcement mechanism for that code and for national standards. Fourth is the issue of political donations. Over the past decade the big four have donated over $6 million to the ALP and coalition and received a staggering $8.5 billion in contracts. There's widespread support for banning these donations—except within the major political parties—and that includes amongst 80 per cent of coalition voters and 70 per cent of Labor voters. Lastly, the inquiry found considerable evidence within the big four of poor organisational cultures. We really need to take action to support the wellbeing, physical and mental, of staff within these big companies. We need devices like non-disclosure agreements to not be used to disguise poor behaviour. In this light we recommend a review of those non-disclosure agreements and the ways in which they're used in these firms to conceal or hide repetitive patterns of poor behaviour. So we need systemic change to ensure that the PwC tax leak scandal can never happen again. This report, as well as the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report into consulting services, provides the government with a very clear roadmap for reform. If the Albanese government adopts the 40 recommendations of this report, which were made without dissent, it will lead to a comprehensive overhaul of the regulatory framework that defines how auditing and consulting firms are allowed to operate. We need comprehensive legislative, cultural and structural change to fix these organisational failures. Let's honour the evidence that has been put before us and convinced us all of the need for strong change now. There is a very powerful case for change. Shared outrage is not enough. The time for action is now, and we must take it. 18:13 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to take note of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Ethics and professional accountability: structural changes in the audit, assurance and consultancy industry. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Or No. 12! Senator SCARR 282997 Or No. 12! In doing so, I would, at the outset, like to give my heartfelt congratulations and acknowledgement to my fellow committee members, including not only Senator Barbara Pocock, who we just heard from in relation to her contribution to the committee, but, in particular, Senator O'Neill and her outstanding leadership, as chair of the committee. I say 'outstanding leadership' in particular because Senator O'Neill was absolutely resolute in her leadership of the committee in requiring PwC, and others, to provide the evidence which the committee needed to do its work for the good of the nation. I think, from my perspective, that represents the very, very best traditions of this institution and I think Senator O'Neill should be deeply congratulated and acknowledged for that contribution. In relation to the 40 recommendations, I'll make a few comments with respect to the vast majority of the recommendations which the coalition members on the committee strongly agreed with and then I'll provide a small number of reservations for the record. In relation to the recommendations which we agreed with, the first fundamental recommendation was that PwC should not be given any government consultancy work until all the investigations in relation to PwC's activities in this regard have been satisfactorily completed. PwC has demonstrated that it has undertaken appropriate remedial action to address the concerns that arose during the course of this inquiry and previous inquiries, and I fully support that recommendation. At one stage during the committee hearing, Mr Burrowes, the current managing director of PwC, opined that he wished the committee were considering other things in relation to the future of the accounting assurance industry. I say to PwC, including its current leadership, that I wish we could too but PwC are the ones who put us in this position—and they shouldn't forget it. It is absolutely outrageous behaviour. From my perspective, having the philosophy I have, it's a great shame that the committee had to inquire to the depth that we had to in relation to the activities of PwC and consider a whole raft of recommendations, which will necessarily mean that there's a regulatory burden imposed upon those who have done the right thing. That is a great shame and something which PwC should reflect on. The other point I would like to make about PwC is that this will be held up for years to come as an example of how not to respond to a parliamentary inquiry and how not to deal with a crisis of confidence in relation to a major world-leading organisation. I was aghast at some of the failures of PwC in the course of this inquiry—their failure to provide full, complete and accurate information at the earliest opportunity. Even at the end of the inquiry's deliberations, there was still key evidence which had been withheld from the committee on the basis of legal professional privilege asserted overseas in circumstances where that privilege was in favour of PwC. It was within their control to waive that privilege so the committee could have received all the evidence which the committee sought. PwC chose not to provide that information to this committee, and that should be noted and should be a cause for deep reflection for PwC. With respect to the recommendations more generally, I fully support the recommendation that large multidisciplinary accounting firms should have an increased obligation to provide reports and transparency and report as to how they are meeting governance requirements in relation to the need to have independent directors. The reason for this is the materiality of their role in the functioning of Australian society. PwC audits many public interest entities, the performance of which is of key importance to all Australians. With that, I believe, comes an obligation for open and transparent reporting and also the implementation of appropriate corporate governance procedures. The other point I want to make—and I would like to echo Senator Barbara Pocock's comments in this regard—is that we should avoid a situation where the members of key regulatory and disciplinary bodies have an ongoing financial interest in the bodies which they regulate. That should be a no-brainer. So I absolutely support the recommendations in that regard, and there are a number of other recommendations, the vast majority of which I do support, that are contained in the report. I do have a few reservations, and I should say that, under Senator O'Neill's leadership, we did our best to agree to everything we could agree to, we exhausted those avenues in good faith, and differences of opinion were deeply respected throughout the course of the inquiry. I have reservations about the 400-partnership cap, particularly in the context where the cap had been increased to a level of 1,000 and now this place is recommending bringing it down to 400. I can envisage a quagmire of complications in how you get from, say, 600 or 700 partners down to 400 partners. No doubt there are many junior partners and many staff of the big accounting firms who are on the partnership track, and, if changes like that were imposed upon the industry, it would cause all sorts of disruption and complication with respect to those organisations. Personally, with the transparency provisions and the corporate governance reforms, I would like to see what we can achieve through operational separation of the audit and non-audit functions of the large accounting firms. I would like to see how that plays out first before we look at taking such a drastic regulatory action. I will end my comments there, but I would like to also put on the record my thanks to the secretariat for their outstanding job. This was very complicated evidence and material that we received, and I think the secretariat did an outstanding job. With that, I commend the report to the Senate. Senator O'Neill 140651 Senator Scarr, as the last contributor, might seek leave to continue his remarks later, because I didn't get quite enough time to thank the secretariat and my remarkable staff. Senator SCARR 282997 Thank you, Senator O'Neill. I did wish to seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 73 DELEGATION REPORTS 74 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam 74 18:22 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam which took place from 25 to 30 August 2024, and I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document. Leave granted. Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Vietnam and Australia are enduring friends, with a relationship anchored in political trust, who share a vision for a peaceful, stable and prosperous region. Vietnam is one of Australia's most important partners economically, strategically and through strong people-to-people links. We visited Vietnam at the invitation of His Excellency Mr Tran Thanh Man, with an important cross-party delegation. President Sue Lines led the parliamentary delegation, accompanied by me, the Hon. Kevin Hogan MP and Ms Dai Le MP, and we were supported by Ms Rachel Callinan, an officer from the Senate, who is in the chamber with us today, an officer from the Senate. I would like to give my sincere thanks to His Excellency the Chairman of the National Assembly for welcoming the cross-party delegation to Vietnam. I would also like to thank a number of the embassy people—certainly the Ambassador to Vietnam, the Hon. Andrew Goledzinowski, along with Ms Renee Deschamps, Mr Brent Stewart, Ms Cherie Russell, Ms Carol Holmes, Ms Cecilia Brennan, Ms Majdie Hordern, Ms Alexandra O'Connor, Mr Ben Davis, Mr Joe Bourke and Ms Arabella Bennett, who were all embassy and consulate general employees who looked after us immensely, I must say. The delegation received a welcome and presentation from Madame Nguyen Thi Thanh, Standing Deputy Chair of the National Assembly, and other officials on the first day of our visit. We had a meeting with Mr Mai Van Tuat, the deputy secretary and chair of the people's council of Ninh Binh province. We then had an official welcome ceremony. We met with Mr Tran Thanh Man, the president of the national assembly, and had a dinner reception. The meeting discussed the growing ties between the two legislatures, particularly following the signing of the cooperation agreement between the National Assembly of Vietnam and the Parliament of Australia—the parliamentary cooperation agreement or the PCA—by the presiding officers of the Australian parliament and the former president of the national assembly. The agreement provides a framework for further developing bilateral relations between the two legislatures and builds on the long history of engagement between the two parliaments that has deepened since the previous cooperation agreement was entered into in 2013. The visit was the second Australian delegation to visit Vietnam since the signing of the agreement. We had a very busy and packed delegation schedule. We visited the KOTO Training Centre, which is a training facility for at-risk and disadvantaged youth across Vietnam that provides life skills and job-ready training. We learnt how to make a cup of coffee there, and I must say the ambassador was very impressed with my efforts in that field. We met with Australian agricultural representatives. We visited the Maxport garment factory, which Australian Mr Jef Stokes is the founder and CEO of. We popped into the embassy and had afternoon tea with the officials. We then had a meeting with the Minister of Industry and Trade. We also met with the Prime Minister. We had a courtesy call with the chairman of the Vietnam-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, and it was noted that friendship groups were established in both of the parliaments in Australia and Vietnam. We also visited the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology. The delegation enjoyed that tour, including the people of Vietnam galleries which highlighted the diverse population of Vietnam comprising of 53 ethnic minority groups. We then went on to meet with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the state president. We travelled from Hanoi down to Ho Chi Minh City, where we, again, met with the AusCham board and their members. We visited a labelmaker factory, which Mr Simon Pugh, another Australian, is the managing director of. We visited the NAB Innovation Centre Vietnam and took a briefing and an office tour to learn about their presence in Vietnam and the value of that to Tasmania. Finally, we visited the RMIT campus in Vietnam. (Time expired) Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 74 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Annual Statement to Parliament on Northern Australia 74 18:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland At the request of the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia, I table the 2024 annual statement on developing northern Australia. 18:28 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I'm pleased to take note of this ministerial statement highlighting the crucial role that northern Australia plays not just in the economic prosperity of this country. Northern Australia is vast. It immediately captures your imagination with its possibilities. It comprises 53 per cent of our land mass. Picture this: it includes three-quarters of Queensland, half of Western Australia and all of the Northern Territory. It is home to regions and towns that many people have only seen on a map or heard of in outback folklore, including places like Cape York, Kununurra, Katherine and Cloncurry. The north has contributed so much to our history and to the Australian character. The determination, resilience and fearlessness of the early pioneers of the north lives on in northern DNA. One only needs to visit Rockhampton to marvel at the historical importance of trade and resources to northern Australia. Rockhampton's development from frontier town to bustling port to gold rush town in the 1800s is preserved in heritage buildings of sandstone and wrought iron which rival the grand colonial buildings of Sydney and Hobart. The coalition values the position of northern Australia in our history but, more importantly, supports every opportunity for its future development. There are only a small number of voices advocating for northern Australia. Of the 151 members of the other place and the 76 senators, only 12 are based in northern Australia to give voice to the issues that matter, and these few voices really have to crank up the volume to be heard on issues that southerners don't really need to fight for: improved roads, bridges and transport; protection of our biosecurity and agricultural industry; protection of our northern borders; water for both our urban populations and rural communities; incentives for business, mining and tourism investment; stronger infrastructure to defend the north; reliable communications; affordable insurance; and more doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and hospital beds. Northern Australians live with these challenges every day and face service shortages with tenacity and ingenuity, but it behoves government to design policy that develops the north—not just for northern Australians but for every Australian. There's a sense of urgency for northern Australia right now, with a dynamic geopolitical backdrop, an increasingly hungry world to our north demanding quality food with reliable supply chains, and our allies seeking a secure supply of critical and traditional minerals and rare earths to electrify the world. It places great opportunity right at our northern gateway. The coalition have demonstrated through our track record that we recognise and care about the families, the communities, the industries, the employers, the employees, the economic contribution and the potential of the north. It was the coalition that developed the white paper on northern Australia—Our north, our future—in 2015 to set the direction for a strong future. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was born from this coalition initiative to transform the north by encouraging private sector investment and transformational nation-building infrastructure projects. The groundbreaking NAIF has now financed 33 projects to provide a forecast $40 billion in public benefit and over 20,000 jobs. Research conducted by the cooperative research centre on northern Australia derisks northern businesses by providing greater efficiency. Along with the contributions of NAIF, the CRC northern Australia develops the competitiveness, productivity and sustainability of the north. I also acknowledge the important work of the Indigenous reference group in developing Indigenous opportunity and connecting our communities. I applaud the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia for its inquiries into the cyclone reinsurance pool; energy, food and water security; and workforce development. Outcomes from these inquiries will build further structures for northern Australia to succeed. The Australian resources sector is deeply invested in northern Australia. The latest ATO 'Corporate tax transparency report' shows that Australia's mining industry is the nation's biggest taxpayer, having paid $43.1 billion in company tax and $31.5 billion in royalties for 2022-23. This highlights the crucial role that mining plays in keeping our economy strong and funding the essential services that Australians rely on every day. The resources industry has paid more in tax than all other Australian industries combined for the second consecutive year, contributing to funding for schools, roads, aged care, hospitals and national security. Taxes and royalties from northern mining benefit every town and city in Australia. That same geology that makes a resource-rich north has created an abundance of natural tourism attractions. There are few natural icons in the world that are prioritised so highly on bucket lists around the globe. Each visitor to the Great Barrier Reef in 2023-24 contributed to the $6.3 billion the reef pumped into the Australian economy. Visitors to the Northern Territory who included the Red Centre and the sacred Uluru monolith on their itinerary as well as Kakadu National Park contributed to the total tourism gross state product of $2.6 billion. Those who've enjoyed the Kimberley or the pearl history of Broome or the long white sands and sunset camel rides of Cable Beach have helped boost the Western Australian tourism gross state product to $13.2 billion. Remember that only 1.4 million people live in northern Australia—just 5.2 per cent of Australia's total population living on 53 per cent of our landmass. However, Cairns can be populated by an extra 30 per cent on any one night through tourist visitation. The additional city infrastructure required to accommodate this additional transient population is considerable. It is one example of where the federal government needs to consider the billions of dollars that the Great Barrier Reef delivers to the national coffers and reciprocate by supporting infrastructure in Cairns. I refer specifically to the Cairns Water Security project. This is a call for drinking water, a basic human right, to support the local permanent population, visitors, disaster resilience and economic development, and above all demonstrate a show of government confidence in the north. Let's not undervalue Australia's longest shortcut, the Outback Way. The Outback Way is the great Australian road trip as it winds 2,700 kilometres through the heart of Australia from Winton in Queensland via the Red Centre to Western Australia. It's important that we all consider driving this road because it is Australia's third transnational route, connecting the east and west coasts. A fully sealed road will boost our national productivity and GDP by expanding tourism, mining, agriculture and freight efficiencies. It will provide a corridor for commercial investments and access to agriculture markets. This is like the Savannah Way and other important roads in the north that must be sealed to allow for suppliers to service remote communities and ensure product on supermarket shelves, reducing prices and the ever-escalating cost of living. These roads facilitate access to mining projects and enable sustainable outcomes for communities by improving job creation, health, education, emergency access, Closing the Gap initiatives and social connectivity. This will improve the quality of life for northern Australians and is another example of where government needs to consider the economic input of this region to the bottom line and reinvest in that continued growth. When we understand that there are 12.5 million beef cattle in northern Australia, which supplies around 90 per cent of Australia's annual live cattle exports and supports our near neighbours in their demand for nutritious protein, the importance of road systems and programs becomes obvious. In addition to cattle, 95 per cent of our sugar, 96 per cent of our bananas and 92 per cent of our mangoes are grown across the north, and that requires reliable road, rail, port and airport connections to feed ourselves and export to our neighbours. Northern Australia is the powerhouse of our economy, a treasure of resources, our food bowl, a tourism beacon and home to three great universities, James Cook University, Charles Darwin University and Central Queensland University. We will continue to raise our voices and advocate for our northern future because it represents a future for every Australian. (Time expired) Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 76 Reference 76 18:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Immigration will be front and centre at the coming federal election, and I think it's important that those people who have tuned in today understand what I'm trying to do here. I am moving a motion for the following matter to be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 February 2025. There has not been enough debate on it, and this is what needs to be done. That's why I move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 February 2025: The failure of the Albanese Government's immigration policies to manage population growth and protect Australians' interests, with particular reference to: (a) the Government's failure to meet immigration targets and the impact of allowing record numbers of migrants into the country without adequate planning; (b) the role of mass immigration in driving up housing costs, worsening the rental crisis and locking Australians out of homeownership; (c) the unchecked influx of international students and the strain this placing on housing and services; (d) the strain on infrastructure, essential services and the environment caused by rapid, immigration-driven population growth; (e) the lack of clear and accountable processes for managing visa programs, including the Government's failure to enforce promised restrictions; (f) the uneven impact of immigration, creating unsustainable pressure on cities while diverting resources away from rural and regional areas and stifling their development; (g) the failure to address critical skills shortages through alternative methods, such as increasing apprenticeship subsidies and investing in local workforce development, instead of relying on high immigration; and (h) any other related matters. This is all because—and I'm driving this, as I have done for nearly 28 years—of the profound effect it has on the Australian people with reference to the cost of living, housing affordability and availability, the provision of services, public infrastructure, the natural environment, and Australian society. One of the main reasons Labor's support is eroding in the electorate is because of the record immigration it has enabled and the disastrous impact it is having. Labor doesn't understand, and as never understood, that immigration must serve Australia's best interests. That's why immigration policy under Labor always works against Australia's interests. It might work in Labor's interest, but that is most definitely not the national interest, no matter what delusions the party may have about it. One Nation policy on immigration is one that: serves the nation's interests; treats living in Australia as a privilege to be earned, not an entitlement; respects the Australian culture and way of life; and does not divide us based on race. It ensures that people have demonstrated loyalty and allegiance to Australia over a long period of up to eight years before they get citizenship, not the current two years. They can apply for it and for permanent residency. We want to know who these people are. Have they got criminal records? Are they actually going to give their allegiance to Australia? We want to ensure that a significant breach of Australian law by an immigrant, proven in a court, results in immediate deportation and a permanent ban on that person ever coming to Australia again. We want to ensure social cohesion by prioritising immigrants from countries with similar cultures and values and denying immigration to people from countries which don't. We would prioritise immigrants with skills and qualifications that our country needs. We would prioritise Australia's national interest over humanitarian and political considerations, and over international agreements. We would forever ensure that those who come here without permission can never live here or come here again, would not set annual refugee targets and would put Australian interests ahead of international refugee agreements. We would never permit the importation of extremist ideologies incompatible with Australian values like the rule of law, secular democracy and equality, and would deport them if they slipped through. We would never compromise an Australian's ability to obtain employment, enrol in study or secure a home. We would never place an undue burden on public infrastructure and public services, and would never, ever put the safety of Australian people at any risk. It's quite simple. This means I am very patriotic to my country and the people out there who have been screaming out for so long that they want to have a debate or a discussion on immigration. As we have all seen, Labor's immigration policy does none of these things. It is working directly against our interests. If you want an immigration policy that serves Australia's national interest, you cannot possibly vote for or support Labor. Don't even get me started on the Greens, who hate Australia and actively work against our nationalist interests. The Greens should be completely dismissed from any debate on immigration. As for the coalition, some of them have the right idea, and some do not. They know who they are. We need a national summit on immigration, and we need a national plebiscite on immigration. We know for a fact the majority of Australians want much lower immigration levels. That's evident constantly, all the time. They're crying out for it. They can't understand why the politicians aren't listening to them. We know for a fact that Labor, the Greens and the coalition don't care that the majority of Australians want much lower immigration. I can say that because we don't see immigration lowered enough to actually look after the Australian people first and foremost. They all voted against my immigration plebiscite bill. Why? Why wouldn't you give the people a say in this? It's because you think you're better than them. The coalition even said the issue was too complex to put to the Australian people in a plebiscite. I think that's more of an indication of the major parties' contempt for the intelligence of the Australian people, who are more inclined to suffer the impact of high immigration. I was right about immigration and multiculturalism in 1996. Everything I warned about has come to pass. I'm right today. Immigration will be a major issue at the next election, and it's the party with an immigration policy in the national interest that will win votes—you underestimate the Australian people—and I can tell you that won't be Labor. I'm moving this inquiry because we must have a real national debate on immigration policy, and this could serve as the start. The government's immigration policies are failing Australians. Immigration should be tailored to the wishes of the Australian people. The Australian people are tired of suffering the impacts of high immigration and overcrowding in their daily lives. They're tired of going homeless, paying higher rents and managing their higher mortgage payments. They're tired of waiting for weeks or months for a doctor's appointment or waiting for hours in crowded emergency departments. They're outraged at the extreme importunity by migrants, such as the appalling outbreak of antisemitism in Australia happily promoted by the Greens. Australians want their country back, and it's time we gave them a voice on immigration. Under this Labor government we've looked at bringing 1½ million people into the country. In January and February this year alone, I think it was 125,000 one month and 100,000 the second. That's in two months alone. I just came from Cairns. They had people running around trying to find accommodation for 60 Sudanese. The fact is that you've got Australians there that are homeless and can't get accommodation, but no; it's alright. We need to bring these people in and find them homes. It's having an impact on us. In 2022-23, 737,000 people were brought into the country, under the Labor government. They brought in 51,605, they say, for the skills. Of the 737,000, only 51,605 were skilled migrants. They say, 'We need it for the building industry and construction.' Of that, only 1,800 had those skills. That was a lie, a scam. We just can't keep going the way that we are. As I said to you, the people in this place, you're so out of touch with the general public, who've been screaming about high immigration for a long time. Yet you keep putting more pressure on the people with higher electricity and the higher cost of living. Your higher electricity is because you're actually driving the carbon emissions trading scheme with the agreements that you've signed. The fact is that's putting more pressure on the Australian people. Yet you keep bringing more migrants into the country, which is going to cause more carbon emissions, which is going to impact on us. What is it? Is climate change a scam, so high immigration doesn't have an impact on it, or do you really not care? Is it because you're propping up the GDP because you're in a hell of a mess in running the country and we are in a per capita recession, so you need high immigration to prop up the state of the nation? I hope the people wake up to this, because you're absolutely hopeless and incompetent in what you're doing in running this country, and I hope you're thrown out on your rear at the next election. I'll be doing everything that I possibly can to make that happen. High immigration really needs to be addressed. You haven't listened to the Australian people. I keep saying this all the time. This is where it's really hard. In Queensland, as I've moved across the state and to other states as well—I was in WA just a couple of weeks ago, and this Aboriginal woman came up and said, 'I can't get housing.' She said, 'I'm living in the toilets, and I've been living there for the last 14 months; I can't get housing.' She asked me for assistance, and I said, 'I'm going to see what I can do for you to try and see why you're not getting housing.' This is happening in Queensland. People are living in their cars and they're living under the bridge and in tents and parks. I've been to the parks, and I've fed the homeless. Those are things that I've done. I try to do the best that I can as a member of parliament to assist these people and to get them housing. Then we have the health issues, as I said to you. These people can't get help. They can't get operations that they require, because there are too many people in the country. We have not provided the infrastructure. We haven't provided the hospitals or the schools. All the problems that we're seeing now are because it was not planned. The politicians in this place, in the short term that you're here for—three years—only look at this period of time. Long-term vision is not here anymore. You're looking not into the future but at what suits you for the time being. Long-term planning, long-term vision—you don't get it, and that's why the people are suffering all the time. They can't have the operations. You can't get them in. The emergency departments are flat out. We don't have enough doctors. There was a young girl, nine years of age, whose tonsillectomy operation I personally paid for a couple of months ago. She had needed it for seven years, and she couldn't get in to have the operation. She was getting to a stage where she couldn't go to school. She was missing one-third of the term being out of school, and she was in a hell of a mess. When you see that happening to the Australian people—why am I so adamant about cutting back on immigration in Australia? My duty is to the Australian people first and foremost to ensure that they have the best of health care, education, nursing homes and aged care—to ensure that they have all this. We're not representatives for the rest of the world. We can't do it. When you walk the streets out there, if you really empathised with the Australian people, you would know that this needs to be addressed. The biggest issue that is affecting people in Australia is the immigration levels. It's deplorable. It's a shame on this government that it has allowed it to continue. You're backing your mates out there, whether it's the unions or the big businesses. They want higher immigration, because they're selling more product. Yet it's the average person out there that has to suffer this all the time. They're the ones that have to put up with this, because they can't get the housing. Then you're worried about whether the youth out there will ever own their own home. Another thing we need to address is the housing issue with foreign investment—but that's another issue. I hope that you will support this motion to have an investigation into this on behalf of the Australian people to discuss this matter and give the people the right to have their say. Let's have a decent debate on this and see where we're headed as a nation. I'll continue to fight for the Australian people. 18:53 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales To be clear, the Greens absolutely will be voting against and rejecting that spray of division that has come from that senator—that spray of division and conspiracy and invective against multicultural Australia, our neighbours and our friends. We reject it, we'll vote against it, and we'll do it every time. But why has that senator been able to make that contribution, and why is it happening now? Let's be very clear: the door to that vile invective we just heard was opened today by Labor's Immigration Minister Burke. He has done it again, like Labor have done time and time again in their race to the bottom and in their race to the right to see who can be more vile on immigration and refugees. Can it be Labor or Peter Dutton's coalition? Who can be the most vile? Today, Minister Burke made it clear that Labor can be more vile, can be actually leading this kind of debate, this ugly race to the right on immigration and refugees and multiculturalism that opens the door to that vile invective we just heard from that senator. And what did Minister Burke do? Well, when he was being tested on Labor's incredibly unpopular thought bubble to cut foreign students without any solution for the higher education system in legislation that has been widely rejected, he got up and said: 'If anybody out there who might feel that they are missing out on accommodation because an overseas student has taken it, just know the Leader of the Opposition wants to make that situation worse.' Minister Burke went on and said: 'If anybody out there is thinking that because of the rate of immigration they are having trouble to get a home, just know the Leader of the Opposition has decided to make that worse.' That is the most vile political opportunism from Labor linking migration to the housing policy, linking foreign students to the housing crisis. Labor's revolting leap is even trying to out-Dutton Dutton—out-Dutton the opposition leader, Peter Dutton—and doing it for a narrow, sectional grab for a political moment. But why does Labor feel that it needs to be even more vile than the coalition? I don't know where they are getting their advice from. There is a progressive majority in this parliament to actually deal with multiculturalism, migration and refugees with decency and compassion and to lead the debate away from where Minister Burke took it today—linking immigration to the housing crisis. I will tell you why we are in a housing crisis. It is not the fault of immigrants or refugees. It is not the fault of multicultural Australia. Multicultural Australia is building our houses. Multicultural Australia is contributing to the housing industry. It is because of decades of failed policy from both Labor and the coalition. It is because Labor will not join with us to invest the billions of dollars needed to build public housing. But instead of Labor accepting the responsibility of government and investing in public housing and fixing the problem, what did Minister Burke do? He linked immigration with the housing crisis. He did it from the pulpit of the House of Representatives. He did it as a Labor minister. He disgraced Labor and he disgraced the chamber and he should apologise. And the Prime Minister should hold him to account, because Labor right now is saying, pretty much every time they are asked on immigration, that actually they are meaner and nastier than the coalition. They want to be seen as meaner and nastier than the coalition and they probably are when it comes to immigration right now because that is their minister, Minister Burke, using his authority as minister for immigration to link immigration and the housing crisis. Well, we say to Labor: be better. Be better. You want to deal with the housing crisis? Build public houses. You want to deal with the fact that people in Western Sydney can't get a flat? Join with the Greens and put billions of dollars into public housing and never, ever blame multicultural Australia for the mess you have made—disgraceful! 18:59 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Obviously, I rise in support of Senator Hanson's motion. I would like to make a short contribution to that motion. I believe that our current immigration program is unsustainable. I also think that it is not in the national interest and it is an economic and cultural disaster. Australia has always had a generous immigration program. It provides opportunity for people from all around the world. Heck, many of us in this room are migrants. My own family benefited from Australia's migration program and Australia's generosity. But a generous immigration program must be sustainable. The record numbers of people being brought into Australia by the Albanese government are anything but sustainable. It's not even close. And we know why they're doing it. They're doing it to prop up the GDP, because they are bad economic managers. It is a bandaid on a bullet wound. That's what it is. Housing is in short supply. We all know that. It's being made more expensive as a direct result of mass immigration. Public infrastructure is overrun. Our major cities are clogged. Social cohesion—this is an important one—is at an all-time low. Why? It's because we insist on bringing people into Australia that are not culturally aligned with Australian values. This is a huge mistake, and we're going to pay for it down the line. What good is a big Australia if the result is something other than Australia? What good is it? Worryingly, that seems to be the case. If the government believes that there's a skills shortage, as they like to say, then how about finding ways to address this skills shortage without importing massive numbers of people in an unchecked way? Make our immigration policy finely tuned and targeted at exactly the people that we need. It could be a sustainable, smarter program. It would enjoy more public support, and that's important. That's a vital key. Importing record numbers of people via a haphazard process risks alienating mainstream Australia, which in turn will alienate those who arrive in our country. When around 30 per cent of Australians voted the Labor Party into power at the last election, no-one knew that Prime Minister Albanese and his team would bring in around a million people within just a couple of years. If they haven't already, the government runs the risk of losing support for immigration full stop. This is terrible leadership. It's got to be addressed. Enough is enough. To ensure sustainable and popular support for immigration, the current numbers have to be cut drastically. In fact, I would support net zero immigration for a while. Not to do so would undermine immigration itself. Worse than that, it would undermine Australia itself. For these reasons and a whole lot more, I wholeheartedly support Senator Hanson's motion, and I hope that many of you will. You probably won't, because you don't have the cojones or the backbone. That's why you will continue to slide in polls and why parties like mine will continue to rise. 19:03 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Australia is in a housing crisis—a housing catastrophe. Tent cities are appearing across the country in the way many people have never seen before. I have been to them. It's disgraceful. In almost every major city in Queensland I've been to, the tents are there. People are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in parks or in their family car. In August 2020, the national average rent was $437 a week. It's now $627 a week. That's an increase of 40 per cent over just a few years. In 1987, the average house price was 2.8 times the average income. Today the house price is 9.7 times the income. That's nearly 10 times. What hope have our children got? A major driver of the housing crisis is Australia's turbocharged immigration program. Listen to the facts that I'll come up with soon, and remember that I'm not against migration. I was born in India; I'm half migrant. Australia has a very proud history of migrants building this country, but at the moment we have too many. Let me give you those figures. Australia's net overseas migration used to average a bit over 80,000 a year. For the 2023 year, our net intake was an astonishing 547,000 new people. That's more than half a million new people net. In the nine months to September 2024, 394,000 immigrants were added to the population. That puts us well on track for yet another year of more than half a million arrivals into the country. That's net. That's after the people who've left have been removed from the count. Soon after setting Australia's immigration record last year, Prime Minister Albanese promised he would cut immigration rates. Instead he increased immigration rates and is on track for a second new record in a row. Before 2020 and excluding tourists and short-stay crew, there were around 1.8 million temporary visa holders in the country. Today that number is 2.45 million temporary visa holders in the country, an increase of a third. Using Australia's average household size of about 2½ people per dwelling, that means temporary visa holders are taking up one million homes. One million homes are unavailable because of this immigration program. The Master Builders Association's October housing review shows that, in the 12 months to 30 June this year, only 158,000 homes were completed. So much for your housing policy. That's less than we needed to cover new arrivals let alone the homeless and those sharing who want their own place. Every year that this Labor government is in power is yet another year Australia's housing crisis becomes worse. That is why it's beyond a crisis; it's a catastrophe. The ALP and the Greens can promise more houses all they like. Houses aren't built out of rhetoric. When Australians are sleeping on the street we have to stop the flow of more people into the country. Some of these temporary visa holders have to leave. Let's start with the 400,000 overseas students who have completed or discontinued their study and have failed the 100-point test necessary for permanent residency. These students are in a limbo which is best solved by returning home and developing their own countries with the skills learnt here. Then there are hundreds of thousands of long-stay visa holders who have failed to learn English and failed to get a job but who nonetheless avail themselves of social security. I'll say that again: they failed to learn English, failed to get a job and are on social security that the Australian taxpayers are paying for. If someone has been in this country for five years and has failed to earn their own way then their visa must be critically reviewed to determine if Australia is the right place for them. It's time to put the temporary back into temporary visa holder. Our country is bleeding; stop twisting the knife. The unprecedented level of immigration isn't just leading to the housing crisis; 2.45 million extra people add to inflation. Inflation is caused when too much demand is chasing too few goods. It's really simple, and 2.45 million new arrivals is a lot of new demand. It's a hell of a lot. The government's net zero energy policy has driven up power prices—we can all see that— and reduced the capacity of agriculture and manufacturing to meet this demand, leading to demand inflation. It's a double whammy on inflation. The Reserve Bank has refused to lower interest rates because, as they have publicly stated, this unprecedented rate of immigration is creating so much excess demand, and they have said that reducing interest rates now would cause inflation to worsen. House prices are at highs. Now we've got interest rates high. This is a huge catastrophe. Why is the government doing this? As Senator Hanson said, we've been in a per capita recession now for six quarters. We should be in a recession, according to the performance of our economy. The only reason we're not in a recession is that they're flooding the joint with migrants to bump up the gross domestic product. You see, a recession is defined as two quarters of negative gross domestic product. So the only thing saving the recession tag from being hung around Prime Minister Albanese's neck and Treasurer Jim Chalmers's neck is the record immigration coming in to take us over zero so we're just barely hanging in there. They don't want to be tagged, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, who are in office, when the recession hits. Instead they will let hundreds of thousands of people go without what they need, facing inflation and tens of thousands of people without a home. Immigration is also affecting our health response. Ambulance ramping is at an all-time high in most states, including in my state of Queensland. It takes time to train paramedics, expand emergency departments and buy new ambulances. The pace of the government's increase in new arrivals has placed demand on our health system and it simply can't keep up. Lives are at stake, people are dying, and Labor does not care. It doesn't care about working families. It doesn't care about mums and dads working then coming home at night to their family car in a park to see if their kids are still there. That is what this government is doing. One of the largest budget costs is more infrastructure, especially on roads and transport. These projects are collectively costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The huge demand for infrastructure materials and qualified people is driving up the cost of infrastructure, adding to inflation. Many of these projects wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have an extra 2.45 million people in the country. The people coming to work from the Gold Coast to Brisbane, coming to work from the Sunshine Coast, even Caboolture, Burpengary, Morayfield, every day to work in the city of Brisbane are tied up in a car park or are in stationary traffic for hours—their lives just slipping away. We have people sleeping under bridges. As I said a minute ago, we have a mother and father returning after work to see if the children are still in the car in the park in which they live, or a showground or maybe a tent under a bridge. Australia has the world's richest reserves of minerals, bar none, and we have people sleeping in tents because the Labor government does not care. It's a vicious cycle where the government claims that we can fix the immigration problem with more immigration and that we can fix the housing catastrophe by adding bureaucrats and more immigration—fix housing, the catastrophe, with more immigration. 19:12 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The government doesn't support the motion moved by Senator Hanson. The 2022-23 increase in Australia's net overseas migration was driven by strong arrivals of temporary migrants, particularly international students, and by below-normal departures, as the former Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton mismanaged Australia's migration system, enabling exploitation and rorts. The government is determined to bring migration down, including by capping international student numbers. We are already doing the hard work. We have restored the immigration compliance function in Home Affairs, an area that the Leader of the Opposition cut by nearly 50 per cent. We have increased the temporary skilled migration income threshold from $53,900 to $70,000 to restrict the number of low-income workers entering the country. We have ended unlimited work hours for international students, launched a crackdown on rorts in international education, are cracking down on shonky providers and closing loopholes that were being used to bring nongenuine students into the country. We are implementing a $160 million reform package to restore integrity into the system and are introducing limits on international student numbers. Yesterday, we saw the coalition team up with the Greens to block a bill to limit the number of people coming into the country. The bill deals with pretty serious corruption and integrity issues in international education. So why are the opposition opposing a crackdown on dodgy operators and unscrupulous agents? It just doesn't make any sense. The opposition is standing in the way of genuine reforms to fix a system that the Parkinson review found was so badly broken it would require a 10-year rebuild—10 years to rebuild—because it was left in such bad shape by those opposite. We are working to reduce migration through the means we have available, with the goal of bringing it to sustainable levels. For those in this chamber, if you cannot get on board with the cleanup, we suggest that you just get out of the way. 19:15 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The coalition notes that 388,241 additional migrants arrived in the first nine months of the 2023-24 financial year. Experts believe annual migration under Labor will overshoot Labor's target of 395,000 and could even surpass 500,000 arrivals. Under Labor, one million migrants have arrived in just two years, as Australia endures a housing shortage and cost-of-living crisis. Former immigration department deputy secretary Dr Abul Rizvi says that net overseas migration could reach as high as 475,000. Corinna Economic Advisory's Saul Eslake expects the net overseas migration to be at least 495,000. KPMG Chief Economist Brendan Rynne predicts that net overseas migration would reach between 480,000 and 490,000. We have experienced record migration since Labor came to power, and housing supply isn't close to keeping up. That drives up the cost of housing and rents, which further increases inflation as Australians endure cost-of-living pain. The Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, needs to explain where all of these people are going to live. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Ms Michele Bullock, has said that new migrants add to demand and 'have certainly added pressure on the housing market'. Former Queensland Labor premier Steven Miles has said: … if migration continues at current levels we'll need tens of thousands more homes every year than the industry can build. That's a big part of why prices and rents have risen so rapidly. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics building activity data has confirmed there is no end in sight to Labor's housing crisis. The year 2023-24 saw the lowest home building commencements in over a decade, dropping 8.8 per cent to just 158,690 new starts. The coalition believes that by rebalancing the migration program and taking decisive action on the housing crisis, we would free up almost 40,000 additional homes in the first year and well over 100,000 homes in the next five years. First, the coalition will implement a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes in Australia. Second, the coalition will reduce the permanent migration program by 25 per cent from 185,000 to 140,000 for the first two years, in recognition of the urgency of this crisis. The program will then increase to 150,000 in year 3 and 160,000 in year 4. The coalition will also reduce the refugee and humanitarian intake to its long-term average of 13,780 per year. The coalition will also ensure there are enough skilled and temporary skilled visas for those who are in the building and construction industry to ensure that there are enough skills to support our local tradies to build the new homes Australians desperately need. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, when a division is called on Tuesdays after 6.30 pm, the matter before the Senate must be adjourned until the next day of sitting, at a time to be fixed by the Senate. The debate is adjourned accordingly. BILLS 82 BILLS Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 82

Aged Care Bill 2024

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 82 19:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania When we left this legislation before lunch, I was making the point that government senators are talking a very big game on this piece of legislation, and I would suggest they go back and look at some of the facts so that they don't mislead the parliament. In a previous contribution, the chair of the Community Affairs Committee, Senator Marielle Smith, said that the royal commission said that aged-care legislation should be passed by this parliament. What the royal commission's No. 1 recommendation said was: The Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) should be replaced with a new Act to come into force by no later than 1 July 2023. That's over one year ago, so this legislation should have been passed two years ago. This is how far behind this government is with this legislation. They talk about how they care. They talk a big game. Then they misrepresent the royal commission. They have no respect for the royal commission, just like they have no respect for this parliament. In the coalition's response to the royal commission, which was tabled in 2021, part of the work that we said we would do was to commence a new aged-care act in 2023. That was in the published government response, which was published only a few months after the royal commission's final report, along with the budget in 2021. So there has been a lot of big talk from Labor in respect of this but they should check their talking points because they are being misled by their talking points and are subsequently misleading this parliament. The problem with this legislation, as has been said by my colleagues, is that we haven't seen most of the regulation. We haven't seen the new quality standard. The new quality standard, in particular, is the thing that will drive performance in the sector. That's what will drive performance. We haven't seen the new IT system that will support it—and can I tell you, the new aged-care system will not work without the new IT system that supports it and provides all of the data, because a lot of the work that gets done in the system is driven by that process. I will give the government credit. They have put in the additional funding required for the IT system. That was a really important move that they made, and they did make that early in this term. So I'm not all negative in respect of this, but this has taken way too long. It should have been legislated last year. The industry, particularly those who are receiving care, should have had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the regulations that support this legislation—and there will be a lot of them. It's complex; it's complicated. We should've seen the new quality standard because, as I said, that will drive a lot of the things that make the system work. The system, as has been said a number of times, needs to work as a system. It is a complex beast and it has many parts. The reality is that what we have seen from the government in getting us to where we are now—is it good governance? Clearly, it's not. I want to go back and refer to some representations that were made to me by some constituents in the lead up to the debate on the bill that go to cost. As I indicated earlier in my presentation, if somebody takes out a returnable accommodation deposit, a RAD, that's protected under the legislation. But if they don't have the money for a RAD and they have to pay a DAP, a daily accommodation payment, that is not protected under the lifetime cap. So someone of low means can be milked dry by this system—the cap does not apply. I know people in that circumstance and it is not good enough. We have a number of things that have occurred and are occurring under this government. As I said, they've talked a big game. The waiting time for a home-care package has blown out shamefully and unacceptably. It is absurd that all of the hard work was done to get the waiting time for a home-care package down to 30 from 90 days, and it's now 15 months. Senator COLBECK 00AOL You can shake your head but that is the fact and it is published on the department's website. It is your neglect of the aged-care system and this reform process that has got you two years behind. You even misrepresent the royal commission's final report that talked about care, dignity and respect. Senator Polley e5x It happened on your watch. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Where's your care, dignity and respect for people who are receiving aged care? There isn't any. When Labor's report came out and they said, 'The wealthy will pay more,' we thought: 'Yes, fair enough. Those that can afford to pay more should pay more. That's a reasonable thing to say.' But what they didn't tell you was that everyone's paying more. The rhetoric was, 'The wealthy will pay more.' We heard that every time the report was talked about. What's happened at the end of the day is that everyone will be paying more, particularly those of low means, and they'll wait longer for their home-care package. With the design of this system, instead of the 30 days that the coalition got the waiting time to, the ambition in the aged-care legislation is 90 days. It's three months to wait for a home-care package under Labor's proposed reforms. It's simply not acceptable. Mr Albanese promised that he'd put the care back into aged care. That's what he promised a number of times before the election. What he has put back are the waiting lists and he's put up the price. Labor should be ashamed of their efforts to date on this legislation instead of talking a big game. The fact is that they are two years behind with this reform. They're all running out there as though this is a great achievement for them. Senator Polley e5x You wouldn't negotiate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. Senator COLBECK 00AOL They're two years behind. They don't have all the regulations on the table. They don't have the new quality standards on the table so people can properly understand the way the systems work, and they should be ashamed of themselves instead of running around triumphantly like they are the moment. Senator Polley e5x You've got to be kidding me; no shame. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. I will remind senators that interjections are disorderly. I've called the Senate to order. 19:26 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'm not going to get all the way through this before we adjourn for this evening, so I'll begin with a bit of context for our position on this bill. The Aged Care Bill 2024 will be the subject of my contribution this evening. This bill is a response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care, Quality and Safety's recommendation for a new aged-care act. The recommendation from the royal commission was an act to: … enshrine the rights of older people who are seeking or receiving aged— with a— rights-based approach must guarantee universal access to the supports and services that an older person is assessed as needing. The Greens have consistently called for universal access to be the foundation of all health and aged-care policy. If you think about this recommendation, it is the kind of basic that we should be aspiring to. It shouldn't be radical that we would seek to enshrine the rights of older people who are seeking or receiving aged care to ensure that they receive a human rights based and person centred approach. The government needs to be responsible for funding an accessible system for all Australians who need it. The royal commission heard from people with lived experience: older people, aged-care workers and family members. Their experiences were vital in shaping the recommendation of universal support. Following the Senate inquiry into this bill, I have some serious doubts as to whether universal access to aged care will be achieved through this legislation. The first concern which I and the Greens hold is that this bill opens the door to an expanded user-pays model. This risks only increasing the profits of private providers. Such private providers are already making massive profits off the backs of older Australians. Secondly, between the exposure draft and the introduction into parliament the criminal penalties for providers who do the wrong thing were removed and replaced with watered down civil penalties. The Greens see this move as a clear concession to providers, putting their agenda above the needs and rights of older people. Additionally, many submitters to the inquiry raised the concern that this act does not go far enough. It will not result in the effective enforcement of the rights of older people. This is a quote from the National Older Women's Network, appearing at the hearing on this bill: 'It appears that the framers have— Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order. Senator Steele-John, you will be in continuation when debate on this bill resumes. ADJOURNMENT 84 ADJOURNMENT Medicare 84 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania When the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, and the Albanese Labor government committed to tripling the bulk-billing incentives so more GPs would bulk-bill their patients, I knew that this would be life-changing for my community in Tasmania—just as our urgent care clinics are, as thousands of Tasmanians take advantage of those four clinics. The numbers prove how important these decisions have been. The latest Medicare bulk-billing data shows that the Albanese government's record investment one year ago in strengthening Medicare has revived bulk-billing, with Bass residents in Northern Tasmania accessing an additional 20,129 bulk-billed GP visits in the last 12 months. These are life-changing visits, providing people with access to a general practitioner when they need it the most. It comes at a time when the cost of living means that more Tasmanians need bulk-billing to visit their GPs instead of putting off a medical appointment. Tasmania overall has witnessed over 152,000 additional bulk-billed GP visits, thanks to the Albanese Labor government. In October 2023, the bulk-billing rate in Bass was 68.9 per cent. In October 2024, it had risen to 72.9 per cent, because our government wants to provide access to medical care when people need it the most. We are the party of Medicare, and you will only ever have improved access to health care in this country when you have a Labor government. On 1 November 2023, the government made the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare history, targeted to families with children under 16, pensioners and concession card holders. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners called the investment a 'game changer', and, for the past 12 months, doctors say, it has given them the confidence and support they've needed to bulk-bill more often. That's after a decade of cuts and neglect from those opposite—and we know what their current leader, Mr Dutton, did to health care in this country when he was minister for health. He was voted the worst health minister ever—not just by the public but by the medical fraternity. Families with children under 16, pensioners and concession card holders are now bulk-billed more often, and 90.0 per cent of GP visits with children under 16 have been bulk-billed in the past year. Those 11 million Australians are the patients that see GPs most often. They make up 40 per cent of the population and account for 60 per cent of GP visits, on average. They pay taxes, so they should be able to access health care in this country. It is, after all, a universal human right, one which Labor honours and delivers. The historic investment in bulk-billing builds on other ways the Albanese government is strengthening Medicare to make health care more affordable and more available. We on this side of the chamber know that, when it comes to Medicare and universal health, those on that side of the chamber—it's in their DNA—will do anything to try and destroy Medicare. That's why the Australian community voted for us, because they know we know how important health care is to them, to their children and to the people that they love. We have been funding and opening 87 Medicare urgent care clinics, so that Australians can walk in and get bulk-billed—all they need is their Medicare card—seven days a week, to see a GP when they need them most. Taking away those patients that don't need to be in accident and emergency is something that has proven to be so beneficial in my home state. In my home city of Launceston, the figures speak for themselves. When we talk about health care, people know we are going to deliver on it. The difference between us and those when they were in government is that they had ministers who only ever wanted to destroy Medicare, cut bulk-billing, cut GP visits and give no incentives at all. That's what a Liberal government— (Time expired) United States of America 85 19:35 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Despite all of the complaining, the whinging and the fearmongering from the media in the United States, Donald Trump soared to victory in the recent presidential election, and the levels of triggering among some cohorts have been off the charts ever since. You can almost feel the mood in this building as we've returned for the first sitting week post-election, or maybe that's just the product of this Labor government taking on water day by day. But how did the media get it so wrong yet again? Part of the answer lies in the fact that a large majority of the mainstream media is deeply left wing. Leftists tend to double down on their assumptions and blame everyone else rather than pausing to reflect on their own behaviour. That was certainly on display with the bewilderment we saw from the corporate media following this election or, in our case, the Voice to Parliament referendum. To the journalists out there who are listening: remember that just because you and your wine appreciation group like something doesn't mean the rest of us are going to like it or endorse it. Prior to the election, all we heard was, 'This election's close,' or, 'Trump is down in the polls.' Guess what? Wrong and wrong. They're wrong again. It rarely occurs to the overtly woke why people who work, who provide for their families, who see value in traditional gender roles, who value religious faith and who reject climate alarmism and the demonisation of men—as far as I can tell, all the Democrats in that election ran on were the endorsements of celebrities, yet the corporate media seemed to be stunned at the outcome. In the lead-up to the election, President Trump did the rounds on long-form podcasts, talking to people like Joe Rogan and Theo Von, engaging in lengthy discussions about issues that actually matter to people. He connected with the American people on matters like illegal immigration, public health, inflation. You name it; he spoke about it. He spoke his mind. That's what the Left can't understand. They can't go onto shows like that because often they simply don't know what they believe in. People want a return to normal. They don't want more absurdity in their lives. They don't want more inflation. They don't want more war. People simply don't care what the major news networks have to say. They, in this case, listened to the candidate himself, and they listened to him speak for several hours at a time. The win signals what could be described as the final countdown for the legacy media. As Elon Musk told X users after the election, 'You are the media now.' It's funny—isn't it?—how when there's less censorship the absurdity of all of this becomes unsustainable. That's why Labor wants to control social media platforms with the threats of massive fines to users and corporations with their misinformation and disinformation bill. They're scared of the truth. They're scared of the inevitable break-out of discussion and discussion that isn't easily controlled. They're unbelievably scared of memes. Can you believe it? All I can say to the mainstream media is that it's time to cry harder. No-one cares about your commentary. No-one cares about your worldview. Simply put, with the rise of alternative platforms, you're wilting on the vine. Since COVID the red-pilling's been occurring at an accelerated pace, and Labor, with their commitment to this woke ideology that's become so tedious, just can't keep up. Censorship won't fix it. Ultimately I think we have to come to the conclusion that it is fun to stay at the YMCA: 'It's fun to stay at the YMCA. It's fun to stay at the YMCA.' So commiserations to the legacy media. You got it wrong again. All we can do is dance. Cost of Living 86 19:39 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Communities in Western Australia are being smashed right now. From the Kimberley to Perth to Esperance, the effects are being felt by all of us. The rising cost of living is hitting our communities harder and harder. The costs of all elements of our lives are increasing. The rising prices are forcing us to cut things we never thought we would need to think about removing from our lives, forcing us to make choices between food and rent, between being able to buy our kid a birthday present and actually experiencing a moment of joy or relaxation or care. In talking about Western Australia, it seems the pain is most felt at the supermarket check-out, where rising costs of forcing people to cut back and go without essentials. The average Australian household is spending nearly $10,000 a year at the supermarket check-out and that is putting immense pressure on the day-to-day budgeting of many families, young people and pensioners. In 2020, 19 per cent of households expressed that food and groceries were a point of financial stress. As of 2024, that number has doubled to 40 per cent. That is 3.7 million households across this country that are worrying about how they are going to pay for food. The price increases are felt across the board, with a 31 per cent increase for oil and fats; a 25 per cent increase for breakfast cereals and bread, cheese, eggs and milk; a 15 per cent jump in the cost of poultry; and a 14 per cent rise in the price of fruit. Now, this isn't an inevitable outcome of some uncontrollable economic factor; this is largely driven by greedy corporations and by a government unwilling to legislate any safeguards for the community. Coles and Woolworths have an unchallenged duopoly on our access to food and groceries, controlling 67 per cent of the market. These two corporations run some of the highest profit margins for the supermarket industry anywhere in the world, and they have consistently run higher profits in the last three years as the cost-of-living crisis has spiralled out of control. A few months ago the Greens put forward the divestiture bill, which would have given the federal government the opportunity to break up the supermarket duopoly and to put real consequences on them for their anticompetitive community-harming behaviour. But the Liberals and the Labor Party have sided with the profits of Coles and Woolies. The political duopoly protects the grocery duopoly. Coles and Woolworths have price gouged customers, treated their workforces appallingly and driven suppliers like our Western Australian farmers to breaking point. Their market dominance and political donations have allowed them to get away with it. It needs to end. If you are worried about the rising costs, you are not alone. Millions of us are being ripped off by big corporations like Coles and Woolies making massive profits. Now, you cannot keep voting for the same two parties and expect a different result. The Greens are working for cheaper groceries. If you want change, you have to vote for it. Together, let us break up the Coles and Woolworths duopoly and make groceries cheaper for those in our community. Higher Education 86 19:43 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I am really pleased tonight to rise in the Senate and to speak about our government's policy to make fee-free TAFE permanent. Last week Matt Smith, candidate for Leichhardt, and I visited the TAFE Cairns and met some amazing students. Matt Smith and I met Terri, a student at TAFE Cairns who is studying nursing. Terri is part of a cohort of nurses set to graduate in the next few weeks and will be in the workforce by January in Cairns delivering regional nursing services. Terri is an incredible woman. Her classmates look up to her, she is a great student, and she has so much compassion and care for the Cairns community. But, without the Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE, Terri wouldn't be there, and she wouldn't be becoming a nurse. Terri told us that her TAFE experiences have been amazing, and she put a call out to those wanting to go to TAFE to take a leap and chase their dreams. But today we found out that the Liberal and National parties, under Peter Dutton's leadership, are going to oppose the government's legislation that would make fee-free TAFE permanent. This means they're actively denying students like Terri and future students the opportunity to access affordable, high-quality training that can lead to secure, well-paid jobs, and they're denying industries, like the healthcare industry in places like Cairns, the opportunity to have skilled workers. Australians have embraced fee-free TAFE with overwhelming support. Over half a million people have already accessed the life-changing opportunities that come with fee-free TAFE. They have accessed training in critical sectors that are vital to our community—sectors like health care, construction, early childhood education and, of course, nursing. This is the training that will equip them with the skills that our nation desperately needs to overcome the current skills shortage—the worst in 50 years and a legacy left by the previous Liberal-National government. But now, despite the success of fee-free TAFE, under Peter Dutton the Liberal and National parties are saying no to fee-free TAFE. They are saying to these wonderful TAFE students that they simply aren't worth the investment. They're saying to people like Terri that they should stay put in their current job and not retrain to become a nurse of the future. They want to scrap the very policies that are opening doors for Australians to build brighter futures and for us to have the skilled workforce that we need. It is clear that there is a choice at the next election, and it is clear that, for Australians, the only solution to have fee-free TAFE is to vote for an Albanese Labor government. In Cairns, that means supporting Matt Smith, the Labor candidate for Leichhardt, because the local Liberal candidate will not be supporting fee-free TAFE at the election. The Labor government is committed to rebuilding the VET sector after the decade of neglect. This is a sector that has been starved of funding and left underresourced and undervalued by the Liberals. Our Labor government will ensure that fee-free TAFE becomes an enduring piece of the national vocational education and training system. We'll ensure that by 2027 we'll be funding 100,000 fee-free TAFE places every single year. Imagine 100,000 Terris out there training to be the next nurse, the next early childhood educator or the next construction worker. Places will be available to people across Australia, from all walks of life. We know that this is working. We know that one in three of these places is in regional Australia. We know that more women have taken up this opportunity. We know that we saw 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023 and we will see 300,000 places over the next three years. I'm really proud of the work that our government has done to establish fee-free TAFE to train up students like Terri and give them an opportunity to become a nurse. Terri's mum was a nurse, and that's why Terri has entered the profession through fee-free TAFE. I hope that we don't have a Peter Dutton government that would put a stop to fee-free TAFE and stop students like Terri becoming nurses in regional towns like Cairns, and the only way to stop that from happening is for an Albanese Labor government to make fee-free TAFE permanent. It's clear that there's a choice for people living in Cairns. If you want to keep students like Terri being trained to be the next healthcare professionals to service our families and our community then you need to support Matt Smith at the election, because that's how we'll get fee-free TAFE. Small Business 87 19:48 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Last week I visited one of Melbourne's most iconic destinations, the Queen Victoria Market, with our Liberal candidate for Melbourne, Stephanie Hunt. The market is known as much for its history as for its vibrant community of small businesses. In fact, Queen Vic is home to around 600 small businesses. I've heard through the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living and also by visiting businesses around the country that Australians aren't just struggling with a cost-of-living crisis; they're struggling with a cost-of-doing-business crisis too. Unfortunately, Victorians are doing it particularly tough in these economic conditions. Last month, it was revealed that around 600 hospitality businesses had closed in the past year in Victoria, accounting for 29 per cent of the 2024 insolvencies that were recorded nationally through to October. The coalition is, unashamedly, the party of small business. We are strong supporters of small businesses, particularly when this misguided Albanese government has done so much to go out of its way to harm them. Steph and I took the opportunity at the vic market to meet with stallholders to hear firsthand about just how tough business conditions have been and how the government's red tape and regulation agenda is making it even tougher. Natalie Tripodi is an extraordinary woman. She is the third-generation owner of Queen's Harvest, an extraordinary family business that runs a market store specialising in locally grown produce, and she spoke to us about the challenges of running her business. She and Rocco spoke of the high cost of living that's causing significant changes in consumer behaviour and foot traffic is down around 12 per cent. This has, of course, created essentially a perfect storm for many small-business owners, who are now facing higher rents and higher input costs on one hand but seeing a decrease in sales on the other. Of course, it's the small-business owner that gets squeezed in the middle. The Bratwurst Shop is run by Carl and Christina Greco, and their stall is extraordinary. It's a market staple that does a roaring trade, but even they are not immune to the rising costs facing small businesses. They're having to wear or pass on these costs to their customers, and, as loyal as they are, there's only so much you can put up those prices. Then there's the M&G Caiafa bakery, which is a family-run business owned by Michael Caiafa. Despite his experience, his commitment and his loyal customers, he's feeling the squeeze as well. There were two themes that were running consistently across all of those conversations. Rising costs, from wholesale goods to transport to rent, are putting the pressure on local businesses, and the copious amounts of red tape and regulations are tying up our small businesses and sapping their time and their innovation. For many small-business owners, these issues don't just challenge their bottom line; it's a challenge to their survival. Unfortunately, it's now impacting consumers as well. It's not unique to these two businesses. Across the market, we saw similar concerns. Many people felt abandoned by government, but they felt particularly abandoned by their local federal member, who they couldn't even recall seeing at the market for many, many years. The people of Melbourne deserve an elected representative who's engaged with the issues that they're facing on the ground, and, at the moment, they simply do not have that. Our candidate, Steph Hunt, understands that small businesses are the backbone of Australia's economy and the engine room of our society. She knows that the only way to get the economy and Melbourne moving again is a back-to-basics economic agenda. This is something that both the Victorian and the federal governments simply do not understand. Instead of encouraging businesses to thrive, they're wrapping them up in red tape. This is why the cost-of-living committee, which handed down its final report last week, heard consistently that the pressures of government red tape are hurting small businesses, and it's why we have called, as the No. 1 recommendation, for a national cabinet to address government spending that's keeping inflation higher for longer and a national cabinet into productivity to develop a plan at every level of government to address what is driving the root cause of this cost-of-living crisis and slowing our economy to a halt. It's not just the businesses at the vic market that need this; it's all businesses right across Australia, big and small. It's not just businesses though. It's households that need it. Businesses need it. Households need it. Australians need it. Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Select Committee 88 19:53 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Now the public hearings have wrapped up and before the committee reports, I want to share some insights from the Senate Select Committee on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme or TFES, for short. This has been such a great committee to chair, and it's not just because working with the secretariat dream team of Bonnie, Hugh and Nick has been an absolute pleasure and that my fellow committee members have invested their time to help Tasmania—Senator Chandler included. The biggest win for me is that I can see how improving the TFES will make a real difference for Tasmanian businesses. Committee members heard from Tasmanian businesses, all three levels of government and industry stakeholders at public hearings at both ends of the state. We visited King Island and heard from the mayor, Marcus Blackie, who told us why restoring the National Highway to the Bass Strait islands will increase equity. On King Island, two litres of milk cost up to $9 and petrol hovers around $2.40 to $2.60 per litre regularly. It's similar on Flinders Island. Last week, the Flinders Island mayor, Rachel Summers, told us two litres of milk cost $6 10, petrol was $2 42 per litre and a dozen eggs cost $8. Rachel wasn't wrong when she said Flinders residents 'pay a premium for being on the island'. On that note, the distance the Spirit of Tasmania vessels travel between Geelong and Devonport is 242 nautical miles or 448 kilometres. The spirits are not the only vessels that transport freight between Tasmania and the port of Melbourne, but they offer a visual reference I expect many of you will know. If a Tasmanian business like Ashgrove Cheese or Norske Skog were transporting its product—in this case, cheese or paper—by road, the equivalent distance is 448 kilometres. I wonder if that 448 kilometres of Bass Strait receives the equivalent amount of funding to, say, 448 kilometres of the Hume Highway or the Bruce Highway? Several witnesses commented that Bass Strait was the most expensive piece of water to cross in the world. The TFES is supposed to compensate Tasmanian businesses because they don't have access to the National Highway and rail networks; they have to rely on shipping. It's clear from the evidence the committee heard at all three hearings that the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme equalises nothing. Ashgrove's operations manager told us it costs the business $15 to send cheese from Elizabeth Town in the state's north-west to Strahan on the west coast, but the same amount of cheese sent from Elizabeth Town to a Melbourne suburb costs $90. Wine Tasmania told us that 40 per cent of their members don't claim a rebate from the TFES because of the huge amount of administration involved for a small return. They said it cost 35 to 70 per cent extra in freight for smaller operators to send their wine to mainland customers. Imagine how many of you could be enjoying more Tassie wine if freight didn't cost so much. Essentially, freight costs have grown exponentially, but TFES rebates have stayed the same for decades. Fruit Growers Tasmania quantified this for us, saying that sea freight costs have gone up by 2.5 times in recent years, from $389 to $918. Even our pensioners get a rise in their payments every six months to reflect the increased cost of living. Tasmanian businesses have not had the same consideration. Economist Saul Eslake pointed out that he hoped this lack of regular adjustment in TFES payments was not deliberate discrimination against Tasmania. One of the biggest points made by witnesses at the hearings was that TFES rebates only cover the cost of transport across water, not the other costs associated with freight like the cost of storage at the wharf if there is a delay or the cost of getting the goods from the sender to the receiver. The perfect illustration of these additional costs came from Tasmanian farmer and transporter Matt Ryan, who told the committee that 30 per cent of the cost of a bag of carrots is the cost of getting them to the supermarket. How much does it cost to grow a bag of carrots? Those margins, if any, are very thin. We heard that it's cheaper to ship something from Tassie to Spain than it is to ship something from Tassie to Sydney. If that's not evidence of a system that's not working, I don't know what is. When it comes to evidence of a system that isn't working, the department responsible for the TFES said that it regularly reviews and discusses the scheme, but the fact it doesn't work has never been mentioned—go figure! So what do we do now if the TFES is outdated and not fit for purpose? It's clunky, difficult to use and returns little for the investment of time. Let's fix this system and make it equal for Tasmanian businesses. (Time expired) Superannuation 89 19:59 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia This government is so arrogant in its willingness to break clear election promises that it probably shouldn't come as a surprise to us anymore when, once again, these broken promises are highlighted by the words that come out of the mouths of the ministers themselves. I was one of the first people that rose in this place to speak about Labor's disgraceful broken promise, the new tax on superannuation—the new tax on self-managed super funds—when they committed, during the election campaign, to no changes to superannuation taxation arrangements. Yet their change, their new tax on superannuation, is not only a terrible broken promise but it is also terrible broken policy that directly impacts farmers and small businesses. When asked a question about it this week in the House of Representatives, the minister said: 'As the member knows, the government is targeting tax breaks in superannuation to make them fairer, particularly for individuals with super balances of more than $3 million.' Tax breaks—no. This was the arrangement that was in place that farmers and small business owners relied upon when they put a proportion of the land of their farms in self-managed super funds or put the office building they worked out of as a small business person into a self-managed super fund. They did so under the very clear knowledge of the taxation rules that applied. This is not a tax break and never was. These were the rules that existed at the time, and people relied on those rules. Not only that but the disgrace of this is the taxation on unrealised capital gains, where you are forcing people to sell assets to pay tax on land that they hold or offices that they hold inside super funds. Minister Collins went on to say: 'Individuals can choose how they pay their tax, either out of their superannuation account or from their own pocket.' Well, gosh, yes, that is exactly what we said about this terrible, terrible policy. They would have to find the cash out of their own pockets, out of their own income, to pay Labor's new tax on super, or they would have to sell assets from within their self-managed super fund. This is a disgraceful policy. It should never have seen the light of day. It was a clear broken promise. Not only that but it is a direct attack on those small-business people and those farmers who did what society asked them to do. They put money aside for the future. They put land into superannuation—part of their farms, the business that they operate out of—under the rules of the day in the knowledge that they were doing what society had asked them to do. We hear the phrase often—that the small-business people and farmers are asset rich and cash poor. So, guess what? When farmers were making those decisions 15 or 20 years ago about what to put into superannuation, they did not necessarily have cash to put into superannuation to buy shares. What did they have? They had land. They had some of their land that they could put into a superannuation fund under the rules that existed, and try and prepare for their own financial future that way. And guess what? That land has appreciated. Its value has gone up over the years, and now many of those self-managed super funds are going to breach this threshold and have to pay tax. And guess what? The farmers, the small-business people, are going to have to reach into their own pockets to pay Labor's new tax on super. It is a broken promise, it is a disgraceful policy and it should never see the light of day. Raise Our Voices Australia 89 20:03 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I am grateful to take this opportunity to deliver a few speeches written by two incredible young Western Australians as part of the Raise Our Voices Australia program. The first speech is by Harry, who says: 'When answering this question, the first thing that comes to mind to strengthen not only my local community but Western Australia as a whole is to fix our healthcare system. Doctors and nurses are overworked and underpaid. WA hospitals are understaffed and, especially in regional areas, are literally falling apart. Politicians can say what they like about these issues and what they are trying to do to fix them but most don't consider the human cost. Little boy Archie was born on 27 July this year, only a few weeks after becoming medically viable. As a premature baby, there were numerous health issues. However, this was exacerbated by the understaffing present in hospitals. Archie should have had 24/7 supervision from a nurse whilst in the NICU. He didn't. The mother should have had more medical check-ups to identify the baby was going to be born prematurely, but that didn't happen. Whilst understaffing was not the direct cause, it played a role in the unfortunate passing of Archie only a few days after he was born. Parliament must commit to more funding for hospitals and more incentives for medical staff to enter the workforce and make sure someone like Archie gets to live their life to the fullest. The second speech is by Olivia: 'I'm Olivia. I am 11 years of age, and my electorate is the Tangney electorate. In 10 years, I want our community to have a greener environment, which means more trees, less rubbish and being more rescuable. Firstly, a way to have a greener environment is to plant more trees. We could get clubs or groups together in parks to plant trees. We could also do the same for rubbish. I know picking up rubbish is gross, but it will help our community and environment. The parliament should recommend that more people get solar panels. It helps the environment and it helps them. If you own solar panels, you don't have to pay for electricity and power during the day. Secondly, I think sporting clubs can connect to this by planting trees at ovals and making sure the grass on the oval they play and train on is healthy and not dying. It's important to make sure our environment is healthy at all times because trees and grass contain oxygen for us to survive. In conclusion, I think in 10 years we should have a greener environment, which means planting more trees, picking up rubbish and being more recyclable. So, dear parliament, let's aim for a greener future in Leeming.' I'd like to thank both Harry and Olivia for taking part, sharing their concerns and their ideas and wanting their voices to be heard. It gives me great hope to see the tenacity, the drive and the engagement of our young Australians in getting involved with politics, getting involved with parliament and having their voices shared through the Raise Our Voice program. Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 90

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

20:07 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise today to address an issue of profound importance to the integrity of our democracy. That is, of course, Labor's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. Under the Albanese government, this legislation threatens to undermine the democratic culture that has been a cornerstone of Australian society. While misinformation and disinformation are genuine challenges in our digital age, the solution cannot be one that gives excessive power to the government, stifles open debate and compromises freedom of speech. It is not controversial to assert that this bill is deeply flawed. It risks creating a two-tier system of free speech where what is deemed acceptable depends not on the merits of the statement but on who is speaking. For example, a statement made by an academic might be protected while the same words from an everyday Australian could be deemed harmful or even illegal. These arbitrary distinctions are symptomatic of a far deeper issue—the overreach that is inherent in this government's policies. This bill would grant unprecedented powers to the communications minister. It would allow for investigations into so-called misinformation and could result in fines against social media companies that fail to comply with its ill-defined standards. Let me paint a picture of what this could mean in practice. Imagine a social media post online where someone questions prevailing views, perhaps on climate change or economic policy. Even if the statement is not malicious or deliberately deceptive, it could be flagged as harmful to the environment or the economy and subsequently removed. Is this the kind of society we want to create—a society where legitimate questions and opinions are silenced because they don't align with government narratives? The Law Council of Australia has rightly expressed concern over the vague definitions in the bill, particularly the terms 'harm' and 'serious harm', which rely on value judgements that are both subjective and politically sensitive. Australians have every reason to be alarmed. As a nation that has consistently ranked among the top democracies in the world, we have now slipped to 14th place under the Albanese government's watch. This is not a reflection of our electoral process or institutions. They remain very robust. Instead, it's a reflection on the diminishing health of our democratic culture, the openness of debate and the ability of Australians to participate fully and freely in our political system. It is not the Australian people who are failing democracy; it is the government. The rush to push this bill through parliament, limiting public consultation and scrutiny, shows blatant disregard for transparency and accountability. Australians were given a mere week to make submissions to a Senate inquiry. This is an insult to the democratic process. To be clear, addressing misinformation is important. However, the answer is not more government power, censorship or punitive measures. In a democracy, we resolve differences through open debate and evidence, not through silencing dissenting voices. If passed, the bill would represent a dangerous step backward for our nation. I and many others urge the Albanese government to heed the warnings of the Australian public, legal experts and those of us in this chamber who value freedom and democracy. As Benjamin Franklin, one of the architects of modern democracy, famously said, 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' This generation of Australians must stand up against this overreach and protect the liberties that define our way of life. This misguided legislation should be abandoned, and the Albanese government should pursue a more thoughtful, measured approach to the challenges of misinformation—one that respects democratic principles and the intelligence of the Australian community. Education 91 20:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We live in an age when mainstream education is often packed tight with irrelevant social engineering and is taught impersonally. External forces, including the teachers' political opinions, increasingly influence, pressure and distract students. As a result, Australia witnessed a 111 per cent increase in homeschooling in just five years, from 2018 to 2023. In 2018, homeschool registrations were 20,260, compared with 2023's 43,892. Queensland has the highest increase, 210 per cent, tripling. The second highest is New South Wales, at 127 per cent, followed by Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tassie. Homeschooling presents an excellent alternative for many families, providing an academic setting that prioritises children's welfare and provides more holistic development. Anecdotally, during COVID school lockdowns, many parents were absolutely horrified to see how far mainstream schools had deviated from solid education, and they pulled their children out of school, preferring to homeschool. Educating children at home means avoiding public institutions' involvement in their raising while nurturing strong family bonds. In traditional school settings, children spend most of their day away from home, leaving little room for connecting with family members. In contrast, homeschooling can not only facilitate academic growth but foster emotional stability and the family's core values. One of the biggest misconceptions about homeschooling is that it does not allow interaction with other children, which is needed for developing social skills. On the contrary, parents can choose a variety of social experiences in which the child can engage, such as community groups, sports, homeschooling co-ops, and visits to live community events and businesses. In this way, parents can guide such interactions, avoid influences not aligned with the family's values, avoid negative influences and ensure the development of healthy relationships, free of the peer pressure and bullying that today often characterise traditional school environments. Furthermore, socialisation takes place every day within the family unit, and the bonds created in interactions throughout every day are incredibly beneficial for the child's mental and emotional wellbeing. In a traditional educational setting, though, children spend most of their time at school, leaving little time for deep and meaningful interaction with family members. Home education allows the development of trust among family members through shared experiences, activities and discussions—and connections and safety. Ultimately, the presence of a supportive family is an invaluable asset in children's lives, especially during developmental stages, enduring strengthening of bonds fundamental for children's wellbeing. A notable benefit of home education is the program, which can be personalised and delivered in a way that suits the children's learning styles and interests in ways not possible in traditional, overcrowded classrooms. Homeschooling's flexibility ensures a stress-free learning environment and allows enough free time for extracurricular activities and personal interests, employing an allistic development approach. Lessons on emotional intelligence and social responsibility, for example, can be added along with core subjects and life skills such as financial literacy, household management and practical problem-solving, which is what adults need. There will be the exploring of peace within the child, regardless of the child's surroundings. As a result, children grow up as well-rounded individuals with skills and knowledge which can be absent in their traditionally educated counterparts. As said earlier, in the five years from 2018 to 2023, homeschooling more than doubled across Australia, with rates in Queensland more than tripling. This trend reflects parents' distrust of educational institution. Several social and political factors drive this growing distrust, leaving parents increasingly feeling uneasy and concluding that traditional schooling is no longer the best environment for their children's academic, moral, emotional, physical, spiritual and social development. Research on homeschooling shows that reasons parents take a step towards home education include the elements of dissatisfaction with the government, with conventional schools and with the curriculum. All these remained consistent pre and post COVID, as well as children's needs and family lifestyles, which include religious or family values, for example. Educational institutions are perceived as increasingly ideologically driven. To put it bluntly, they're woke. Their purpose is to indoctrinate, not educate, and to create serfs who cannot think critically. As John Rockefeller said, these are factory fodder for his business empire, which is now global. Cross-cultural priorities of race and sustainability are integrated into the curriculum along with other aggressive narratives of gender and identity. I'll give you a story about my son and daughter, who attended a school with many different races. One day I asked my son, as a four-year-old, how he enjoyed the Ethiopian twins in his class. They were two wonderful little kids. He said he didn't know. I mentioned their names—Thomas and Anthony. He didn't know. I mentioned they had black skin; he didn't know. He really didn't know. Then I mentioned their short, frizzy hair, and he said, 'Oh, great, I play with them all the time.' They played well together. Playing, working and studying with diverse groups builds tolerance experientially—the way people learn. Students discover for themselves. Meanwhile, imposing welcome to country chants and calls to pay respect to the custodians of the land loses people. Adult teachers telling students they can change gender is ludicrous, with children having absorbed like sponges since birth the innate difference between 'mum' and 'dad', male nurses and female nurses and male teachers and female teachers. They're all the better for it. Children are being taught about gender identity and pronouns and in some cases are made to apologise for the sins of their forebears, encouraged in the abrasive gender and transgender ideology. Children are in fear daily with climate fraud and lies saying we have only five years to live unless we stop driving cars, which will stop the global boiling. Unfounded guilt damages children. All this builds distrust in children and disrespect for woke teachers. Parents and increasingly people across society have had a gutful. Meanwhile, between 2003 and 2015, the Australian academic landscape has been in steady decline. One in three students failed reading proficiency. Fifty per cent of students failed science literacy tests. Half are scientifically illiterate. No wonder the climate fraud and climate fear have taken hold! The average in mathematics declined 26.7 points. All these factors accounted for, taking back the lead on their own children's education makes sense for parents. This sentiment was clear when Queensland Labor's education minister put forward legislation enforcing the national curriculum in home education. Through the public pushback, with 900 submissions and a petition of almost 22,000 signatures, parents have made their feelings about education clear. Parents are unhappy with public educational institutions and with the national curriculum. Some are angry. More and more parents are re-evaluating educational choices for their children. From here, home education will only grow because it offers an academic pathway that's more well rounded and allows for learning that is tailored and delivered in a way which takes into account the child's or family's interests, values and needs. When this speech is posted on my website, I'll put in links to assist any Australians considering home education. Whilst speaking of education and the growing home school revolution, I'll comment on two more factors. Firstly, charter schools. This is an American term used in states where schools are started from community initiatives. The state provides funding per student and the money follows the child. Simplistically, to illustrate the concept: if parents withdrew their child and placed them in a public state school, the money goes to the public school. If the parents enrol their child in a private school, the money goes to the school. This gives choice. Principals have real authority to improve their school's delivery of education to attract more students and more funding. Parents have real choice. Choice breeds competition and fosters initiative for improvement. Choice drives accountability. Secondly, abolish the federal department of education. Reportedly, this bloated department employs 4,000 people, yet it has no schools. Constitutionally, education is a state responsibility, not a federal one. Now it's become a wasteful duplication of resources. It has destroyed a fundamental tenet of our Constitution: competitive federalism. It's destroying accountability and wasting taxpayer money. It destroys accountability because underperformance in schools leads to states blaming the feds and the federal government blaming the states. Worse, it enables a single gateway for UN initiatives to be ingrained into one national curriculum that then infects all states. When six states and two territories are responsible for education, globalist agendas have to be driven through six gateways, not one. If states alone return to managing and directing primary and secondary education, then we would restore competition between states—competitive federalism—improve accountability and improve efficiency. Universities can be regulated as businesses, which is what they now are. Aligned with closing the federal department of education is abolishing the national curriculum, an initiative of the Howard Liberal-National government. I'm told New South Wales has just abandoned the national curriculum. The ACT is claiming it cannot be taught, because it's too packed with politics and not enough reading and writing. Every parent's top job is raising their family's children. One of our nation's most important tasks is educating children. We must support homeschooling, reform education and give parents choice. (Time expired) Queensland State Election, Thomson, Dr Warren 92 20:22 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to make some comments on the recent Queensland state election. I congratulate Premier David Crisafulli and his team for their success. It was well earned. We desperately hope that Queensland has now turned the corner. I congratulate all of the LNP candidates—those elected and those who fell just short. Each and every one of you provided a choice to the people of Queensland. Thank you. It was an honour to work with you shoulder to shoulder, in some cases over more than one election. It was a hard campaign. Labor had created a financial gerrymander. Labor had made more spending promises than a drunken sailor could, and there were the usual scare campaigns. But there was something even worse, a much darker side to this campaign: the bile and vitriol that Labor and some of its trade union affiliates directed to female candidates, including those from multicultural backgrounds. As I make these comments, I note that Senator Lambie is in the chamber. In this chamber I have noted Senator Lambie's courage in calling out the behaviour of the CFMEU, a then affiliate to the Labor Party. This campaign in Queensland had many parallels: trade unions acting disgracefully and supported by the Labor Party, either directly or by omission, because they wouldn't call them out. It's just vile. There were deeply personal and vicious attacks, which have no place in Australia's democracy. It's absolutely shameful. It's as shameful as anything I've seen in any campaigns over the course of 35 years of being involved in political campaigns. Shame on those who engaged in this disgraceful conduct. Shame on those in positions of power in the Labor Party and the trade union movement who either (a) mobilised unions to do their dirty work; or (b) stood by and did nothing. There are those who could have stopped it and did nothing and who, through their inaction, either condoned it or acquiesced. Shame on you. Shame on those responsible for the bile spewed at Trang Yen, the LNP's wonderful candidate for Inala. Trang was born in Vietnam in 1976. She came to Australia as a refugee with her grandmother. We should all celebrate the fact that we live in a country where someone like Trang Yen could build such a wonderful life and then stand for election. I am proud to call Trang Yen a friend. I'm proud to have supported Trang Yen with many members of Queensland's wonderful multicultural community who saw themselves, their aspirations and their hopes in the candidacy of Trang Yen. But the bile she had to suffer—shame on the Labor and Green supporters who were responsible for this vile abuse! You know who you are. Shame on those in positions of responsibility in the Labor Party, including elected members, who could have stopped this abuse and chose not to! You know who you are. Pinky Singh was the LNP's wonderful candidate for Mansfield. Pinky had stood at the previous state election. Pinky has been recognised for outstanding contribution to the community, including through her leadership of the Punjabi Welfare Association. Pinky has been awarded an Order of Australia Medal. You would think, again, that we should all celebrate the fact that Pinky was putting her hand up to run at election—someone who came to Australia, built a life in this country, contributed to the community and was now seeking elected office. We should celebrate that. But not the Transport Workers Union—no, no, no. They unleashed a vile barrage of political mudslinging. I have examples of it right here with me in the chamber: a Facebook post which says 'LNP candidate's dodgy immigration business'—except Pinky Singh never had a dodgy immigration business. She was never a director of such a business, she was never a shareholder of such a business, she was never a beneficiary of any proceeds of any such business. When the TWU were called out on their mudslinging, they agreed to cease and desist, but the damage had all been done. We know how the trade union movement works in lock step with the Labor Party in this case. It was just another sordid fabrication, and when threatened with an injunction the TWU stopped their action. But the damage had been done. One also doesn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out who was responsible for spray-painting genitalia on Pinky's corflutes all through the electorate. Shame on you, and shame on those in the Labor Party who either were responsible for mobilising the TWU to unleash this barrage of filth or stood by and did nothing to intervene. I was honoured to campaign shoulder-to-shoulder with Pinky Singh, and I will be honoured to do it again. Then I turn to Ariana Doolan, the new member for Pumicestone—a wonderful young woman, articulate, smart, committed, only 22 years of age and now elected to sit in the Queensland parliament. Her grandparents fled the apartheid regime in South Africa to build a new life here in Australia. Again, you would think that her candidacy would be something for all of Australia to celebrate. But this time it was the United Workers Union—they had been given the seat of Pumicestone to work in, and again they launched a deeply personal and offensive campaign against Ariana Doolan, a 22-year-old young woman. A 22-year-old young woman was subjected to this vile campaign. Senator Urquhart, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Grogan, I'm sure when you stand for the seat of Bradden you won't be subjected to such a campaign. But nothing could compare to the abuse which Ariana Doolan, newly elected member for Pumicestone, had to cop from the sitting Labor member at pre-poll—a sitting Labor member of parliament. This is what she said to this young 22-year-old woman—a never-ending tirade of abuse. It's just disgraceful! This is what she said: 'The only reason you joined the LNP was because Labor and the Greens rejected you. You are selling women out to become an MP. You have no values or morals. You stand for nothing. You are nothing.' How dare she! How dare she, as an elected member of parliament, unleash such a tirade of filth against someone putting their hand up to run in Australia's democracy? How shameful! What is wrong in the culture of the Queensland Labor Party that a sitting MP, no less, would consider it appropriate to engage in this despicable behaviour. It is sick. It is sick, contemptible behaviour. This is what she said to Ariana: 'My team saw you crying yesterday. Politics is tough. If you can't handle this, you won't be able to handle parliament.' I wish you were there, Senator Lambie, on that pre-poll. I wish you were there. Well, Ariana never cried once. In fact Ariana was spoken to by many members of the community who told Ariana how disappointed they were to see a so-called community leader engage in such offensive conduct. In Ariana's words, 'It is hypocritical coming from a party that talks about having increased diversity of representation in parliament—only when it suits them apparently.' Only when it suits them, apparently, are they in favour of diversity. These were vile attacks against a 22-year-old young woman standing for elected office whose grandparents fled the apartheid regime in South Africa. Good on you, Ariana. You are made of the right stuff to serve the people of Pumicestone and the people of Queensland in the Queensland parliament. It is one thing to lose an election; it is another to lose respect. Shame on those members of the Labor Party and the trade union movement who engaged in this despicable behaviour or stood by and did nothing to stop it when they had the power to do so—those who acquiesced to this despicable conduct. Lastly I would like to thank all of the members and the supporters of the LNP for your tireless support. I did the review of the 2020 election result, and I still carry with me your stories of how disappointed you were with that result, so I am so pleased that you've all had an opportunity to enjoy this recent victory and the hope that we now have a government who, through the application of LNP values, will create a better life for all Queenslanders. In closing, I note the recent tragic passing of Dr Warren Thomson, a great and loyal member of the LNP. Warren epitomised the courage of conviction and the commitment to the cause which is displayed by so many LNP members. Vale, Dr Warren Thomson. Westbrook, Eden Jayde 94 20:32 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In July this year I gave a speech in the chamber about the tragic death of 15-year-old Eden Westbrook in St Helens, Tasmania, on 18 February 2015. The police, who conducted a deeply flawed investigation in the days following Eden's death, stated that Eden had taken her own life, and the coroner also found that Eden's death was suicide. Eden's mum and dad, Jason and Amanda Westbrook, don't believe Eden ended her life, and neither do I. Amanda and Jason have fought for nearly 10 years to get the truth, despite gaslighting, intimidation and harassment. Eden was a bright, bubbly and very loved young woman, and immediately before her death she was looking forward to a weekend away with two of her sisters and was planning to buy her first car. Not only was the investigation into Eden's death deeply flawed but the disgraced late senior sergeant Paul Reynolds was the coroner's associate in this case. Reynolds's paedophile activity over three decades in Tasmania as a senior police officer was exposed to some extent by the recent Weiss review. Just a few weeks ago, in a bombshell ruling, a Tasmanian coroner's ruling into the 2000 death of Helen Bird by hanging at her home in a suburb of Hobart was overturned. The same police forensics officer on Bird's case was also the forensics officer on Eden's case. Helen's family and friends have been fighting for years to get the truth of her supposed suicide, and now 14 years later the coroner has found that Helen Bird's husband was involved and staged her death to make it look like suicide. I have recently put in a number of right-to-information applications in an effort to get answers for the Westbrook family. In one application's response, many of the pages were completely redacted. Exemptions were applied, and it was not considered in the public interest to release the information sought about Eden's death. The argument for a public inquest into Eden's death and an inquest by an external coroner and counsel assisting is compelling, and the evidence to support this just keeps stacking up. First the Tasmanian coroner and chief magistrate are still refusing to provide Eden's autopsy photos to the independent expert forensic pathologist authorised by the Westbrooks for an analysis. Just the fact that they won't hand them over is suspicious in itself, especially given the evidence from Hunter and Justine Westbrook, Eden's sisters. Eden's sisters saw Eden's body immediately before she was cremated. Both say that Eden had evidence of bruising to her face and that Eden's teeth were shattered. Inquiries by Bridgewater police some months after Eden's death with a key witness, Kim Woodcock, who according to police was the first to discover Eden's body, suggested Eden may have had marks on her wrists and that her hands may have been tied behind her back. There is also the involvement of Reynolds as the coroner's associate, who, in Coroner McTaggart's own words, provided regular oversight and direction to the investigation. The Weiss review in 2024 into Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds failed to deal specifically with Eden Westbrook's matter in the written report, despite detailed oral and written submissions from the Westbrooks and their former lawyer. The matter clearly fell within the terms of reference. That is shameful in itself—absolutely shameful! The very recent decision of Coroner Webster in the Helen Bird case raises critical questions. The same coroner on Eden's case found that Helen also died of asphyxia due to hanging and that her death was suicide. There is now evidence of an inadequate investigation and forensics as well as involvement and staging of a suicide by Helen Bird's husband. The forensics officer who failed to take any measurements of the rope or the ladder or to take samples from the rope for DNA testing or fingerprints in Helen's case was the same forensics officer who briefly examined Eden's death scene. Shocking! The Tasmania Police forensic services is the only police forensic service in Australia not accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. And why is the crime scene examiner not independent from police? The Bird case was largely exposed due to the diligence of Tasmania Police officer Detective Senior Constable Nikki Munro, and I congratulate her. Sadly there are no public police champions in Eden's case. The police investigation immediately following Eden's death failed to interview critical witnesses, failed to undertake a professional investigation and failed again later, even though the name of a person of interest and possible suspect were part of a formal referral from the commission of inquiry into child sex abuse in institutions and the government response in early 2023. The more you know about the details of this case, the more dodgy it looks. There is stench everywhere, and it just won't go away. In the days following Eden's death, the police didn't even ask to look at Eden's mobile phone and they didn't examine her social media accounts. There was also an apparent failure to analyse all triple 0 calls, 131444 calls and Crime Stoppers calls around the time, and there is disturbing evidence of harassment and intimidation of the Westbrook family by police. One right-to-information disclosure recently confirmed that Constable Smithurst did in fact view the relevant CCTV footage of the skate park and that there had been a misunderstanding in relation to information Smithurst had provided to the Westbrooks within days of Eden's death. There are numerous statements taken by the Westbrook's former lawyer, including statements from witnesses covering critical issues from the evening of 17 February 2015, possible paedophile activity in the St Helens area around the time of Eden's death and the movements and actions of key witnesses. It's very clear to me that the police made up their minds that Eden's death was suicide on day one without first conclusively establishing that there was nothing suspicious. This is clearly illustrated by the material obtained under the RTI. Police also failed to use intelligence data to determine whether there had been similar incidents, grooming or harassment in St Helens around the time of Eden's death. I said in my speech in July this year that I considered there had been a cover-up in this case, and I can assure you I'm not backing down. I don't give a stuff what the police commissioner says. I am also concerned about the competence, effectiveness, integrity and impartiality of some within Tasmania Police. I question why forensic science in Tasmania is not independent from police and why Tasmania Police is the only police agency in Australia to not have its police forensic services—for example, the crime scene examination, the photography, the fingerprints, the ballistics et cetera—accredited by NATA, the National Association of Testing Authorities. Tasmanians deserve better. My goodness, it's no wonder the Liberal Party is in trouble down there. The deficiencies in Eden's case are simply mind-blowing. It is time to hold an independent inquiry to ensure that this does not happen again to any other family. An inquest by an external coroner and counsel assisting, with proper legal support for the Westbrooks, should be urgently established. Helen Bird's death proved that the system can get things terribly wrong. I once again call upon the Tasmanian government, particularly the Attorney-General, to make immediate steps to rectify this national disgrace. I say this to the Attorney-General, I say this to you in Tasmania: you can go and change laws to release those autopsy photos. And I'll tell you what, my patience is running out with you. I'm sick of your excuses. As a matter of fact, you're sitting in two weeks of parliament and you can't go in and change those laws to put this family out of their misery? You seriously are shameful! You seriously are! I want those goddamn autopsy photos. If there's nothing to hide, then release them. This is putting a real stain on the state of Tasmania, and it's putting a stain on Tasmania Police. Was a proper investigation done or not? It is a simple question, and we can't decide that until you release those autopsy photos. There is a stench up to high heaven over what happened to Eden Westbrook at 15 years of age. And I tell you what, if she was my daughter I would want to know. I'd want to know the truth and I'd want all of the evidence on the table. If you have nothing to hide, then please, for godsakes, pass over those autopsy photos. Gerrard Rennick People First 95 20:40 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise tonight to talk about People First holding the establishment to account with its policies. There is what I would like to call a motorboat of policies that I'm about to discuss tonight, and I will compare those with the major parties who have a raft of policies—thanks Rob Sitch. A raft is something that just floats in the water; you have a little bamboo pole and you're going around in circles at a very slow rate. That's one of the great things about being an Independent, I can get out there and talk about the policies that matter to the Australian people without being shackled down with all the palaver that goes on inside the major parties. The first policy I want to introduce that will hold the establishment to account is to improve whistleblower protections. If there's one thing that we really need to uphold in this place, it is the brave and courageous public servants and bureaucrats who can see that there's something wrong inside their departments and they want to speak up. I have spoken to a number of whistleblowers throughout my time in parliament. One in particular was with regard to the Leppington Triangle. He was stripsearched by the Federal Police in his own house; he had his computer files and everything raided. This was all over the bogus claim that the Leppington Triangle was purchased for more than it should have been. Of course, that was completely ridiculous because if anyone knows anything about land valuations, 30 acres of land was not worth $3 million. That means one acre is worth $100,000. One acre is 4,000 square metres. So basically, you're saying a 500-square-metre block in Sydney would have been worth 12½ thousand dollars. I don't think so. There have been other cases of whistleblowers coming to me, in particular from the TGA and also AHPRA. Throughout the COVID period people were very afraid to speak up. I've had people come to me from Home Affairs. Indeed, I had one very brave whistleblower who came to me from Home Affairs with all the posts where Home Affairs basically advised Facebook that they thought that they should be censored. It is absolutely disgraceful that the federal government—a coalition government!—was censoring its own people throughout COVID. In the end, this whistleblower knew if he did this, he'd lose his job—and sure enough he did—but he said he'd reached a point where he could no longer work within the department anymore. He felt the role of that particular department was to protect the people. They weren't interested in protecting the people; they were only interested in controlling the people. So, the first policy that People First will be advocating for in respect of holding the establishment to account will be to improve protections for whistleblowers so that they can speak up. The second thing I'm still going to advocate for, even though it didn't get up this afternoon, is that we need an independent judicial commission. The Queensland Law Society says that we need an independent judicial commission. I understand that is the Labor Party's own policy, yet for some strange reason they have not brought that legislation up throughout the course of their time in government, so since May 2022. And that's very disappointing. The question needs to be put: who will judge the judges? Politicians are held to account at elections. Ministers and governments are held to account through estimates. Who holds the judges to account? That's not just in terms of the decisions they make, but, often, in terms of the administration itself. If the administration is inefficient, slow and unwieldy, it costs people a lot of money, and justice should be free for all in a fair and transparent society. So I will continue to advocate for an independent judicial commission. I think we need that as a matter of urgency. I would still encourage Labor to bring that forward before they call the next election—not that I want to help them win an election or anything, or give them any free, gratuitous, advice. But it would look good in the eyes of the public, and that's something that the Labor Party could do with right now. The other thing we need to do is to introduce cross-media ownership laws. Unfortunately, I think it was the Turnbull government that got rid of the cross-media ownership laws. At the time, people probably didn't foresee what the results of that would be, but today the mainstream media is predominantly controlled by three large media organisations—the ABC, News Corp, and Fairfax and Nine—and we've seen many minor regional newspapers collapse. I know that, when I was a Senate candidate in 2016, I was told by other senators: 'Whenever you go to a small country town, make sure you pop in and see the local newspaper. They're always looking for stories.' Senator Scarr 282997 We got one, Gerard! Senator RENNICK 283596 And indeed, with my former colleague Senator Scarr—it was one of the first tips I gave him when we hit the road from Townsville to Cairns. We popped in there at Tully and jagged ourselves a story. Senator Scarr 282997 What about Gympie? Senator RENNICK 283596 Oh, yes—Gympie! I should have known, from Gympie. We popped into the Gympie Times, and I passed a comment as to how Susan McDonald had rolled Barry O'Sullivan. Well, didn't I cop it from head office! I should have seen the writing on the wall then; head office had it in for me then, over this little remark. But I digress. That's a story for another day, but I'm glad you reminded me about that, Senator Scarr. Indeed, you can't just pop into a town nowadays and do a cold call, because these small papers in regional towns have collapsed. And we need them for local content. Also I don't think it's right that you can have the same content on radio, newspapers and TV. I think it's very important that we have a range and diversity of opinion—and, by all means, we're getting that now through social media. I'll tell you what: it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the States if Trump and JD Vance continue to use social media as their platform and turn their backs on the mainstream media. They will be in big trouble. But, having said that, we do need to have our little guys out in the regions, and even in the metropolitan areas. I know we used to have the Quest newspapers in Brisbane. So that's a policy that I will be advocating. Now, I do want to reduce immigration. I'm not going to reduce it to zero, because I believe that we are a country that has been built on immigration. I myself am descended from immigrants. But I would like to reduce immigration to between 80,000 and 100,000, and predominantly to the regions. I think it's very important that we do have immigrants come to this country. They do contribute. We can get them out into the regions. I know we need them in hospitality areas. I know our farmers need them. But I do think that we just cannot sustain the rate of immigration that we have at the moment. I will be supporting Labor's caps. I'm not saying their policy is perfect, but we need to make a genuine attempt at reducing immigration so that we can catch up with infrastructure and housing and providing essential services. The other thing I'd like to do is to devolve responsibility for the curriculum back to the state governments. Ironically enough, it was actually the Howard government that brought in a national curriculum. I think one of the worst things we could ever do, for the curriculum and education in this country, is to have a curriculum set by a centralised department in Canberra. I think we should have a competition of ideas when it comes to education and we should basically go back to the way it used to be, where state governments and the schools, in conjunction with the parents, set their curriculum for those particular schools, and they could tailor it to what they wanted. We want independent thinking in this country. We don't want our ideas and thoughts being centralised in Canberra. Now, the other thing I will do is to refute climate change policy, and I'll need another whole 15 or 20 minutes to talk about thermodynamics and Einstein's special theory of relativity and why energy equals mass. But, to cut a long story short, what we really need to be focused on are practical solutions—things like keeping our riparian zones clean, keeping pollution out of the oceans and making sure that we protect our biodiversity and fauna. That is very, very important. We need measures like that, and we need to make that we get feral pigs, feral goats, dingoes and feral cats out of national parks. I can speak to that because my brother's property in Western Queensland is next door to a national park and we have feral pests coming across all the time, because they aren't being managed properly. The last thing I will talk about is that I want to abolish native title where there is no continuous connection with the land. I'm happy to respect the original Mabo decision and the Wik decision, where there was continuous association with the land, but now we have native title over parts of cities. The site of Waverton Bowling Club in Sydney has been handed over. That was my old stomping ground back in the day when I lived in Sydney. There's no continuous connection with the land there, and we're getting all these claims made over vast tracts of land in Queensland. I think it's unsustainable. I think common land is just that: it's common land. It belongs to all Australians, and we need to promote one race, the human race, and focus on looking forward. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 20:51