2024-11-26 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 26 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 meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 1

Help to Buy Bill 2023

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 12:02 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— HELP TO BUY BILL 2023 The Labor Government committed to establishing a national shared equity scheme to help 40,000 low and middle income Australian households into home ownership. Today marks a significant step to delivering that promise. The Help to Buy scheme will be the first national shared equity scheme of its kind. It will be delivered through Housing Australia and will help Australians to overcome both the hurdle of saving for a deposit and servicing a mortgage. Through Help to Buy, the Commonwealth will cut the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. Participants will only require a minimum 2 per cent deposit and will benefit from lower ongoing mortgage repayments through a smaller home loan. Eligible participants will be able to access the scheme through participating lenders alongside a standard mortgage. Housing Australia will then provide the Commonwealth's equity contribution through a loan arrangement secured against the property. Housing Australia will be funded by a special appropriation to enter into Help to Buy arrangements and will return funds to the Commonwealth when the equity is repaid. The Minister for Housing will provide written directions to Housing Australia on the operation of the scheme, including decision-making criteria for entering into Help to Buy arrangements. The Bill also contains provisions enabling states to pass legislation for their constituents to participate in the scheme. All states have agreed-in-principle to participate in the scheme. Help to Buy will be open to help people who have owned homes before and those who haven't. It will help couples, siblings and singles alike. Those who are close to retirement, those just starting out in the workforce and anyone eligible in between. This is an historic commitment by the Government because we understand what buying a house means to Australians. For most, it is the single biggest investment they'll make in their lifetimes, but it's about more than that. It's giving people the certainty of home ownership, an opportunity to live in their community and the chance to create opportunities for their families. Delivering on Help to Buy, alongside the Housing Australia Future Fund, the Social Housing Accelerator Payment and the Housing Accord, will mean more Australians will have a safe and affordable place to call home. HELP TO BUY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2023 This Bill makes consequential amendments to support the establishment of the Help to Buy scheme, to clarify how it interacts with the Housing Australia Act 2018 and to reflect the broader remit of Housing Australia. 12:02 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory We know that our housing crisis is feeding growing intergenerational inequality and underpins the cost-of-living crisis in this country. Australians have had enough of the lack of housing to buy or rent, the evermore unaffordable prices and the cynical political games that are played with what should be a fundamental human right. They want politicians and decision-makers to step up and start to turn this around. This week we saw willingness to compromise from colleagues on the crossbench. I want to acknowledge and welcome that. There are no silver bullets in housing policy, but we will never get out of the very deep hole that is this national housing crisis unless we start somewhere. That is what the Help to Buy Bill 2023 is; it's a start. I back the intent of this bill because it will help people who don't have wealthy parents get into housing. While technically a demand-side measure when what we need is more supply, this bill will help some of the most vulnerable people in our community get into homeownership. But the bill can be better, and I'll be moving amendments to reflect that. There is so much evidence to show that access to safe, secure and affordable housing is a key factor in improving health, educational and social outcomes. It can be the break in a vicious cycle—the difference between life and death for people. I want to see the object of the bill amended to explicitly acknowledge the need to focus on supporting people who would otherwise be permanently excluded from homeownership and accelerate their access. I also want to see the scheme expanded to 30,000 places per year, with at least one-third going to older women, First Nations people, people with disability and other historically disadvantaged cohorts. If the government believes in this scheme as much as they say they do, it should also be extended beyond the forward estimates, and I'll be moving an amendment to allow for that. Four years is not long enough to fix the housing crisis. Finally, I'll be moving two amendments to the review of the scheme. The first is to tighten the focus of the evaluation so that it explicitly looks at how effective the scheme has been in supporting people who have been historically disadvantaged, including First Nations people and older women. Secondly, the scheme should be evaluated on how effectively it has been integrated with other first-home-buyer assistance programs across the levels of government. Like I said earlier, there is no silver bullet for the housing crisis. This measure, a supply side one, will be helpful, no doubt, but we will also need to start putting measures in place now that really address some of the root causes of the crisis that we're in. We need to talk about a broad-based social housing program. The federal government needs to step up and work with states and territories to ensure that they deliver on their commitments when it comes to social and affordable housing. We also need to look at housing assistance and ensure it meets people's needs, whether it is Commonwealth Rent Assistance, or what we can do to replace the thousands of affordable rental properties that will exit the market when the National Rental Affordability Scheme wraps up. Speaking of rentals, coordinating national rental reforms to limit unfair rent increases, enacting minimum standards, and ending no-cause evictions would go a long way to meeting what Australians want and need. We also need to talk about tax reform. The major parties don't want to talk about a tax system that means that investors are at an advantage, a system that has created a situation where you turn up to auctions and first home buyers are routinely outbid by property investors. Reforming the capital gains tax discounts and putting some limits and conditionality on things like negative gearing should be on the table if we're serious about fixing the housing crisis, and I hear from Australians that they want us to be serious. They're sick of the tinkering and they want some of the root causes of this crisis dealt with. Senator Lambie and I have the Parliamentary Budget Office to do the modelling on what changes could look like. No doubt, Treasury have also done their own work on this. I urge the Senate to look at it objectively and do the greatest good for the greatest number of people—the Australians we all represent—in this and the other place. Finally, we need to talk about population. Not in a dog-whistling, 'blame the other' type of way but in a sensible way to ensure the relationships between immigration and population growth, change, and housing affordability and availability are better understood, to ensure that we learn from the past and what has and hasn't worked, and to ensure the supply and demand for housing are in a better balance. It's currently unfair on Australians in a housing crisis and it's unfair on new immigrants. People arrive in Australia with hopes and dreams and find it almost impossible to find somewhere to live, and if they can find somewhere it is simply unaffordable unless you come here with some decent money behind you. We have to ensure that we have the right sort of housing in the right places so that living in Australia can still be living in a country where it doesn't matter how wealthy your parents are, where people can still believe in the egalitarian ideals that so many Australians have held dear for generations. Any and all of this is going to take some political courage, and I believe it would be easier if there was a legislated national housing and homelessness plan. The Prime Minister has agreed to deliver a plan. I've been calling for one, and I think that we should be legislating this plan. As a Senate, we can at least agree on objectives when it comes to housing. Yes, the government of the day will have their different means of trying to achieve that end that we agree on, but, for me, something as fundamental as housing should be legislated. We legislate all sorts of targets in this parliament. When it comes to housing, why is it that, at the moment, we don't even have a plan? Labor announced that they had plans to make a plan. They currently are trying to make a plan, I guess, but there is no plan, which is frankly outrageous as we are in the last sitting week of the year of this term of parliament. The housing system in this country is in trouble—there's no doubt about that; just get on the street and talk to people—but it's not beyond hope. These proposals that we're voting on today have their place. They're part of it, but they're clearly not going to solve the whole thing. So I'd urge the Senate to support these sorts of measures but then really get on with addressing some of the root causes, which, unfortunately, I think we're often not very good at, at times. I look forward to supporting the Help to Buy Bill as one part of helping people—people who can't rely on the bank of mum and dad to get them into the housing market. 12:11 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We have a housing catastrophe due to rampant immigration—excessive, reckless, record immigration. We also have a housing crisis because we don't have enough tradies to build the houses that we need. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a bill that won't help anyone. Right now, Queenslanders, in what should be the richest state in the world, are sleeping under bridges and on riverbanks. In one of the world's richest states, working families with children are living in cars, coming home at night to wonder if their kids are still there. Where do they toilet? Where do they shower? It's plain inhuman. Rents are skyrocketing—if a rental can be found. House prices are reaching record highs. This is a housing crisis, one of the worst we've faced. It's an inhuman catastrophe. Last year, the federal government under Anthony Albanese brought in 517,000 net migrants. This year, after being promised that we would have lower immigration, we are tracking to have another new record—one above last year's. How can you bring in more than a million people in two years? That's hundreds of thousands of houses. How can you build them? We aren't catering for the people already here, and now we're bringing in record numbers—a million in two years. That's 400,000 new houses needed, in addition to the already high demand and the people living homeless at the moment. The Albanese government, though, wants to look like it's doing something—not do something but look like. Enter this Help to Buy plan. Under this plan, the government wants to own a significant part of your house. If it's an existing place, the government wants to own 30 per cent, and, if it's a new place, 40 per cent, with the government paying for part of it with low-income earners. While a 40 per cent subsidy might sound attractive, it's fatally flawed. If the government just borrows more money for this plan, then one thing is going to happen. When you give 40 per cent more money to people to buy a house, house prices are going to go up. House prices will go up. The bill's core concept and premise is flawed and possibly a lie. We can't subsidise our way out of a house price problem. Subsidies always increase prices and have throughout history. Looking at the bill's details, or lack of details, the problem is worse. I'll look at some of the criteria in a minute. Thirdly, let's look at the constitutional basis. This bill is completely outside the federal government's powers. It's highly complex. The government has tabled a late amendment to the bill, attempting to clarify a set of constitutional issues—too complex. I'll go back to the immigration. In addition to rampant immigration of people coming into the country, prior to COVID, the number of temporary visa holders in the country was around 2.3 million people. As of the end of 24 July, that number is now 2.8 million—more than 10 per cent of our population—all needing a roof and all needing a bed. These are hard numbers and facts. This is what's causing the housing catastrophe. These are the hard numbers and facts, as I said, yet the government has continued to lie, claiming, 'We're just catching up with immigration.' Really? We haven't just caught up; we've blown the record out of the water, not only for people on resident visas but also for new immigrants coming in. We're nearly half a million people above the record for resident visas. Using the average household size of 2½ people per household implies the need for more than 200,000 houses just to cater for new arrivals. It's actually 400,000. This is what we're seeing in our country. Then there are the details. For an Australian who enters into a Help to Buy arrangement, where the government owns part of their home, what happens if they renovate their home at their own expense, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours swinging hammers and pulling up carpet, and, as a result of their renovations, their $500,000 home increases in value to $600,000? I wonder whether the minister knows how much of that Australian's renovation profit the government will take for doing nothing. I wonder whether the minister knows that the income thresholds are set nationally—$90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples—despite the average house price varying from $504,000 in Darwin to $1.2 million in Sydney. I wonder why the government is not adjusting the income threshold from state to state. What are the price thresholds for houses eligible under this bill, and why haven't these been set in the legislation? Why are we bringing yoga teachers into the country, through immigration, when we need tradies? Yoga teachers are wonderful, but we need tradies to get on with the job here. The government has appointed three sets of bureaucrats as part of its solution to the housing crisis. That's just adding to the complexity and inefficiency. It's adding to the catastrophe. We need tradies to come into this country. We need people to be vetted properly, to bring in their skills and to contribute. We have so many people in this country out of work, living on welfare, and not contributing. We have an abundance of people with good qualifications who want to come into this country. We can put them to work and fix the housing crisis quickly. These are just some of the issues that I'll be exploring more in the committee stage. I want to put those comments back on the record. 12:17 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I look forward to the committee stage because there are answers to all of those questions. The Labor government committed to establishing a national shared-equity scheme to help 40,000 low- and middle-income Australian households into homeownership. Today marks a significant step to delivering that promise. The Help to Buy scheme will be the first national shared-equity scheme of its kind. It will be delivered through Housing Australia, and it will help Australians to overcome the hurdles of saving for a deposit and servicing a mortgage. Through Help to Buy, the Commonwealth will cut the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. Participants will only require a minimum two per cent deposit and will benefit from lower ongoing mortgage payments through a smaller home loan. Eligible participants will be able to access the scheme through participating lenders, alongside a standard mortgage. Housing Australia will then provide the Commonwealth's equity contribution through a loan arrangement secured against the property. Housing Australia will be funded by a special appropriation to enter into Help to Buy arrangements and will return funds to the Commonwealth when equity is repaid. The Minister for Housing will provide written directions to Housing Australia on the operation of the scheme, including decision-making criteria for entering into Help to Buy arrangements. The bill also contains provisions enabling states to pass legislation for their constituents to participate in the scheme. All Australian states have agreed in principle to participate in the scheme. Help to Buy will be open to people who have owned homes before and those who haven't. It will help couples, siblings and singles alike, including those who are close to retirement, those just starting out in the workforce and anyone eligible in between. This is a historic commitment by the Albanese government because we understand what buying a house means to Australians. For most, it is the single biggest investment that they will make in their lifetime, but it's about much more than that. It's giving people the certainty of homeownership, an opportunity to live in their community and the chance to create opportunities for their families. Delivery on Help to Buy, alongside the Housing Australia Future Fund, the social housing accelerator payment and the National Housing Accord, will mean more Australians will have a safe and affordable place to call home. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. In Committee 4 12:21 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Help to Buy Bill 2023. 12:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—In respect of the Help to Buy Bill 2023, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3160 together: (1) Clause 25, page 17 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Directions in the Help to Buy Program Directions about the matter mentioned in paragraph (2)(c) must require housing Australia to prioritise entering into Help to Buy arrangements in relation to priority residential properties. (2B) Directions in the Help to Buy Program Directions about the matter mentioned in paragraph (2)(d) must provide that the Commonwealth's maximum contribution under a Help to Buy arrangement in relation to a residential property is: (a) if the property is a priority residential property—40% of the cost of acquiring the property; and (b) otherwise—30% of the cost of acquiring the property. (2C) For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2B), a priority residential property is a residential property that: (a) will be, is being or has been built; and (b) has not been previously occupied; and (c) is or will be a Class 2 building (within the meaning of the National Construction Code); and (d) is or will be located within 800 metres of a train or light rail station, a tram, bus or ferry stop, or any other public transport service that is frequently available for use by the public. (2) Clause 26, page 18 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The Minister must not give a direction under paragraph 24(1)(a) that has, or is likely to have, the effect of: (a) requiring a party to a Help to Buy arrangement to repay an amount to the Commonwealth if the party's income exceeds a specified threshold; or (b) requiring the Board or Housing Australia to terminate a Help to Buy arrangement if the income of a party to the arrangement exceeds a specified threshold. Despite months of keeping our doors open and despite months of offers to compromise and negotiate on securing some housing policies that will actually impact people's lives, Labor have refused to budge and made it clear that they don't care about the depth and the extent of the housing crisis. Last year, the Greens secured $3 billion in new investments for social housing, which is six times more than what the government has proposed to spend. This year, despite the need being even greater, the government has snubbed every opportunity to work together with the Greens again, and we are—we have to admit this—bitterly disappointed that Labor has turned down an opportunity to house up to 60,000 people currently on the brink of homelessness. The government's build-to-rent and Help to Buy schemes sound nice, but they really are just tinkering around the edges. The Greens will, however, pass the government's bills, both build to rent and Help to Buy, because we're now just months away from an election and we want to focus on keeping Mr Dutton and his fearmongering and politics-of-division coalition out of the Lodge. That is going to be our focus. There does come a point in every negotiation where you've pushed as far as you can, and we have reached that point. We have tried so hard to get Labor to shift on soaring rents and negative gearing, but we couldn't get there this time around. So we'll wave these housing bills through and take the fight to the next election, where we will keep Peter Dutton out and we will fight even harder for renters and first home buyers. We will wave through Labor's Help to Buy Bill and also Labor's build-to-rent bill after accepting that Labor doesn't care enough about first home buyers to do anything really meaningful for them, like scrapping the unfair tax handouts to property investors that drive up house prices or establishing a public developer to build and sell homes cheaply to save first home buyers up to $249,000. The bill we're debating is deeply inadequate for the—really, you can call it monstrous—affordability crisis facing first home buyers, because, for the average family, the typical home costs eight times their income. It now takes 10 years to save for a deposit. If they've managed to save one, mortgage repayments could take up to 60 per cent of their income. How is that fair? Help to Buy tinkers around the edges, helping, at most, 0.2 per cent of renters every year and leaving the other 99.8 per cent behind to face a brutal housing system and doing nothing to address the out-of-control house price rises, which have really made it impossible to buy a house in most cities around the country. We've also tried our best to work with Labor to secure changes to investor tax concessions that could see up to 770,000 renters become homeowners, but, like I said earlier, we have come to a point where Labor doesn't want to do anything more than just tinker around the edges. So here we are. But we will make one more attempt to make this bill better. That's what these amendments are about. Through amendment (1) on sheet 3160 we are trying to secure changes that would encourage the affordable well-located medium-density housing our cities need that isn't being delivered. It is not being delivered by profit focused developers. We want to do that, rather than simply having an inflationary effect on the cost of existing housing and new-build suburban sprawl. This amendment would require Housing Australia to prioritise properties for the Help to Buy program that support the delivery of new affordable homes in medium- and high-density locations that are close to public housing. This would ensure that this bill delivers the housing that we need, rather than simply driving up the prices of existing homes. If the government were serious about delivering on the housing crisis and ensuring that the bill is fit for purpose, then they would support this amendment. The second amendment prohibits the minister from directing that a participant in the Help to Buy program must repay the government share of their homes if they exceed the income threshold, following their successful entry into the program. The income thresholds are already so low. If the bill passes as is, participants may be penalised for changed circumstances, even after they have been able to buy a property. This income trap is really unfair. This amendment would ensure that Help to Buy homes remain affordable throughout the buyer's lifetime, without penalties for people going through any changing circumstances. I commend both the amendments to the Senate. 12:28 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I indicate that we will not be supporting this bill or these amendments. The reason for that is that we believe that the government, having presided over a massive collapse in housing construction—from as high as 220,000 houses in 2018 down to 160,000 houses this year, the same amount of houses that we had in 1989 when the population was just 17 million—has created a terrible situation for so many, particularly younger, Australians—millennials, gen Z—who feel that the Australian dream is out of reach for them. A large part of that is because of the collapse in housing construction. It's very hard to solve this problem of housing—we all care about housing—unless you get the houses built. Ultimately, the numbers don't lie. We're down to 160,000 houses this year. So we are in a terrible position in this country on the supply side. The government, seemingly having given up on supply, now wants us to consider a demand-side bill for which no modelling has been done by the government on its impact and which is very clearly only going to work at the absolute margins for very few people. These shared-equity schemes have been massively unpopular for cultural reasons. Australians do not want to co-own their house with any government, and the reason that these schemes have been so unpopular at the state and territory level is all the problems that that proposes. The Australian dream is not about co-owning your house with Mr Albanese or any government. These shared-equity schemes have been undersubscribed at the state level, and so the idea that the Commonwealth would come in now and seek to put in place a shared-equity scheme as their only demand-side measure, without any other consideration of other demand-side policies that they may be able to deploy to support what is ultimately a supply challenge, is very regrettable. So we are opposed to the Help to Buy Bill for cultural reasons. But we are also opposed to it because it is not very imaginative. There are other things that the government could have done to help people with a deposit. They could have opened up superannuation, but they don't want to do that because that doesn't suit their vested interests. They could have looked at the lending laws. It's pretty hard to get a first house without a mortgage, but they haven't bothered to look at the mortgage rules. This is their only policy. As we traversed this at Senate estimates with Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, she made it very clear that this is the government's only demand-side policy. This is it—a friendless shared-equity scheme, one that will cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion and offer a maximum of 40,000 places. To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, we need to be building about a quarter of a million houses a year in this country. This is a tiny but very expensive scheme which has already proven to be very unpopular. I indicate that we will be opposing this bill. We will be opposing all of the amendments in this debate, and I look forward to asking some questions now we're in committee of the whole. I might see if others want to make a contribution before I do that. 12:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I have questions. I asked three questions in my speech in the second reading debate. My first question goes to the minister. It seems that the government will essentially become the second mortgagor to a bank on a home loan. In the event of a default or price fall, is a bank entitled to recover all of its losses before the government recovers any money, due to this priority? Secondly, what is the priority of security the government holds compared to the bank mortgage? The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 We will go back to Senator Faruqi's amendments and then come back to open and broad debate. 12:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government will not be supporting either of the amendments from the Greens. I'll go into further detail if required, but the basis for this is that the legislation must match the legislation in the states and the territories for it to be properly founded. That makes the referral of powers valid and ensures that the legislation is constitutional. The legislation already passed in Queensland earlier this year. So, as a matter of process, that means that the government is unable to support that amendment. However, on the substance, we believe that Australians should have housing choices. If Australians want to live next to a train station close to the city or on a farm in the bush, that's their choice. It's not a choice for government. In relation to the second amendment, we have the same objection—that is, the legislation has already been passed in Queensland, and the government wants to ensure that the referral of powers is valid and constitutional. However, on the substance of the proposition that sits behind the amendment, it is a matter for ministerial program directions, not the legislation before the Senate right now. The program directions make it very clear that, if a participant earns above the income caps and cannot pay the government's share, they won't be required to. But, if someone can—for example, if someone earns a million dollars—we should expect them to start to pay back the taxpayer and expect this money to be recycled through the scheme to support other low- and middle-income Australians. Section 36(11) of the program directions notes that 'Housing Australia may not seek payment in certain circumstances' after considering 'the participant's personal circumstance and financial capacity'. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that Australian Greens' amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3160 be agreed to. Question negatived. 12:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Shall I respond to Senator Roberts's question? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That would be helpful. Senator AYRES 16913 There are two questions, I think, sitting in Senator Roberts's question. Will the government own people's homes or will the government be on the title? The answer to that is very straightforward. Contrary to Senator Bragg's political assertion, the government will not be a co-owner of scheme properties and will not be on the title; rather, the government's contribution in participants' homes will be secured through a second mortgage. The government's interest is more akin to a private mortgage holder. Help to Buy applicants will need to be approved for a mortgage with a lender participating in the scheme. That is the role that lenders will have in the Help to Buy scheme. Lenders will manage those mortgages just as they typically do with other home loans. 12:37 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Thank you, Minister. Just to confirm, the bank or the lender would be the first mortgagor and the government would be the second? 12:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes, that's exactly right, and there are, of course, other arrangements that people have in the private sector that that will look very similar—that is, for the participant, the relationship with the approved lender and the second mortgage will be exactly the same as other Australians have, but there will be a lower mortgage threshold and lower repayments for that group of Australians who satisfy the criteria. 12:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In the event of a default or price fall, is the bank entitled to recover its losses before the government does? That would seem to be the case. 12:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. Just like in an arrangement that you might have or any other Queenslander might have with their lender, there are shared risks and shared benefits. 12:38 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, can I take you to the price caps. What is the price cap in Sydney? 12:39 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In Sydney, for the capital city and for regional centres, the price cap will be $950,000. 12:39 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales What does the median dwelling cost in New South Wales? 12:39 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think I heard you say it earlier, and I think you said $1.2 million in terms of Sydney properties. Certainly, the median price is above the price cap for this scheme. It is directed towards properties that are more affordable. I think that's what Australians would expect for a scheme of this nature. 12:40 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, what is the Help to Buy cap in Queensland—Brisbane? 12:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales For Queensland—for its capital, Brisbane, and for regional centres—the price cap will be $700,000. 12:40 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Thank you. And what is the median dwelling price in Queensland? 12:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I don't have the median dwelling prices for Brisbane or Queensland in front of me, but you can take it from each of the examples that you have taken me to, or may intend to take me to, that the median prices are almost certainly higher than the price cap contained in this scheme, for the reasons that I set out earlier. 12:41 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Is the government concerned that the cap on this scheme is so low, in some cases 20 per cent below the median dwelling price, that this is not a product that is going to be available in any way to the average income earner? 12:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Could I make a couple of observations. Firstly, for first home buyers in, for example, Sydney's suburbs the prices that first home buyers pay for homes are, as you would expect, lower than the median price. That's the first point. The second point is that this scheme is aimed at supporting Australians to achieve ownership by enabling them to purchase moderately priced homes—that is, it is not designed for the top end of the market—and the property price caps reflect that objective of the scheme. Of course, they will need to be adjusted over time, and the scheme of the legislation allows that to happen as the market in Australian real estate develops. 12:42 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The scheme is not designed for the top end of town, but it's also not designed for the average income earner, is it? 12:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales This scheme is certainly targeted for nurses and teachers and people who work in our police services or in retail. They may not be people who the Liberal Party of Australia cares about, but, under this scheme, every year 10,000 of them will have a more affordable deposit and a more affordable mortgage. In the suburbs of Sydney, if you are a retail worker or you work as a storeman and packer or you're in a moderate- or low-income job—perhaps two of you in your family—what you know is that this scheme is there for 10,000 people just like you and that it offers a benefit for a targeted part of the Australian market. It is not designed to deal with the big challenges in the supply of housing, and all of those questions that the rest of the government's housing scheme is directed towards—albeit, I understand, you and the Liberals and Mr Dutton oppose all of it, consistent with a pattern of no action over a decade. It is designed to support Australians who want to purchase moderately priced homes. 12:44 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, the research organisation PropTrack found that, in relation to these Help to Buy caps in Sydney, a Sydneysider would be unable to purchase 96 per cent of the homes using the Help to Buy scheme. What does the government say in relation to this data? It doesn't seem to be targeted at the average income earner. It doesn't seem to be targeted, almost, at anyone. 12:45 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The average first home buyer purchase is $480,000. Compared to the median, that's quite a moderate figure. That is the average for first home purchases in Australia. There are people who have purchased a home before who, because of their work experiences or otherwise, will struggle to purchase a home and would be eligible for this scheme, but it is, of course, directed towards low- and moderate-income Australians who can pay a mortgage and assemble a deposit but not at the level that they would be required to in the private market. This provides a leg-up for, as I said, the nurses and teachers and police and retail workers and truck drivers of Australia. 12:46 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I might just ask you to clarify whether that was an average figure you were using across Australia or whether that was a Sydney figure. 12:46 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales An average figure for Australia under the previous government's Home Guarantee Scheme was $480,000, if I can offer that clarity. 12:46 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, if the government says it's such a good idea, why does it only go for four years and end? Secondly, I know we've only got a few minutes left of this, but, coming to the end of your government's first term, why haven't we had a national housing and homelessness plan yet? 12:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales If I can approach that first question first, Senator Pocock, the objective of 10,000 homes per year is set out over the forwards. The government, should we be re-elected—because, if Mr Dutton is elected, that will be the end of the hopes and dreams of schoolteachers, nurses, retail workers and truck drivers to have the government support their ambition for them and their families and their children to stable homeownership in the Australian real estate market. That would be the end. A Dutton prime ministership would go back to the same old sitting on the hands, no action, driving the housing industry off a cliff in terms of capacity. This government, should we be re-elected with this scheme in operation, will watch it closely. In the event that we can support extending it based upon the performance of the program, of course, it's open to the government to do that. As the government starts to achieve a return as money is reinvested, that will provide a basis for further confidence in the further operation of the scheme. This government, if I can deal with your second question, has a very bold set of propositions on housing reform. It is opposed by Mr Dutton and Mr Joyce and whoever else there is in what passes for the leadership of the Liberals and Nationals at the moment. There is a scheme there, a set of schemes that are very ambitious and a set of targets that are directed towards the supply of housing. Of course, I hope that we will get to traverse these in Senate estimates over the coming years as you test us out on the performance of some of these measures over time. 12:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thanks, Minister. You dodged my question on why you don't have a national housing and homelessness plan. You committed to one. You've been doing ongoing consultation for months and months. It seems pretty convenient that we're in the last sitting week of the term, and there's still no plan, yet you're willing to cook up other legislation in a matter of weeks and ram it through this place. But on something so fundamental as housing and on having a plan to get us out of this hole that is thanks to the duopoly, thanks to the major parties—absolutely, the coalition have to take a lot of the blame for basically vacating this space, cooking up HomeBuilder, overcooking the building market. Now, under Labor, we've seen approvals go off an absolute cliff. Where is the plan? Why are you averse to putting one forward? 12:50 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm advised by the team here that a document to which you're directing your comments will be provided in good time before the next election. But a plan in and of itself sits alongside action. We have come off the back of a decade of inaction—no public housing being built and no social housing being built for a wasted decade. TAFE training was driven into the ground by this show, by the Liberals and Nationals. All of the capacity constraints were made worse and worse and worse and worse, and there was no cooperation with the states and territories—zero meetings with the states and territories over five long years. Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton pointed the finger of blame, but there was no cooperation on those questions. They say that it all went okay when they were in government. It's a bit like saying that the Rabbitohs went okay in 2014 because I was jogging around the Block in those days. It's just nonsense. This show did nothing for a decade. We are turning that ship around with a very bold and ambitious program, and much of it is directed to housing supply. The negative Nancies over there who say no and are obsessed with negativity will of course say Australians can't achieve these targets. We say that cooperation with the states and territories and partnerships with private industry, the investment community—including Senator Bragg's enemies in the investment community and superannuation community—and the building industry is the work, led by a Labor government, that will produce results. This program is directed towards supporting 10,000 Australians every year to get a leg up. 12:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I can see why the major parties are trying to stitch up electoral reform, when your best pitch to voters is, 'We're not as bad as the coalition.' Starting with a plan seems the logical place, for me. It's really disappointing that, after the promise to have a plan, almost three years later you're saying, 'We're still working on it, and we hope to take it to the election.' I'm interested, if you have the data on you, in how many properties there are currently for sale in the ACT that someone on $90,000 would be able to buy under this scheme, given you were talking about teachers and nurses et cetera. 12:54 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales We don't have that figure to provide to you today. The answer is that there needs to be more. This scheme provides for 10,000 Australians, including people lucky enough to live in the ACT and to have access to moderately priced homes with support from the government. I don't think any sensible person could oppose that proposition. It must of course be supplemented by the broader measures the government is undertaking in terms of housing supply, and that is going to involve an enormous cooperative effort not just from the Commonwealth government but from the states and territories, private industry, the development community and the investment community. That is the serious work the government is engaged in. 12:55 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, how many of the states and territories have passed the requisite legislation to enact the scheme? 12:56 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The great state of Queensland has passed legislation, and all the states have indicated in-principle support for the Help to Buy legislation package and whatever enabling legislation is required. 12:56 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales So one state has passed the enabling legislation. Does the government have a view on why the scheme hasn't been more popular, given there have been shared-equity schemes available in various states and territories? Why have they been undersubscribed? 12:56 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The first point is that Australians have been waiting for this Senate to do its job and pass the legislation, and delays have consequences for ordinary people. It might not have consequences for people in this place. It has consequences if you're a nurse or a teacher trying to get a house; it has had consequences for 10,000 of them. Secondly, I assume states and territories, with the passage of this legislation and the certainty that that provides, will not want their citizens locked out of capacity to access the scheme. Thirdly, while there are other similar schemes in some of the states and territories—I'm advised that in Western Australia 100,000 people, over time, have benefited from a similar scheme, though it doesn't have exactly the same architecture—the states and territories will be very keen to make sure that New South Wales people, Victorians, South Australians, Western Australians and Tasmanians all have access to this scheme. 12:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, the income thresholds are set at $90,000 for singles and $120,000 for married couples. This is set nationally, despite the average house price varying from $504,000 in Darwin to $1.2 million in Sydney. My first question is: why are you not adjusting the income threshold from state to state? My second question is: if an Australian who enters into the Help to Buy arrangement, where the government owns part of their home, renovates their home at their own expense, spending sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours swinging hammers and pulling up carpet, and as a result of their renovations their $500,000 home increases in value to $600,000, how much of that Australian's renovation profit will the government take for doing nothing? 12:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In what I calculate to be a very short amount of time, I will try and answer both those questions like an auctioneer—and more people will be able to go to auctions and bid successfully at auctions because of this scheme. If I can answer in reverse order: the scheme manages that issue. If participants do renovations to their homes, those renovations will be valued and they will reap the benefit of those renovations. That is very clear in terms of the ministerial direction and the scheme. You're right that the relative position of income thresholds means different things in different states. It is a different position. However, the scheme must be simple to manage. Reluctant as I am to venture a bush lawyer's opinion, I think constitutionally it's more sound if it's consistent across the Commonwealth. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Order! It being 1 pm, pursuant to the order agreed to on 18 September 2024, the time for consideration of these bills has expired. I will now deal with the remaining Committee of the Whole amendments to the Help to Buy Bill 2023, starting with the amendment circulated by the government. The question is that the government amendments on sheet PC106 be agreed to. Government's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 34, page 24 (line 28), omit "subsections 42(1) to (3)", substitute "section 41, 41A or 42". (2) Clause 34, page 24 (lines 29 to 31), omit the note. (3) Clause 42, page 29 (line 21) to page 32 (line 7), omit the clause, substitute: 41A When Help to Buy program does not apply — exclusion by law of State or Territory (1) This section applies if a law of a participating State, a cooperating State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory declares a matter to be an excluded matter for the purposes of this section in relation to: (a) the whole of the Help to Buy program; or (b) a specified provision of the Help to Buy program; or (c) the Help to Buy program, other than a specified provision; or (d) the Help to Buy program, otherwise than to a specified extent. (2) The Help to Buy program, other than the provisions mentioned in section 42B, does not apply in relation to the excluded matter to the extent provided by the declaration. Note: This subsection has effect subject to subsection (3) and section 42C. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a declaration to the extent (if any) prescribed by the regulations. Note: See also section 42A (when declarations and regulations may take effect). 42 Avoiding inconsistency with State and Territory laws (1) This section has effect despite anything else in the Help to Buy program. (2) Subsection (4) does not apply to a provision of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of concurrent operation with the Help to Buy program. Note: This kind of provision is dealt with by section 41. (3) Subsection (4) applies to the interaction between: (a) a provision of a law of a participating State, a cooperating State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory (the displacement provision); and (b) a provision of the Help to Buy program (the Commonwealth provision), other than a provision mentioned in section 42B; only if the displacement provision is declared by a law of the State or Territory to be a Help to Buy program displacement provision for the purposes of this section (either generally or specifically in relation to the Commonwealth provision). (4) The Commonwealth provision does not operate in, or in relation to, the State or Territory to the extent necessary to ensure that no inconsistency arises between: (a) the Commonwealth provision; and (b) the displacement provision to the extent to which the displacement provision would, apart from this subsection, be inconsistent with the Commonwealth provision. Note 1: The operation of the displacement provision will be supported by section 41 to the extent to which it can operate concurrently with the Commonwealth provision. Note 2: This subsection has effect subject to subsection (5) and section 42C. (5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to the displacement provision to the extent to which the regulations provide that the subsection does not apply in relation to the displacement provision. Note: See also section 42A (when declarations and regulations may take effect). 42A Declarations and regulations Declarations (1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a declaration by a law of a State or Territory (the declaring law) that: (a) a matter is an excluded matter for the purposes of section 41A; or (b) a provision of a law of the State or Territory is a Help to Buy program displacement provision for the purposes of section 42; takes effect at the later of the following times, if the declaration would otherwise take effect before that time: (c) the commencement of this Act; (d) when the declaring law is enacted or made. Regulations (2) Subsection 12(2) of the Legislation Act 2003 (retrospective application) does not apply in relation to regulations made for the purposes of subsection 41A(3) or 42(5) of this Act. (3) Section 46 (approval of States and Territories required for regulations) does not apply in relation to regulations made for the purposes of subsection 41A(3) or 42(5). 42B Excluded provisions A reference in subsection 41A(2) or 42(3) of this Act to the Help to Buy program does not include a reference to: (a) Part 4 of this Act (finance); or (b) this Division; or (c) Division 3 of this Part (other miscellaneous matters); or (d) regulations made for the purposes of a provision mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this section; or (e) a legislative instrument (other than regulations) made under a provision mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c). 42C Preservation of Commonwealth entitlement and security (1) If: (a) disregarding sections 41A and 42 and this section, Housing Australia, on behalf of the Commonwealth: (i) is entitled under a Help to Buy arrangement to a return on a contribution made under the Help to Buy arrangement; or (ii) under a Help to Buy arrangement, secures such an entitlement by means of a mortgage or other right relating to a residential property; and (b) apart from this subsection, an effect of section 41A or 42 would be: (i) that Housing Australia is not entitled to that return, or does not secure that entitlement in that way; or (ii) to diminish or restrict that entitlement or security or Housing Australia's functions or powers in relation to that entitlement or security; section 41A or 42 does not apply to the extent that it would otherwise have the effect described in paragraph (b) of this subsection. (2) To avoid doubt, in subsection (1): (a) a reference to a Help to Buy arrangement includes a reference to a Help to Buy arrangement that Housing Australia would be taken to have entered into if section 41A or 42 were disregarded; and (b) a reference to a contribution made under a Help to Buy arrangement includes a reference to a contribution Housing Australia would be taken to have made, on behalf of the Commonwealth, under a Help to Buy arrangement if section 41A or 42 were disregarded; and (c) a reference to Housing Australia's functions or powers in relation to an entitlement or security includes a reference to Housing Australia's functions or powers in relation to a Help to Buy arrangement, to the extent that the Help to Buy arrangement relates to the entitlement or security. 42D Modification of Help to Buy program (1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, modify the operation of the Help to Buy program if the Minister is satisfied that modification is necessary or desirable because of the effect of section 41A or 42 on the operation of a provision of the Help to Buy program. (2) To avoid doubt: (a) without limiting subsection (1) of this section, the Minister may make an instrument under that subsection because of an effect that section 41A or 42 might or will have in the future; and (b) a modification made by such an instrument must not commence before section 41A or 42 begins to have that effect. (3) To avoid doubt, a legislative instrument made under subsection (1) of this section may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of: (i) arrest or detention; or (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act; (e) directly amend the text of this Act; (f) substantively remove or override section 41A or 42.    

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

 36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 5 PAIRS Farrell, D. E. Canavan, M. J. Gallagher, K. R. Smith, D. A. Lines, S. McKenzie, B. Pratt, L. C. Brockman, W. E. Wong, P. Birmingham, S. J.

Question agreed to.

 13:08 The CHAIR 287062 The question is that the amendments on sheets 2850 and 2851, as circulated by Senators David Pocock, Lambie and Van, be agreed to. Senator David Pocock 's , the Jacqui Lambie Network 's and Senator Van's circulated amendments— SHEET 2850 (1) Clause 45, page 33 (after line 22), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the extent to which the operation of the Help to Buy program has: (a) assisted in enabling access to home ownership for those otherwise likely to have been permanently excluded from home ownership; and (b) assisted in enabling access to home ownership more quickly than likely to have been achieved without the Help to Buy program; and (c) effectively integrated with other Commonwealth, state and territory first home buyer assistance programs, as envisaged in the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. _____ SHEET 2851 (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 13 to 18), omit the clause, substitute: 3 Object of this Act The object of this Act is to give Housing Australia the function of entering into shared equity arrangements on behalf of the Commonwealth in relation to residential property to improve housing outcomes for as many Australians as possible by assisting low-income and middle-income individuals to buy homes, with a particular focus on improving housing outcomes for historically disadvantaged Australians including older women and First Nations peoples, and to enable individuals facing mortgage repossession and possible homelessness to remain in home ownership. (2) Clause 25, page 17 (lines 14 to 17), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b). (3) Clause 25, page 17 (after line 21), after subclause 25(2), insert: (2A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Help to Buy Program Directions must include directions about the following matters relating to Help to Buy arrangements: (a) a requirement for Housing Australia to enter into, as far as practicable, a minimum of 30,000 Help to Buy arrangements in each financial year; (b) a requirement for Housing Australia to ensure, as far as practicable, that at least one third of the total number of Help to Buy arrangements in each financial year are entered into with older women or First Nations peoples. (4) Clause 26, page 18 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The Minister must not give a direction under paragraph 24(1)(a) that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly limiting: (a) the period during which Housing Australia may enter into Help to Buy arrangements; or (b) the total number of residential properties in relation to which Housing Australia may enter into Help to Buy arrangements.      

The committee divided. [13:08]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 38 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. 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. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:11 The CHAIR 287062 I will now deal with the amendments to the Help to Buy Bill 2023 circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2902 circulated by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 24, page 16 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The first instrument made under subsection (1) must include a direction about the matter covered by subsection 25(2A). Note: The instrument may also include directions about other matters. (2) Clause 25, page 17 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert: Priority Help to Buy arrangements (2A) The matter covered by this subsection is the prioritisation by Housing Australia of Help to Buy arrangements that are for the benefit of persons who are one or more of the following: (a) a person with disability; (b) a First Nations person; (c) an older woman; so that the following occurs: (d) 10% of Help to Buy arrangements entered into (not including the arrangements covered by paragraph (e) or (f)) are for the benefit of persons with disability; (e) 10% of Help to Buy arrangements entered into (not including the arrangements covered by paragraph (d) or (f)) are for the benefit of First Nations persons; (f) 10% of Help to Buy arrangements entered into (not including the arrangements covered by paragraph (d) or (e)) are for the benefit of older women. (2B) A direction about the matter covered by subsection (2A) must set out the criteria for prioritising Help to Buy arrangements as outlined in that subsection.    

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

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 38 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. 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. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Help to Buy Bill 2023, as amended, agreed to; Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 agreed to.
Help to Buy Bill 2023 reported with amendments; Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 reported without amendment; report adopted.

 Third Reading 15 13:15 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [13:20]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 5 PAIRS Farrell, D. E. Canavan, M. J. Gallagher, K. R. Smith, D. A. Lines, S. McKenzie, B. Pratt, L. C. Brockman, W. E. Wong, P. Birmingham, S. J.

Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.

 Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 16

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

In Committee 16 13:23 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The committee is considering the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The votes on those amendments will now be held, starting with the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi on sheet 2949. The question is that the Greens amendments on sheet 2949 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Part 1". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 3 to 6), omit the table items. (3) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 28 (line 10), omit the Schedule, substitute: Schedule 1 — Ending HELP indexation Higher Education Support Act 2003 1 Subsection 140-5(1) Repeal the subsection (not including the method statement), substitute: (1) A person's former accumulated HELP debt, in relation to the person's *accumulated HELP debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement: 2 Sections 140-10 and 140-20 Repeal the sections. 3 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1 (definition of HELP debt indexation factor ) Repeal the definition. 4 Application of amendments The amendments of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a person's *accumulated HELP debt for a financial year that begins on or after 1 July 2025.        

The committee divided. [13:28]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Progress reported.

 13:30 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 It being 1.30 pm, we will now move to statements by senators. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 17 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Schulze, Mr Ralph Robert, AM 17 13:30 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales This afternoon, at St Nicholas Catholic Church in Tamworth, we will lay to rest Ralph Schulze. He was a tremendous man and a dedicated life member of the Nationals, but Ralph was more than just that. He is widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Australian cotton industry, thanks to his work, dating all the way back to 1960, on agronomy trials. He was a true pioneer in this space. He led a life of service to his community, an effort he was duly and deservingly recognised for in 2015 when we was awarded the Member of the Order of Australia for his significant contribution to primary industry through research and innovation. Ralph's service and dedication to communities like Dubbo, Gwydir, Parkes, New England, Barwon and Tamworth demonstrated the passion he held for the regions throughout his life. Importantly, Ralph's legacy and impact on the National Party is truly beyond comparison. He was a vice-chairman to successive state chairmen, a trustee, a long-term central councillor and member of our central executive. On behalf of the entire Nationals family, I extend my condolences and say thank you to Ralph for his tireless efforts for this country and for our party. Ralph was a man whom we should all look to as an example of what can be accomplished in the course of one's lifetime. It's truly inspiring. He graced us with his kindness and knowledge. For those who knew him well, the indelible impact he has had will not be forgotten. Ralph will be fondly remembered and sadly missed. International Students 17 13:32 Senator 168275 New South Wales SHELDON () (): I had some problems trying to get this through the last Senate two-minute statements, so here we go. There's an old saying that goes: when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar, deny it's your hand. Senator Henderson has given an award-winning rendition. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that, just weeks before her humiliating backflip on international student caps, she headlined an event for migration agents, including Liberal Party donors, whose business is helping international students extend their stay in Australia. The migration agent hosting the event was the secretary of the Rouse Hill Liberal Party. You couldn't make that up, could you? It doesn't stop there. The shadow immigration minister, Dan Tehan, had a private breakfast with migration agents the day before announcing he would oppose the bill. The shadow education and immigration ministers have outsourced policy writing to their donors. The Leader of the Opposition is out there dog whistling, saying that international students are the new boat people, but they're fundraising from the visa agents helping international students stay in the country after their study visa has finished. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson, a point of order? Senator Henderson ZN4 Imputing motive. I've made it very clear that there was no fundraising, and Senator Sheldon is deliberately misleading the Senate. I ask him to withdraw. It's a deliberate tactic by Senator Sheldon and he knows it's false. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Please resume your seat, Senator Henderson. Senator Sterle e68 You can dish it out but you can't take it! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Sterle! Order! Senator Ayres? Senator Ayres 16913 On the point of order, Acting Deputy President: that's a debating point, not a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Please resume your seat, Senator Henderson. Thank you for your assistance, Senator Ayres, but it is my— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 I'm going to remind the chamber—thank you. In my view, it's a debating point. I will listen. Senator Sheldon, please resume. Senator SHELDON 168275 They've got one hand on the whistle and the other hand in the jar. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, this hypocrisy is creating a lot of confusion. I quote: Several shadow ministers and backbenchers said there was frustration in the party room about how the Coalition reached the position, with some left confused about how to articulate it publicly. Well, I'll tell you, it's not that confusing. Those migration agents are getting their money's worth out of Senator Henderson and it's her hand in the jar. Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 He is imputing improper motive. Senator Sheldon's claim is absolutely disgraceful and false, and I would ask that he withdraw it. He knows it to be false—I've already given a personal explanation in the Senate—and it shows how grubby the party across there is that they would do this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Thank you, Senator— Senator Henderson ZN4 You know it's wrong. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson, you've made your point. Please resume your seat. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson, I can't rule while you are still speaking, and I have asked you to resume your seat. Please resume your seat, Senator Ayres. I believe the concern is around the phrase 'hand in the cookie jar'. Senator Henderson ZN4 It's false! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 you're making it very hard for me to do my job when you keep interjecting. Senator Sheldon, I believe that the concern is around the imputation in the line 'hand in the cookie jar'. It would assist the chamber if you would withdraw that part of your statement. Senator SHELDON 168275 If it assists the chamber, and I'll read this—I know I've still got 14 minutes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Seconds. Senator SHELDON 168275 Seconds, sorry, not 14 minutes. Those migration agents are getting their money's worth when the Liberal and National parties have their hand in the cookie jar. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order: Acting Deputy President, you asked Senator Sheldon to withdraw. He failed to withdraw and then he repeated the very allegation he knows to be false, after you asked him to withdraw that allegation. That is absolutely improper, and I would ask that you again ask him to withdraw. Senator Sterle e68 Sit down! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Sterle, those comments are inappropriate. I would like you to sit quietly while I hear the point of order and then rule on that point of order. I did not hear a withdrawal. I do believe that what was said after that talked about parties, not people, but I didn't hear a withdrawal for the original remark. If you could withdraw the original remark, Senator Sheldon, that would assist the chamber. Senator SHELDON 168275 I'm more than happy to assist the chamber and I withdraw my original remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Thank you. Middle East 19 13:38 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Liberal Party's unconditional support for Israel's war on Gaza, in the face of mounting war crimes and an active genocide, is a moral abomination. These so-called liberals have seen the photos of the dead children, they've heard the cries of grieving Palestinian families, and they've decided they want more. Their bloodthirsty eagerness for the lives of Arab people is a grotesque display of white supremacy. The law and order they've supported for decades now apparently includes cheerleading for the death of innocent people and excusing genocide and war crimes. Their leader talks tough about keeping out foreign criminals, but now they've finally found criminals they're happy to hand out visas to, as long as the victims of those people are Palestinians. The Liberals have chosen a side in Gaza. It's the side of the drones, it's the side of the tanks, it's the side of the bombs and it's the side of the massacres of innocent people. Their actions over the last 12 months have left an indelible stain on their party because they are sending a message to the world that Palestinian lives are expendable. They are isolating Australia from the global community, and they are dragging our country collectively deeper into complicity in one of the gravest humanitarian crises of our time, an unfolding genocide that has cost the lives of many, tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians. Here is a message to the Labor and Liberal parties: history will condemn those who remain silent or, even worse, cheer from the sidelines while genocide is underway. Labor Government: Forestry 19 13:40 Senator 263418 Tasmania DUNIAM (—) (): It's the last week of parliament. As you would expect, a government desperate to get its agenda through is seeking to do whatever it can to achieve its legislative aims. I want to talk about forestry. I get a sense based on what I've read today that there's a dirty deal in the offing between the Labor Party and the Greens over forestry, would you believe—this party that frames itself up as the friend of the worker, though certainly not the salmon worker and, it appears now, not the forestry worker either. After two-and-a-half years of failed agenda on environmental law reform, where this government promised we'd have new laws in the parliament to debate to be able to protect the environment, protect the economy and create jobs, we've got nothing, diddly squat. The fact is that this government, desperate to get a win before this parliamentary term ends, will do whatever it takes. So what is the cost? What is the price that's going to be paid to get this deal across the line with the Greens to support this ridiculous legislation to set up a new Green bureaucracy that won't save a single endangered species and certainly will do nothing for the economy? I suspect that it will be the jobs of hardworking, honest men and women in states like Tasmania and New South Wales, where Labor don't care about industries like native forestry. We will see the Labor Party return to form and get into bed with their natural bedfellows, the Australian Greens, to knock on the head this thriving, sustainable and science based industry—whatever it takes to get a win in this parliament, whatever it takes to make up for not having delivered what they promised the Australians at the last election and indeed promised this parliament we'd have before this Senate chamber before the end of last year. It's almost the end of 2024, and we have nothing. So this will be the price. There shouldn't be a single senator in this place that supports a dodgy deal like this, but I bet you there will be. (Time expired) Workplace Relations: Amazon 19 13:42 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Australia has adopted a lot of retail practices and policies from the United States, but one thing we must never adopt is the American way in which they treat their workers. There can be no greater example of a road we should never go down than the way that the global guerrilla Amazon treats it workers. So, in the lead-up to the American retail marketing campaign of Black Friday sales, I would like to remind colleagues of the combined campaign from the TWU and the SDA to make Amazon pay. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that workers who are employed in Amazon warehouses—or 'fulfilment centres', as those at the guerrilla's head office like to call them—are under constant surveillance. They are scanned, filmed and tracked for the entire time they are there. The information gathered from this surveillance is then used to try and force the workers to work even more quickly. They are forced to increase the speed at which they walk to collect items. The number of bathroom breaks workers take are also monitored, as is the length of the break. Amazon uses different technologies to track their delivery drivers, which puts added pressure on the drivers to increase their speed and maximise the number of deliveries they complete. Bit by bit, Amazon surveillance of their workforce is making its way into the Australian 'fulfilment centres'. While management at the guerrilla's head office might claim that all of this surveillance is in the interests of the workers' safety and productivity, we know that they have an ulterior motive. For starters, they use their surveillance cameras to spy on who workers are talking to. If a worker is caught on camera talking to a workplace delegate or a union organiser, they are singled out. If a worker is caught talking to a fellow worker and offering them comfort and support, they are singled out. This is the ugly side of the US approach to industrial relations and must not be allowed to take hold here. By continuing to rely on workers that have insecure working arrangements, Amazon seeks to make sure they have very limited obligations to their employees by denying them access to unfair dismissal arrangements and other entitlements. Chinese Communist Party 20 13:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Last week the Chinese Communist Party's control of Hong Kong was made very clear to the world. Hong Kong's once proud, independent and democratic, now communist controlled, judicial system sentenced 45 democracy activists to sentences of up to 10 years' imprisonment. The people sentenced were protesters, legislators, councillors and academics. The Chinese Communist Party's MO is to lock up citizens who criticise or disagree with their ruling of Hong Kong. Among those brave warriors for democracy was an Australian man, Gordon Ng. Gordon was sent to jail for more than seven years as part of a mass sentencing targeting dozens of pro-democracy activists under the territory's sweeping national security laws. Gordon was one of almost 50 campaigners charged with subversion under the laws, which have been designed to kill off political opposition in Hong Kong. The trial, as they like to call it, was overseen by three government picked judges without a jury—what's new! These people should never have been convicted in the first place. They were respected politicians, journalists, academics and trade unionists. The Chinese Communist Party cannot be trusted. They don't care about human rights and they're not interested in democracy—never have been! Meanwhile, in Tasmania the state Liberal government has helped a Chinese developer bypass local council planning laws by declaring that their hotel proposal for Kangaroo Bay is 'a major project'—what a load of rubbish! This was a dodgy development from the start. It's on public land and it's opposed by the local community. While our Australian government is condemning the Chinese government for locking up pro-democracy demonstrators, the Tasmanian government—what do you know—is helping Chinese developers bypass our local rules. For goodness sake, Mr Rockliff, give me some strength—and, for God's sake, before something else gets done, start doing the right thing, mate, in the best interests of Tasmanians. Antisemitism 20 13:46 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales One of the most disappointing things that has happened during my brief time in public life has been the return of antisemitism. I would say that the school curriculum, when it comes to the history of the West and the history of Australia and like-minded states, is often quite scattered. I often wonder, 'How will students connect the various parts of relevant history to their own lives and experiences?' I thought we'd done a pretty good job in teaching the evils of antisemitism as that led up to the Second World War and the great crimes that were covered up by the Nazi regime. But, over the last year or so, since October 7—in New South Wales in particular, you'd have to say—with the return of antisemitism, which started with the disgusting celebrations at the Sydney Opera House in the days following the October 7 attack and going through to just last week in Woollahra with cars torched and properties and cars vandalised with antisemitic graffiti, the Australian Jewish community has lived in great fear. Talking to our colleagues in the House—Mr Leeser, Mr Burns and others—it is clear the Australian Jewish community is in a state of disbelief that we have come full circle on some of the grotesque activities perpetrated in the lead-up to the great conflict of the last century. I ask myself, 'Why is that?' I think the answer is that Australian governments across the board, state and federal, have been very weak in speaking out against this gross antisemitic behaviour, but also that Australia's recent foreign policy has been so weak on Israel that it has promoted some of this appalling behaviour. Domestic and Family Violence 20 13:48 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Yesterday marked the start of 16 days of activism against gender based violence. Violence against women is prevalent, pervasive and persistent. One in three Australian women have experienced violence. Counting Dead Women report that 66 women have died due to violence against women this year. It's a national crisis and it is our national shame. The government is committed to ending gender based violence in one generation. It is a multifaceted problem which requires a multipronged approach—both action and investment. We need to support women leaving violence. I'm especially proud this government has amended the Fair Work Act so that all workers are entitled to 10 days of paid family violence leave. This entitlement was first enshrined in Victoria by the Surf Coast Shire Council, when a courageous Australian Services Union delegate shared her experience of family violence. It is the kind of entitlement I hope no worker ever needs to access, but I am reassured this connection to economic support is there for those who do. This government is also providing up to $5,000 in financial support to women leaving violence and has invested billions into housing for women and children impacted. We've increased funding to community legal services and the community sector. The contributions of the workers in this sector are invaluable. This is a shout-out to the extraordinary, passionate workers who apply their professionalism and their passion every single day to address this scourge in our society. Finally, we have to stop it before it starts. We're investing $4 billion in early intervention and targeting the social factors which drive violence. We know change doesn't happen overnight, but we prioritise it because it's urgent. Even one woman killed by violence is one too many. Australian Greens 21 13:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Right now so many people across the country are doing it tough. The rising cost of living and the uncertainty of the future of our planet are weighing heavily on our communities. With critical frontline services underfunded and a government that won't take urgent action to address their concerns, it's no wonder that so many people don't know where to turn to for help. Today I want to provide some hope to all of those listening. My office has had the privilege of helping countless constituents since I was first elected to represent Queensland over 12 years ago, and I want to share with you a few of the incredible achievements that my team have secured in the last few months. After three years of intervention from my office, we helped secure a permanent visa for a stateless Rohingya family separated from their father in Queensland. We've assisted a disabled mother and son escaping domestic violence by helping to secure a disability-accessible property in just a few days. We secured wheelchair funding and a new plan for an NDIS participant who had outgrown their wheelchair and had been waiting more than seven months for their application to be heard. Our advocacy through Services Australia has wiped family tax benefit debts for victims of domestic and family violence, and we've secured thousands of dollars in back payments for people facing delays in their income support applications. Each of these stories—and these are just a selection—is a testament not only to my wonderful staff team but to the core principles of the Greens and our grassroots movement, a movement powered by persistence, compassion and community. These stories remind me—and I hope they remind anyone listening—that, even when things seem impossible, real positive change is always possible. My team hears you and will fight for you every single day until everyone can enjoy the good life they deserve. Parliament House: Staff 21 13:52 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As we reach the end of the parliamentary year, I stand to express my profound thanks and that of my team and the community I serve to the unsung heroes of our parliamentary community: to the diligent Hansard staff, whose meticulous work forms the backbone of our parliamentary record; to the Broadcasting staff, whose commitment to delivering our proceedings to the public exemplifies our open democracy; to the catering staff, who ensure that we are fuelled up and caffeinated to come into this place and serve our communities; to the security guards, who protect our halls and chambers with dedication and good humour; to the cleaners, who keep this wonderful building spotless; to the gardeners, who make our outdoor spaces so welcoming; to the library staff, who provide such speedy expert advice on the broadest range of issues, far superior to any Google search or ChatGPT; to the Parliamentary Education Office, who showcase our democracy to those who will inherit it; to the chamber attendants, who maintain order and support the smooth operation of our sessions; to the Black Rod and staff in his office, who create the environment for debate and deliberation; to the clerks, whose expertise and guidance uphold the procedural integrity of our debates and decisions; to the Table Office staff, who make the complex web of documents and lodgements flow smoothly; to the Procedure Office staff, who accept scores of requests from offices with understanding and attentiveness; and to the remarkable secretariat staff, whose research prowess and patience enable the effective functioning of our committees and offices. I really want to acknowledge just how much pressure some of the secretariats have been under over the last few weeks with the flurry of very short inquiries and committee reports that are due. All of you are often unseen but are always indispensable. Women in Innovation Awards 22 13:54 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Today I stand with great pride as a senator for South Australia to talk about the many female innovators and entrepreneurs making a difference. My home state scores way above average when it comes to women participating in business. As a former business owner who operated as a sole trader, in partnership and with a company structure, I know it takes courage and resilience to build something on your own and to take risks. Of South Australia's business owners, 40 per cent are women, and the number of businesses owned by women in my state is more than the national average. Last Friday I was privileged to attend the 2024 Women in Innovation Awards. Women in Innovation is a not-for-profit organisation that recognises and supports women exhibiting resilience and determination, and I'm proud to be an ambassador for it. Let me share a few examples of these enterprising and innovative women. Professor Nicola Anstice of Flinders University is creating a dual-focus contact lens that slows myopia in children without compromising their vision. Dr Samantha Pillay is advocating against the stigma of urinary incontinence. Laura Drexler is creating an app for people seeking a quiet restaurant with hearing-friendly dining, and Cintya Dharmayanti is using nanoparticle design for cancer drug delivery and advocating science and STEM delivery. These are just a few of the women doing amazing things in South Australia. What I witnessed on the awards night was a room of fearless innovators showing us anything is possible and celebrating their commitment and passion. The women's excitement for each other as they change our world for the better was obvious. I celebrate all South Australians and all women driving positive change for our nation. Housing: Foreign Investment 22 13:56 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland We're often told that foreigners own barely one per cent of private residential property in Australia. The implication is that it's not a problem, but, in real numbers, it's estimated there are more than 108,000 dwellings in Australia that aren't owned by Australians. The rules governing foreign investment seem to be selectively enforced—that is, if they're ever enforced. Total residential property transactions by foreign investors rose 27 per cent from July 2022 to June 2023; since the pandemic they've been coming back in droves. In fact, there were 5,360 purchases to the value of $4.9 billion. For decades we've been told that foreign investment was limited to new dwellings to encourage more housing supply. I've recently learned that foreigners can purchase established housing up to the value of $750,000 but are subject to the following: foreign students can buy established homes provided they sell them when they leave, and foreigners can buy established homes provided they redevelop them within four years. It's these rules which aren't being enforced. It's no wonder that, in the year to June 2023, 34 per cent of foreign purchases were for established dwellings and another 16 per cent were for vacant land. Every purchase of a home or piece of land represents Australians being denied ownership. For years it's been One Nation policy to permanently ban foreign ownership of residential property. We're gratified the coalition has adopted another of our policies, although it's for a temporary ban that does not go far enough. We must stop foreign ownership of housing indefinitely and give foreign owners two years to sell up so we don't suddenly flood the market. If the property is not sold, it should be repossessed by the federal government. We must put Australia and Australians first. Rising Tide: Protests 22 13:58 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales It was a real privilege to join the Rising Tide with thousands of courageous climate warriors in Newcastle on the weekend. Right there we saw the best example of people power. No amount of overpolicing or cracking down on our right to dissent will stop climate defenders from showing up to protect our planet and our future. Disgraceful attempts by the Labor Minns government to shut down the protest against coal corporations and complicit governments who are fuelling climate collapse will not stop us. The world we live in is burning, boiling and flooding, yet Labor has approved 28 coal and gas projects since coming to office. The climate crisis is not only engulfing people's lives, livelihoods and homes here, but the Global South, who did little to contribute to this, are bearing the brunt on the front line. How many times will people from the Pacific push us and plead with us to end coal and gas because it robbing them of their future hopes and dreams? People would haven't to take to the water if the government were doing their job. If the major parties refuse to take on coal and gas corporations because those parties' pockets are lined with dirty donations, the people will. We will take on the corporations and we will end new coal and gas. People should be proud of the direct actions that they are taking for the love of the planet and its people and for the love of nature, forests and animals, and the Greens are with the Rising Tide. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for two-minute statements has expired. We'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 23 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It's been revealed that the Albanese government is now presiding over the longest household recession in recorded Australian history. One year into the Albanese government, GDP per capita began going backwards and has continued to do so for the past six quarters in a trend that exceeds any period in the past 50 years, and one which economists agree will likely continue. There are warning signs all across the economy. Business insolvencies are breaking GFC records, productivity is stagnating and now this new analysis shows a 1.6 per cent fall in GDP per capita since December 2022, with real disposable incomes crashing by nine per cent since March 2022. Only a few months ago, the Prime Minister was posting memes describing the government's budget as 'so good'. Don't these figures demonstrate that Labor's self-congratulatory rhetoric is not only unwelcome but untrue and that your economic management is far from so good? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank you for the question. Senator WONG 00AOU And I take the interjection from Senator Ayres. It's good that it's a question on the economy, because that's certainly what we are focused on. That's what we are focused on, and that is why you have seen, under this government, a focus on making sure we get wages moving again and a focus on making sure we deliver assistance on energy costs to households, to families and to small businesses. It's why we are focused on strengthening Medicare, and it's why we are focused on doing what we can to help Australians with their cost-of-living challenges. Now, we understand people are doing it tough. People are finding it hard to make ends meet. People are finding it hard to pay bills, which is why we on this side supported increases in wages. And I remember being in this chamber and listening to Senator Cash and Senator Hume tell everybody why wage rises were the worst possible thing. We know throughout Australia which party is the party that supports higher wages, which party is the party that supports increases to the minimum wage and which party is the party that thinks low wages are good for the economy. And so, Senator Birmingham, you can come in here and talk about the situation that Australians are facing, but you should be upfront with them that you actually want them to earn less. The coalition policy prescription is to make sure people work harder and earn less. That is what the Liberal policy prescription is, and they should be upfront about that. The Liberal policy prescription is also, in relation to higher energy costs, that the government should not provide assistance. That is the Liberals' and Mr Dutton's policy position. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Given this household recession that started under your government is the worst experienced in our lifetimes, what mistakes does the Albanese government take responsibility for in driving Australia into recession? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Firstly, the only party that is cheering and barracking for Australia to go into recession is those opposite. Working people don't want a recession. Small business doesn't want a recession. Big business doesn't want a recession. Consumers don't want a recession. But, I tell you what, the coalition sure does, don't they? They're in here barracking for a recession as hard as they can. I'm asked about taking responsibility. Of course we take responsibility for the economic management. Of course we do. We take responsibility for doing what we can as a government, every single day, to try and ensure we do what we can to assist Australians with the cost of living. This is what this government does. We continue to try and work to provide assistance to Australians, to provide bulk billing, to strengthen Medicare, to lift wages and to fight inflation. That is what we do. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Last year the Prime Minister stated, 'As Prime Minister I always take responsibility for the decisions I have taken.' In 2022 he famously proclaimed, 'I won't blame someone else; I'll accept responsibility.' Minister, what responsibility, in terms of policies and how they are failing Australians and driving Australia deeper into a household recession—the longest on record—does the Prime Minister take, and what is he going to do to get Australians out of this record-long household recession? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first thing is that we are going to keep working to lift wages, unlike you, unlike you. We'll keep working to bring down costs, unlike you, unlike you. We'll keep working to strengthen Medicare, unlike you, unlike you. And we'll keep building more homes, unlike you and unlike you. That is what we will do. I say to those opposite, who come in here and talk about the cost of living: you should be upfront with the Australian people and look them in the eye and say, 'We want you to earn less,' because that is your policy. We know, out of the mouth of the shadow finance minister, that a wage rise would be absolutely the wrong thing to do—that's what she said. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator WONG 00AOU The reality is that there is one party that is advocating for increasing wages, that is advocating and delivering more bulk-billing, that is working on more houses for Australia and that is not saying, 'We will cut the budget.' Those opposite want lower wages. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, it is not okay to yell louder than the minister, who has her microphone on. Housing 24 14:06 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, Senator Farrell. Australians are doing it tough right now, and housing is a big part of that story. After a decade of neglect from the Liberals and Nationals, Australians are facing long queues for rentals and enormous first home deposits. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to get more Australians into homeownership through the Help to Buy scheme, including in my home state of Victoria? 14:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Stewart, for that question and the great work that you do for the people of Victoria. I know that thousands of people in Victoria who stand to benefit from the Help to Buy scheme will be keen to hear the answer to this question. For 40,000 people across Australia, a door to homeownership has opened today. If you're a low- or middle-income Australian looking to get into homeownership— Senator Bragg 256063 It doesn't work for real income— Senator FARRELL I0N No, it does; it's going to help—the Help to Buy scheme will give you that opportunity. We've got a generation of low- and middle-income young people who are stuck in rent traps. They're angry. They're frustrated. They feel genuine despair that homeownership may never happen for them. They've seen the dream of homeownership slip away from their grasp. Our Help to Buy legislation will help change this. With legislation up from the government, Help to Buy means a smaller mortgage and a smaller deposit to help eligible Aussies get onto the housing ladder. This is the kind of work that will only ever be delivered by good Labor governments— Government senators: Hear, hear! Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, hear, hear—because only Labor has an ambitious, extensive agenda when it comes to housing, making it easier to build, to rent and to buy. After a decade of neglect in housing by the Liberals and the Nationals, they've abandoned the idea that working people should ever be able to own their own home. Only Labor will help more Australians into homeownership. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria In government, the Liberals and Nationals vacated the housing policy space for a decade, not even having a housing minister for most of that time. How is the Albanese Labor government working to put homeownership back within reach for Australians, and what is standing in the way? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her first supplementary question. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Minister Farrell; please resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I think you've hit the nail on the head here, and the reaction by those opposite, I think, shows that. The senator knows as well as anyone else that there is no silver bullet, unfortunately, to the housing crisis. This problem has been 30 years in the making— Senator FARRELL I0N It was made worse, Senator Cash, by the Liberals and the Nationals, who spent their time on the front benches twiddling their thumbs on an issue they determine to be a little tricky. They had no housing minister, they had no ambition and—worst of all—they had no plan for homeownership. The result is that Australia has been left with a housing shortage. That's why the Albanese Labor government has a housing plan, investing $32 billion to build 1.2 million new homes. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Today the Albanese Labor government secured passage of the Help to Buy Bill in the Senate. What does this mean for tens of thousands of Australians, including cleaners, early educators and aged-care workers, who might finally now be able to realise a dream of owning their own home? 14:11 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her second supplementary question. This bill has been before the parliament for far too long—far too long—but we welcome the support that this bill has now received from the crossbench. This is delivering hope to thousands of Australians. It means security and stability. It means the ability to put down roots and to take those big life decisions, such as whether to start a family. This Labor government is turning promises into progress, delivering every day, delivering for every generation, delivering for every Australian. The Liberals just get in the way. Being arrogant gets you nowhere. Being reckless builds nothing. It's the Labor government that gets things done. Economy 25 14:11 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Having spent months patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves credit for the last two budget surpluses, what responsibility does the Albanese government— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hume, please resume your seat. I remind senators that Senator Hume is entitled to put her question with silence from the chamber. Please continue, Senator Hume. Senator HUME 266499 Thank you, Madam President. Minister, having spent months patting yourselves on the back and giving yourselves credit for the last two budget surpluses, what responsibility does the Albanese government take for the reported record deterioration in government finances—the largest worsening of a budget outside of a war or a pandemic—or does Prime Minister Albanese only want to claim other people's successes, while blaming others for his economic failures? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Hume, for the question. We always take responsibility. We take responsibility for making sure we work to deliver higher wages. We take responsibility for making sure we work to deliver more bulk-billing and more urgent care clinics. We take responsibility for making sure we get our housing support through the parliament. We take responsibility for making sure we properly fund infrastructure, we properly fund aged care and we properly fund health. These are all the things this government takes responsibility for. I'd make this point. Obviously, these are not the government's numbers. These are numbers that will be updated in the usual way, in the upcoming mid-year budget, but I would say that the Treasurer and the finance minister have been saying for some time that pressures on the budget are building, not easing. We've been upfront about that. Senator Gallagher has made that clear. The report that you have referenced shows that global economic uncertainty, like the slowdown in China, is a key factor weighing heavily on the budget right now. Senator Hume, you are one of the people I referenced in response to the last answer. It wasn't that long ago that you talked about the fact that real wage increases would be the worst thing for Australians. I'll repeat that, Senator Jane Hume claimed real wage increases would be the worst thing for Australians. What I would say to you, Senator Hume is that we don't agree with your economic prescription. Senator WONG 00AOU They're your words. You take responsibility for your words, Senator. You asked me if we take responsibility for our decisions, and we do. Will you take responsibility for your words and your policies? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a first supplementary question? 14:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, independent estimates are that this deterioration— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume. Please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Senator Hume, I'm going to invite you to begin again, and I'll ask the clock be reset. I expect there to be silence. Senator HUME 266499 Minister, independent estimates are that this deterioration represents a $49.3 billion hit to the budget bottom line. This is the largest nominal contraction in the underlying cash balance on record outside of the pandemic. Will the Albanese government rule out making this budget blowout worse through ever-increasing, bigger spending promises? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I know that your policy is to cut $315 billion from the budget, but we don't take the view that at time when Australians are struggling, what we should be doing is cutting health. We don't take the view that what we should be doing is putting downward pressure on wages. We don't take the view that we should be saying, 'No, we won't fund urgent care clinics.' The problem is, Senator Hume, that your policy prescription will do nothing other than make things harder for everyday Australians. That is the reality. Your policy prescription would make things harder— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I'm surprised, Senator Hume. I demanded there be silence when you asked your question. I invited you to re-put your question and I restarted the clock. I've called your side to order and you in particular, and you have continued that interjection. That's rude and disorderly and I expect you to listen in silence—and Senator McGrath. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU There is no doubt about two things. First is the budget position that we inherited had hundreds of billions of deficits—six years worth—more than $300 billion and an average deficit of $50 billion. Under this government, we turned two of those big Liberal deficits into two substantial surpluses. The other truth is you want wages to be lower— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary question? 14:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Economist Chris Richardson stated of Australia: 'We have not had good management. We've had good luck, and good luck is temporary.' Have economists like Mr Richardson been right all along when they called out Labor's record spending and productivity-destroying red tape and regulations for weakening the economy while keeping inflation and interest rates higher for longer? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have another quote from Deloitte which is of interest: The government still deserves credit. Most of the 'unexpected revenue which has flowed into federal coffers over the past two years has been saved rather than spent. That has required discipline. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU You don't like that quote? You don't like my quote? You don't like this quote? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I want there to be order across the chamber. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 Point of order on relevance. I quoted Mr Richardson, not Deloitte. Just quoting somebody randomly back to me isn't appropriate. If I could draw you back to the purpose of the question? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hume. The Minister is being relevant. I'll ask her to continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll certainly give you another quote, Senator Hume. Senator Jane Hume claimed 'real wage increases would be the worst thing for Australians'. I'll add this: Adding more rights for workers for something that is just part of a normal working relationship is unreasonable … More rights for workers is unreasonable! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm just wanting there to be—Senator Hume, I haven't called you yet. I'm trying to get order in the chamber. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 On relevance. I quoted Mr Richardson. I didn't ask for a quote. And if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately; don't just make stuff up. The PRESIDENT 112096 Your question went to broad economics. That is what the Minister is responding to. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Through you, President, what I'd say to Senator Hume and the opposition is that if their version of good decision-making is $315 billion worth of cuts out of the federal budget, if their version of good decision-making is not giving every Australian a tax cut, if their version of good decision-making is to oppose wage increases— (Time expired) Middle East 27 14:20 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Minister Wong. In issuing arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister, the International Criminal Court noted: … each bear criminal responsibility for … the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. Countries around the world have indicated they would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to set foot in their territory, in compliance with this arrest warrant. These countries include Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland, Slovenia, Spain and Portugal—many of which are countries you often refer to as like-minded. Minister, will you join these like-minded countries and explicitly say here today that authorities here will arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he dares set foot on this land? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Through you, President, I answered almost precisely the same question, but from the other perspective, asked by the shadow Attorney-General yesterday. Senator Cash I0M You still didn't answer. Senator WONG 00AOU I would refer you, Senator Faruqi, to that answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary? 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, I didn't ask for more weasel words of you saying you respect the International Criminal Court and adhere to international law. I asked if you were going to comply with your obligations under international law and commit to arresting Benjamin Netanyahu in compliance with the ICC arrest warrant. 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I answered precisely that question yesterday. I refer you to that answer, Senator. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary? 14:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales () (): You just can't get yourself to say that you will arrest Benjamin Netanyahu or do anything to support Palestinians. The ICC arrest warrants come on top of the recent UN special committee finding Israel's methods in Gaza are consistent with genocide, as well as the International Court of Justice finding that Israel is responsible for apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Minister, since you are such a self-proclaimed supporter of international law, why won't you impose sanctions on the genocidal— (Time expired) 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I know that you like to make this personal, but this isn't actually about me. Senator Faruqi 250362 You are the foreign minister. Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, I am the foreign minister. My support for international law is a personal belief, but it is also a belief that this country, as a middle power, has an interest in international law and the international legal framework being observed. That is why we've taken the position we have in relation to what has occurred in Gaza. It is why we talk about, and join with others in relation to expressing a view on, the application of international humanitarian law. It is why I'm working with other countries to lead an initiative internationally for the protection of aid workers. It is also consistent with Australia's position, for example, on the South China Sea, where— (Time expired) Cost of Living 27 14:23 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government's economic plan is all about helping people with their cost of living whilst fighting inflation. We're working hard to bring costs down for households, push wages up and get inflation back where it should be. The minister and the Treasurer have been taking measures to repair and reform the economy to achieve these objectives for all Australians. What steps has the government taken to support the economy after a decade of neglect under the Liberals and Nationals? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for that excellent question. I can update the chamber on all of the steps we've been taking to get the budget in much better shape to make sure that we can invest in those key essential services that Australians value, like Medicare, aged care and the NDIS. We wanted to make sure, when we came to government, that we were dealing with all of the problems we'd inherited. We had falling living standards. Interest rates were increasing. Inflation was going through the roof— Senator GALLAGHER ING Let's just remember your record: 10 years of failing to deal with any of the big policy challenges, like energy—remember that, Senator Birmingham? How many policies were there? Twenty-two, from memory, and you didn't land one of them. There could be 23. We could be dealing with 23, now that they've all gone quiet on their nuclear policy. We have found $80 billion in savings. We've delivered two surpluses, which I know is particularly important for Senator Hume—two surpluses, to the former government's zero surpluses. We've delivered bigger tax cuts, cheaper child care, energy bill rebates, student debt relief—now there's something that you never, ever dealt with in government—and fee-free TAFE. Who, possibly, could vote against people getting access to training without having to pay for it? Who possibly could? Someone in this room does—you! You oppose it, unbelievably. More bulk-billed GP appointments, cheaper medicines—again, who in this place could vote against cheaper medicines? Have a look around, and, yes, it's you, again! Cheaper medicines— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order. I am just asking if the minister could direct her comments through the chair. The PRESIDENT 112096 I think the minister is directing her comments through the chair, Senator Henderson. Senator GALLAGHER ING The largest increase to rent assistance in 30 years and the largest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, because those opposite don't believe in social housing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The Albanese Labor government will deliver the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook towards the end of the year, outlining the state of the budget. What has the government done to respond to spending pressures and deliver cost-of-living relief in the budget? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the supplementary. The Treasurer and I have made no secret, since coming to government, that pressure is building on the budget in a number of areas, primarily in areas like the NDIS, aged care, defence and servicing the debt that we inherited—almost a trillion dollars in debt. These are the big areas of pressure in the budget. We're dealing with some of them. We've got some reforms done with NDIS. We got the big Aged Care Bill through last week. We are managing a couple of those big areas of pressure, but there's still more work to do. I would say to those opposite that always complain about spending in the budget: the biggest movement in the budget this year—$6½ billion—was an increase in veterans compensation payments. Why was that? It was because we actually staffed the Department of Veterans' Affairs so they could process the veterans entitlements and deal with the backlog we inherited from those opposite. And were you seriously talking about cutting that? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary? 14:28 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Budgets are about choices, and the Albanese Labor government has delivered for all Australians whilst also taking decisions to improve the budget bottom line. How does the government's approach to economic and fiscal management compare to previous approaches? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for that question because it is relevant to have a look at what happened between us and what happened when they were last in power. They always measure our performance. Let's have a little look at theirs: inflation was up, wages were down, jobs were sluggish, productivity was the worst in 40 years, business investment declined, and the budget was in deficit to the tune of $78 billion. What have we done? Inflation is almost halved. It had a '6' in front of it; it now has a '2' in front of it. Annual real wages are growing. More than a million jobs have been created—a million more people in jobs than when we came to government. We've reversed the decline in productivity. Business investment has grown. Two back-to-back surpluses—something you were unable to do. And this: the trillion dollars of debt we inherited is now $149 billion less because of the way we have managed the budget. Grocery Prices 28 14:29 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. In September, the Prime Minister said: We are doing everything we can to ensure Australians are paying a fair price at the checkout and Australian farmers are getting a fair price for their goods. The Prime Minister committed to introducing legislation for a mandatory food and grocery code this year. With three sitting days left for the year, why hasn't the government introduced this legislation? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pocock for the question. We have, as everyone in the Senate will know, an extremely busy legislation program. We have a number of bills here in the Senate that we are seeking to progress, and, if there was a willingness to do that, we would sincerely appreciate it. If there is more that I can come back to Senator Pocock with on the trajectory for that legislation, I will. We are serious about making sure that people get a fair deal at the supermarkets. I think everyone has been feeling this. Anyone who does the shopping sees it every day when they go to the supermarket. Wanting to make sure that they get a better deal and make sure that the supermarkets are doing the right thing by people, I think, is a priority for all of us in this place. We have responded to the Emerson review, which talked about making a code of conduct for supermarkets mandatory, and that is being progressed. I don't have the exact date of when that will be, but I will see if I can provide it during this question time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. I'm certainly hearing concerns from Australians that they feel like they're getting fleeced every time they go through the check-out, and we have this firm commitment from the Prime Minister of Australia that the mandatory grocery code will be introduced this year. With 2½ days left this year, can I ask the government if we will in fact see that or if this is not going to happen? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I've taken that element of Senator Pocock's first question on notice, and I will come back with any information that I can provide. The Prime Minister has been dealing with this issue for some months. He's very keen to make sure that we are doing whatever we can to make sure shoppers are getting a fair deal at the supermarket. You've already seen the investments we've given to the ACCC to make sure that they crack down on market conduct, including misleading and deceptive pricing practices, and we've seen some of the results of that with the work that the ACCC is taking through the courts. We have done the work on a new mandatory food and grocery code, as you have outlined, and we will legislate to enact multimillion dollar penalties. We've worked with the states and territories on planning and zoning for supermarkets. We're also looking at what further work can be done on shrinkflation, where customers are charged the same for less. The ACCC will be doing their inquiry into supermarkets, and we've given the ACCC stronger powers to scrutinise mergers, which is legislation before this place and hopefully we can pass it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, you mentioned the legislative agenda before the Senate. Why is the government prioritising electoral reform that gives more money to the major parties ahead of actually looking after Australians when they shop at Coles or Woolies? Rather than deal with that, you're looking to entrench the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics. 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept your analysis of the electoral reform, but I would also say that I've outlined a lot of things we're doing on supermarkets to make sure consumers are getting a better deal that doesn't require legislation. In response to your question about legislation, we have legislation before the parliament that deals with a future made in Australia. We've got a whole raft of legislation around Treasury bills. We've got a whole raft of legislation about the universities accord and lowering HECS debt. Senator Henderson ZN4 You voted against your own policy. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Henderson, we know you don't like university students or TAFE students. Senator Henderson ZN4 Debt is up by 16 per cent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Henderson! Senator GALLAGHER ING We know you want them to pay more. We've got legislation before the parliament in a whole range of areas, like for midwives and school funding. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU On a point of order, Senator Henderson demanded that the minister speak through you. She didn't like someone talking at her, and now she's interjecting without drawing breath. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator Henderson, I have called the Senate to order, and I called— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! I've called you to order. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Pocock, to come back to your further question, regulations to make the new mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct will be made this year. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Henderson ZN4 You are a complete dickhead. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU She should withdraw that. She just swore at the minister and she has to withdraw it. Senator Wong 00AOU You don't think that's a swear word? Senator Watt 245759 Stick to fundraising. Senator Henderson ZN4 You are a complete dickhead. Senator Wong 00AOU Twice! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I intend to deal with the matter if you resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I didn't hear your remarks, but I am inviting you, if you did make a remark, to please withdraw it in the interests of the chamber. Senator Henderson ZN4 On a point of order, the minister was impugning motive— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. I'll say it again, Senator Henderson. Minister Wong has stood on a point of order, and I've asked you to withdraw. I've also indicated to you that I did not hear the comment, but in the interests of the chamber I'm asking you to withdraw. Senator Henderson ZN4 I withdraw. Senator GALLAGHER ING Such paddock language—I'm shocked! The regulations to make the new mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct will be made this year, with the code coming into force from 1 April 2025. That's the answer. Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme 30 14:36 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. In July this year the mayors of King Island and Flinders Island came to Canberra to lobby Labor for a review of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Residents on both islands are paying through the nose for groceries, and farmers are on the brink. This is because of high freight costs in a scheme that hasn't been updated in decades. Labor members promised the mayors that a review of the scheme, specifically for the islands, would take place. Minister, can you tell me what's happening with this review? 14:37 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. In terms of that particular review, Senator Tyrrell, I will need to seek some further advice to see where that is up to. When all the mayors came here in July this year it was really good to have the mayors from right across Australia, especially those from Tasmania, here to see us. I'd like to remind the Senate that it was this government, the Labor government, that actually invited local government back to Canberra. For 10 years we did not see local government represented here, and it was the Albanese Labor government that bought the third tier of the democratic system of Australia back to this parliament. I think it's an important question from Senator Tyrrell. In fact, it's like all things that we're doing for Tasmania—and I just want to add this to Senator Tyrrell's question. Tasmanians are saving over $24.6 million thanks to Labor's cheaper medicines, including over $5.4 million saved in Braddon alone. We're delivering free TAFE, and 3,255 Tasmanian students enrolled in a fee-free TAFE place in 2023 alone. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Don't you want to hear about Tasmania, Senator Duniam? I thought that, as you come from Tasmania, you would like to hear this. I thought you would be interested in hearing all of these things about Tasmania. We're helping more people in regional Australia into homeownership. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, almost any time a minister has been on their feet today I've had to call you to order. Obviously you're keen to make a contribution. Please find that opportunity outside of question time—equally, Senator Duniam. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Senator Duniam, we've opened four Medicare urgent care clinics in Tasmania. Senator Duniam 263418 I didn't ask the question! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam! Order! Senator McCARTHY 122087 He did interrupt. He did interject. I figured that, being a Tasmanian senator, Senator Duniam, you'd love to hear those things. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:39 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Thanks for inviting local government back, then. The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme review team was supposed to visit Flinders Island in September, but the trip was cancelled and the mayor hasn't heard anything since. No-one has called either the King Island mayor or the Flinders Island mayor to explain what's happening with the review that was promised. Why hasn't— Senator Carol Brown F49 That's not even true. Senator TYRRELL 300639 Well, that's come from Rachel and Marcus. Why hasn't anyone bothered to call them? 14:40 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator Tyrrell, I will certainly take that on notice for you, if you like, and reach out to those mayors in Tasmania to let them know that we have heard their call, through you, and they will be hearing from our government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme is a major issue for Tasmania, especially for King and Flinders islands. It's why the cost of living is so high on those islands and it's why the mayors advocated so passionately for a review. Does this broken promise and lack of communication show how little Labor cares about fixing the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme? 14:41 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Can I just correct the senator on that. That is not the case in terms of the Albanese Labor government. We are here in terms of supporting our local governments across the country. I have said to Senator Tyrrell that I will take that question on notice. I certainly do reject outright that we are not helping in this instance, Senator Tyrrell, and I will come back to you on those questions. Whyalla Steelworks 31 14:41 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Minister Farrell. The Whyalla Steelworks is one of two steelworks left in Australia, which makes the troubles it's facing as part of the GFG Alliance not just local but national. Both the South Australian and federal governments have uttered possibilities for supporting an electric arc furnace upgrade for the facility so it can be a modern, green steel manufacturing facility. But progress seems to be obstructed by the financial woes of the steelworks' owner, Mr Gupta. What are the government's plans to move the steelworks and the town beyond the unfulfilled promises of Mr Gupta and the groundhog day they are trapped in? 14:42 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Lambie, for that question about the great town of Whyalla. Senator Watt 245759 Not wiped out! Senator FARRELL I0N No, it never got wiped out. You might be interested, Senator Lambie, to know that parts of my family moved from Laura, in the Mid North, to Whyalla in the 1960s. I regularly go back to the town to meet my cousins who still live up there. In fact, I was driving back from my vineyard just outside of Auburn in South Australia— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Listen to this! And what did I see? I saw a massive billboard of Senator Lambie with Senator Rex Patrick! Can I say this, Senator Lambie— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath? Senator McGrath 217241 A point of order on relevance: I'm reluctant to interrupt the minister's reminiscences of his recent holiday, but I don't think the minister's being close to relevant in answering Senator Lambie's question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. I will draw the minister back to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N Can I say this, Senator Lambie: the state government—and it's a terrific state government in South Australia—and the federal government will do a damn sight more than any other group in this parliament to ensure— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a point of order? Senator Lambie 250026 I'm sorry, Madam President, but I don't need a Little Golden Book here. What I want to know is: what does the government plan to do to move the steelworks and town beyond the unfulfilled promises? What do you have up your sleeve to help them? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Lambie. You referenced the state and federal governments, which the minister was referring to. I have directed him back to the question, but he was being relevant to your question. I'll continue to listen. Senator FARRELL I0N The state government and the federal government will work together to ensure that those fine workers, those members of the Australian Workers Union who work in the steel mill up there, continue to provide Australia with the best quality steel in this country, and we'll continue to support this town and these workers. I'd hate to think, Senator Lambie, that you— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It's great to see they're all about the green energy over here! On 25 September, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas told parliament: We have the magnetite, we have the renewable energy, we have a steelworks and we have a port. If we bring those things together, we can produce green iron— which apparently you guys want to do. So it seems what's missing is the will. Minister, are the Commonwealth and South Australian governments working together to retain this sovereign capability? 14:45 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her first supplementary question. Just from the statement that you read out from that very fine Premier, Premier Malinauskas, I would have thought it was transparent— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N They're already attacking me for my reminiscences. I won't answer that. Senator Lambie 250026 President— Senator FARRELL I0N Already? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Lambie? Senator Lambie 250026 We're now halfway through, and all I want to know is: are the Commonwealth and South Australian governments working together to retain sovereign capability? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, stop. When you stand, you need to tell me why you're standing. I presume you're on a point of order. I'll remind the minister of your question. Senator FARRELL I0N We have a deep interest as a federal government, and, as you've just read out, the state Labor government has a deep interest, in ensuring that these fantastic workers who go in there every day to that steel mill—I'm not sure if you've been up there to have a look at it, Senator Lambie, but it's a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful thing to see that steel being pumped out of that steel mill. You can rest assured that this— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The government has sent billions of dollars overseas to assist foreign shipbuilding capabilities. What about local industry? Will the government guarantee the people of Whyalla that, no matter what happens, the steelworks are part of Australia's manufacturing future and that it will be transformed into the modern green-steel manufacturing facility required for our industrial future? 14:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her second supplementary question. I'd hate to think, Senator Lambie, that you'd be seeking to exploit the problems of the Gupta company in Whyalla for some political advantage either for your new party running in South Australia or for Mr Rex Patrick. But can I reiterate that this federal government, alongside that terrific state government led by Premier Malinauskas, can do two things. We can ensure that steel continues to be made in Australia, and we can build ships in Osborne in South Australia with technology and with agreements with the United States and the United Kingdom. We can both defend this country— (Time expired) Cybersafety 33 14:48 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. The parents I'm hearing from are all too aware of the rising costs of social media on the mental health and, oftentimes, the physical health of our young people. What harms are young people facing online, and how will the Albanese Labor government's online safety social media bill help to better protect them from these harms? 14:49 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, I am not surprised that you are hearing concerns from parents, because more than half of Australian parents and carers say that social media is their No. 1 issue of concern. I know that there are some members of the opposition who go out of their way to avoid listening to experts—not all, but some—and I would encourage them just to make an exception and listen to the research on this. A recent Australian study found that Australian girls who use social media for more than two hours a day were particularly at risk of depression and reduced wellbeing. It replicates what we are seeing overseas. A pre-COVID study in England found that using social media more than three times a day was a strong predictor for poor mental health and wellbeing in 13- to 16-year-olds. A longitudinal study of more than 6,000 young Americans found that using social media for more than three hours a day doubled the risk—doubled the risk, for those not listening—of 12- to 15-year-olds experiencing negative mental health outcomes, like symptoms of depression and anxiety. Parents know that social media can be a tool for connection, and nobody wants to disrupt that, but it does also pose risks. It poses risks and threats particularly for young people. Unlike the Greens and unlike quite a few, it seems, on the opposition benches, this government thinks that it's time to face up to that challenge. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, first supplementary question? 14:51 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria In June, Mr Dutton committed a Liberal and National government to introducing an age limit, telling News Corp that the time for relying on social media companies to enforce age limits was over. Mr Dutton said, 'They don't do it, they never have, and we have no faith in them to do so in the future.' Today we have seen members of the Liberals and Nationals break ranks and argue publicly that the passage of this crucial bill should be delayed. Why is it important for the parents and young people of Australia that this bill be supported by the parliament? (Time expired) 14:51 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I said, I do understand that there are some members of the opposition who don't care what experts have to say. But they could listen, they might want to listen, to the Leader of the Opposition himself. Just two weeks ago, Mr Dutton wrote on a Facebook post: Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Snapchat are having a serious impact on children's development, mental health, and behaviour. Many parents are setting limits, but it's clear more needs to be done. Mr Dutton goes on to say this in comments to the Courier-Mail: They're putting profit ahead of people and I think that has to be addressed … I don't know any parents who would have a different view. These companies have zero regard for consumers, they're the tobacco companies of the 1970s and 1980s. They're strong words, aren't they? They're strong words but they are apparently not enough for the coalition backbench. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Fairfax papers reported this morning that doubts about the social media bill have expanded from Senators Canavan and Antic to more mainstream coalition MPs, setting up the meeting as a test of the opposition leader's authority. Why is it so important that this bill be supported, and why is it that only Labor can be trusted to deliver stable government in the best interests of Australian families? 14:53 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, curiously enough, the social media ban is actually just one of a handful of policies that the Leader of the Opposition has actually announced. He doesn't have very many, but this is one of them, and it would be surprising if he backed away from it. Just two weeks ago, he wrote on Facebook: This legislation must be passed by Christmas to give parents the support they need. But you are quite right, Senator Darmanin. It is being reported that the coalition party room is seeking to test his authority on this. The concern, of course, is that this wouldn't be the first time that Mr Dutton has backflipped on a commitment he made. Right now, as we speak, he is blocking a bill to curb student visa numbers. Australians could be forgiven for asking the question: if he's reckless enough to play politics on immigration, what else is it that he will not play politics with? Attorney-General 34 14:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Today the Guardian newspaper reported that the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, pressured the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Mr Jake Blight, to clarify a so-called ambiguity in a report handed down by his predecessor. Mr Blight then made the clarification. To be clear, the so-called ambiguity was a direct criticism of the Attorney-General. Mr Blight has confirmed that the Attorney-General's office and even the Attorney-General himself raised this so-called ambiguity with him. Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for the Attorney-General of Australia to pressure an independent statutory appointment to censor criticism of a government minister? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator—through you, President—I don't agree with your assertions about what Mr Dreyfus did. I think that the report speaks for itself. I'm asked what a minister, particularly the Attorney-General, should do. I'd say to you that ministers shouldn't be tipping off the media—or have their office tip-off the media before police raids! Senator Cash I0M In other words, you've got nothing else! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator Cash! Senator WONG 00AOU The minister certainly shouldn't be having their office tip off the media before police raids! People who seek to be ministers also ought not be making comments about sensitive consular issues in a reckless and irresponsible way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I've called you three times and you've simply ignored me. You are being disrespectful and disorderly. You've asked your question. Equally, Senator Watt, the interjections across the chamber are also disorderly. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The decision to clarify the annual report was an independent decision, and the INSLM, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, was not subject to any direction from the government. I make the point that the issues in relation to the report, I say to you, Senator, reflect less than well on past holders of the Attorney-General's position. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The National Security Legislation Monitor, Mr Jake Blight, has confirmed the Attorney-General's office and even the Attorney-General himself raised the so-called ambiguity with him. How were the Attorney-General's actions in pressuring an independent statutory officer consistent with the ministerial code of conduct? 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, they are your words. They are your words. Senator Cash I0M They're actually Mr Blight's words! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've asked the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I did call you to order. You've asked your question. I expect you will listen in silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I say—through you, President—to the chamber: do not again fall for Senator Cash making unfounded statements in this place. I do not believe those words are an accurate reflection of what has occurred. I also make the point that this matter in part deals with disclosure obligations to the court by the first law officer of Australia. I make the point that, despite an obligation to do so, the then government—your government, Senator Cash—did not disclose the report known as the Corner report to earlier proceedings. Mr Dreyfus took action, as he needed to, to remedy that position. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, to be clear, the so-called ambiguity being referred to was a direct criticism of the Attorney-General himself. Again, Mr Blight has confirmed the Attorney-General's office and even the Attorney-General himself raised this so-called ambiguity with him. Has the Attorney-General compromised the independence of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor with his actions? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Absolutely not. Wages 35 14:58 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Merry Christmas, everyone! My question is to my good friend the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CICCONE 281503 He's a good mate! In fact, everyone here is a good mate! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, just ask your question. Senator CICCONE 281503 We know that tradies, warehouse workers, retail assistants, truckies and miners are essential to the Australian economy. For a very long time many of these workers in these fine industries have been on labour hire contracts and have been paid significantly less than their direct employees often despite doing the same work on the same rosters and even wearing the same uniforms. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn and how will the government's policies deliver a fair go for Australian workers? 14:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you to my good friend Senator Ciccone. It's a great question on the issue that matters to all Australians, that being their wages. All year in parliament we've focused on the No. 1 issue facing Australians, that being the cost of living, and helping to lift wages is a crucial part of that. The Albanese Labor government is deliberately trying to lift wages and create more jobs to help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures. Workers in factories and warehouses and workers on construction sites and the shop floor are doing it tough right now, which is why this government is committed to improving their wages after 10 years of the Liberals deliberately keeping wages low. One of the changes we've made to help working people is closing the labour hire loophole to make sure labour hire workers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That is something those opposite continually opposed, both when they were in government and now in opposition. I'm pleased to say that Metcash labour hire workers are the latest Australian workers to get the pay rise they deserve. At a warehouse operated by Metcash in South Australia, labour hire workers were required to attend the same meetings as direct employees and undertake the same training as direct employees. They worked the same rosters as direct employees and did the same duties as direct employees. But, despite all of that, they were being paid up to $15,000 less per year than direct Metcash employees, and that all was allowed under the coalition's laws. But, as of yesterday, because Labor closed the loophole—the one you voted against—that allowed those workers to be underpaid, those labour hire workers will now be earning the same as direct employees. One worker, Tyler, said, 'For six months I've been doing the same job as workers who were directly employed by Metcash, but I haven't been paid the same; this decision means that, for the first time, I'll be paid fairly for the work I do.' Under Labor, workers will earn more and keep more of what they earn; under the Liberals, they'll work longer for less. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 15:01 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I know our fine meatworkers, flight attendants and miners, many of whom will be working very hard in the lead-up to Christmas, should not be paid less just because they're employed as labour hire workers. I note that the Leader of the Opposition believes that paying Australian workers fairly would 'undoubtedly damage the Australian economy'. So how has the Albanese government's same job, same pay laws helped Australian workers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Ciccone. Paying workers who do the same work not only is fair but also delivers safer, more productive workplaces for everyone, and that includes ensuring that labour hire workers get paid the same as the direct employees they work alongside. In my home state of Queensland, meatworkers are now seeing an extra 25 per cent in their pay packets because of Labor's same job, same pay laws. One labour hire worker, Lance, was doing the job as his workmate—doing the same roster and wearing the same uniform as him—but was earning $500 a week less than him just because he was labour hire. Because of Labor's changes, they will now be paid the same. But all of this is at risk from Mr Dutton and the coalition and their reckless policies. When Senator Hume—here she goes again!—was asked if the coalition would scrap same job, same pay on Insiders in September, she said, 'We will certainly have to consider it,' and we know, when the coalition considers workplace laws, it is never to help workers earn more. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 15:03 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The Liberals and the Nationals have proudly said that those on the coalition side of the chamber will always stand with the employers of Australia. They've also promised to take a suite of targeted repeals of workers' pay and conditions to the next election. Minister, what is the government doing to put more money in the pockets of Australian workers and their families, and what are the key barriers to achieving this? 15:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ciccone. It is disturbing that, when Australians are dealing with cost-of-living pressures, Mr Dutton is so reckless when it comes to workplace laws—laws that have meant Australians are now earning more to deal with the very cost-of-living pressures that they're facing. The inconvenient truth for Mr Dutton is that he and the coalition have voted against every single Labor measure to lift wages and improve the conditions of workers. Not once, not twice but 48 times in this parliament they have voted against Labor's measures to increase wages and improve conditions. In fact, when we were passing the labour hire laws, Senator Cash in a Sky News interview described them as 'the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades' and said, 'Labor is making a bad situation worse,' and, 'These changes were an attack on the labour hire industry.' Rather than support workers struggling to pay their bills, the coalition 'will always stand on the side of employers in Australia, even when they're underpaying their workers'. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Economy 36 15:05 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions asked by Senators Birmingham and Hume relating to the economy. The headlines in the papers today give us an indication of what is happening in this country despite the rhetoric of the Albanese government—headlines such as 'Labor presiding over longest run of negative GDP per capita since 1970s'. Those opposite in the Albanese government would have you believe that the country is better off since they came to government. That's their rhetoric. But what is the reality? The reality, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the National Accounts figures is that, quarter after quarter, there have been decreases in GDP, gross domestic product, per capita for a number of times in a row, six, that we have not seen since the 1970s. The government opposite says that some of the cost-of-living subsidies, which are short-term measures and actually increase spending from the government, putting pressures on inflation, and makes the problem worse in the long run, is having an impact on the people of Australia—that longer term trajectory that we're on. The lived experience of Australian families, Australian individuals and Australian businesses is that each dollar they have now buys less. Every time a bill comes in, whether for insurance or for, particularly, energy, they pay more. You have to compare the rhetoric of those opposite, the Albanese government, with the reality. Mr Bowen, Mr Albanese and Labor senators in this place have a rhetoric, which they repeat ad nauseam to the Australian people that the energy transition that this government is implementing is going to lead to lower prices and cleaner energy. But the reality is that the leader in that transition, my home state of South Australia—with up to 70 per cent penetration of variable renewable energy—pays the nation's highest electricity prices at 45 cents per kilowatt hour. That's in stark contrast to many nations overseas that are paying in the order of 13 to 14 cents per kilowatt hour. The reality is that in Europe we see nations such as Germany, which has long been held out as an exemplar by the Albanese Labor government as the sort of nation that we should follow, where the government has just collapsed. In large part, according to analysts, it was because of the debate over the transition and the fact that the cost of all of their transition to renewable energy has actually led to the three parties splintering because of a reduction in confidence in that nation. The reality doesn't just affect people at a personal level. The rhetoric here from the Albanese government is that they are spending more on defence. The reality, as has come out during estimates and various reports in the media over the last few weeks, is that there is not enough money to fund the items that even the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, Mr Marles said only a few months ago were a high priority for Australia's national defence. So JP9102, the project to have sovereign satellite communications—military grade communications—which Defence has indicated in their arguments underpinned so many of our defence capabilities, went from being a high priority just a few months ago to, after significant questioning during estimates, the Department of Defence admitting, 'When we prioritised, it didn't make the cut.' Read: there's not enough money to actually pay for the things that Defence sees as a high priority and that even this government said was a high priority. At a time when the government is saying that they care about quality of life, the cost of living and jobs for people, the rhetoric and the ideology that is driving them is actually driving up prices, driving down the quality of living and driving down the available funding for the Department of Defence, which weakens the security of Australia. We see shipbuilding programs cut, satellite programs cut, and maintenance decreasing on vessels that we need for the security of this nation. The Australian people will soon have a choice: do they want to continue on this trajectory which is driven by ideology and rhetoric, or do they want to change to a government that has a track record of building a strong economy and defence on facts? 15:11 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Well, let's start there, shall we? Let's start on that record. What we saw when those opposite lost government in 2022 was that living standards were already falling. We weren't living in some sort of utopia. Living standards were falling, there had been no action on any major policy issue for a decade, and I particularly highlight the lack of any meaningful action on energy and the lack of any meaningful action on housing. Senator Bilyk HZB They had 22 policies on energy. Senator GROGAN 296331 That is right, Senator Bilyk, they did. Not one of them came to any major fruition—no outcome. And housing has been wallowing in this dark place for a very long time. We did not get to a place where we have a housing shortage overnight. Those things don't happen overnight. It was 10 years of neglect that we saw there. And what else was going on in 2022 when those opposite lost government? Inflation was more than six per cent. They stand there, day after day, and go on and on about how bad things are, but inflation has halved—more than halved—in 2½ years. As they stand there and spit out their talking points about how terrible things are under a Labor government, they're still sore that they lost in 2022. Things are not worse in that sense. We know that there are real global pressures, we know that there are significant issues and we know that people are doing it tough, which is why for the last 2½ years we have worked on making the situation better by supporting Australians and helping them to do better. We know that it's tough, we know that we're seeing this global scenario and we are working to make a difference. Not only did those opposite not have any major policy agenda for 10 years, not only did they particularly neglect energy and housing, but they also did everything they could to rail against real wage increases for people. Their whole approach now is to cut, to restrict and to tax our health services—that's what we hear: slash government and services, and reorient the tax system as it stands to focus on the wealthy. Let's not even start talking about education and training, because we're hearing an awful lot of crickets from over there. We know Australians were really starting to feel the pinch in 2022, but we are seeing positive indicators now. We've seen inflation more than halve since 2022 and we're starting to see some real tick-ups in opportunities going forward. We particularly see that Treasury is expecting that real disposable household income is going to grow by 3½ per cent this year. That would be the fastest growth in more than a decade. There are those green shoots. In 2 ½ years we have worked so hard to clean up the mess that those opposite created in a 10-year space of time. I think that's pretty good start. What we've done is actually get wages moving. What we've done is create more job opportunities and more training opportunities. One of my favourites is the fee-free TAFE and the opportunities that fee-free TAFE provides for people out across our community, not just for young people but for people transitioning into those industries of the future. We're cutting student debt. We've had significant increases in rent assistance—increases we haven't seen in 30 years: 10 per cent this last year and 15 per cent the year before. We are targeting exactly where people are feeling the pain, and it's starting to work. We are starting to see the fruits of that work. We're starting to see people's incomes look better. Like I say, real disposable income is looking to grow. That's real money in the pockets of real people. That's the big difference. We believe in supporting people. We believe in people earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That is how we make a difference—as opposed to those opposite, who have a completely opposed approach to that. They want to see your wages cut, they want to see your jobs cut, they want to see your services cut and they want to see your taxes increase. 15:16 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I can't help but reflect on the word of the year by the Macquarie Dictionary, listening to those opposite here today. The word of the year is an: … Anglo-Saxon term wrapped in affixes which elevate it to being almost formal; almost respectable. This word captures what many of us feel is happening to the world and to so many aspects of our lives at the moment. This is the word of the year. Everywhere I go in Western Australia, I hear from locals that Western Australia and Australia is now heading in the wrong direction. Nobody has ever said to me that they feel that the nation under Labor, after the last 2½ years, is going in the right direction. While we've just heard from those opposite, 'We believe in all of these things,' the facts demonstrate that they cannot deliver it. In fact, everything they do makes everything that impacts on Australians worse, particularly their financial situation. What are the facts? Under Labor we've had 12 interest rate rises which have been caused by Labor's deliberate policies. The $315 billion, so far, that they've pump primed into the economy has resulted in interest rate rises and also inflation which, as everybody knows in every household across Australia and Western Australia, makes it even harder to live. Whether it's a weekly grocery shop, the monthly bills or the cost of doing business for so many small businesses, everybody is hurting. The reality is that, under Prime Minister Albanese, every Western Australian is worse off. While interest rates are well and truly falling in New Zealand, Canada, the United States and the UK, there is no sign of relief in the upcoming months—not even one interest rate drop here in Australia. A recent report by the Financial Wellbeing Collective, collated from its 12 partners, including Anglicare in Western Australia and Uniting WA, shows that financial hardship is now being experienced by families and individuals it has never touched before, even those earning two incomes. We see that at Foodbank in Western Australia—record support for double-income families who cannot meet their mortgage and feed their families. There has been a 111 per cent increase in employed clients accessing emergency relief in the past three years. There's been an 85 per cent increase in financial counselling in Western Australia. There's been a 27 per cent increase in couple households where at least one person is employed but they are still seeking financial support because those opposite have made it impossible for them to afford to live. In Western Australia, those opposite's housing policies—despite all of their rhetoric over the last two-and-a-half years, including today—have not built a single home yet. Perth is now, sadly, the most unaffordable city for renters, with rents climbing by 80 per cent since those opposite came to government. Today's national news, which those opposite were desperate to try and hide—if there was any doubt, absolutely, it bells the cat—shows that, under this Albanese government, Labor is presiding over the longest household recession, with GDP per capita going backwards in the last six quarters. This is a trend that is not only the worst in the recession or in the pandemic but the worst in our lifetime. Economists are warning us that this will extend with the possibility that Labor may record two years of continuous negative GDP growth. It is time for Western Australians to say, 'Enough is enough,' and vote out Anthony Albanese and his government. This brings me back to the word of the year by Macquarie Dictionary Online, which so captures what those opposite have done. Senator Bilyk HZB What is it? Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Senator Bilyk is asking me what that word is. The word is 'enshittification', which, as I said, is 'a gradual deterioration of a service or a product brought about by a reduction in the quality of service— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Reynolds. Senator Bilyk. 15:21 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Well, Senator Reynolds, it took you five minutes to come up with one word. That must be a classic. Let me tell you what word comes to my mind when you lot come in here bleating about the cost of living. The word that comes to my mind is 'ironic'. Isn't it ironic that those opposite come into this place and actually complain about the cost of living—because I remember when the current wave of inflation started. They have very short memories on that side. The peak of quarterly inflation was reached in March 2022. Who was in government? Those opposite were in government. They created this crisis through the last decade. The decade they were in power was just a complete waste of opportunity. What did they do in that decade? Nothing—there was complete inaction. They did absolutely nothing. But, unlike those opposite, we're actually doing something about it. After the almost decade of failure by those opposite to tackle the housing crisis, we're investing $32 billion in providing more social and affordable homes for Australians and helping more Australians own their own home. We've made health care cheaper by tripling the bulk-billing incentive and rolling out bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia, including five in my home state of Tasmania. Cheaper medicines continue to deliver savings to all Australians. Across the country, Australians have now saved more than half a billion dollars thanks to cheaper scripts following major reforms to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This includes over $9 million in savings, once again, for my fellow Tasmanians. As of 1 September this year, there are now approximately 300 different medicines available for 60-day prescriptions, providing more cost-of-living relief to those who need it most. We've also made the largest cut to the maximum patient co-payment in the 75-year history of the PBS. And we're providing $300 in energy bill relief to every Australian household. We've provided $3 billion in HELP debt relief and delivered over half a million fee-free TAFE places. On top of this, we're reducing all HECS and student debt by 20 per cent, wiping more than $16 billion in student loan debt to take the pressure off more than three million Australians. Not only are we helping reduce household expenses but we're also boosting household incomes. Just recently, more than five million Australians benefited from an increase to their income support payment when the last indexation took effect on 20 September. On that same day, over one million households got an increase in rent assistance. With these latest increases, the rate of JobSeeker payment has increased by more than 21 per cent and Commonwealth rent assistance by about 45 per cent since we came to government. As we know, housing is a major impact on family budgets. I'm pleased to say that, after 2½ years of political protesting and holding up our housing reform agenda, yesterday, the Greens finally saw the light. It's a shame there's not more of them in here at the moment. They finally saw the light and decided to support it. The Greens finally realised that they misread the electorate really badly and that their cynical attempt to boost their brand had backfired miserably. They, to be honest, were just too cocky for words—they really were. But did they apologise to Australians struggling to find suitable and affordable housing for delaying our much-needed housing reforms? No. Instead, we heard that they had to capitulate and do the highest backflip I think I've ever seen, because they simply couldn't get what they wanted. They were going to hold out. They thought that we would cave. Guess what? That's not how it works. You don't always get what you want, according to Mick Jagger, and that's a lesson that I think the Greens need to know. What is it they wanted? We all know what they wanted. They wanted headlines to take to the next election. They wanted social media to be able to increase their chances at the next election. But what has happened is that they have kept thousands of Australians that could have been in secure and affordable housing by now on waiting lists and made it so that we couldn't get on with the job of increasing our housing stock. And, while they pretend to care, every time the government seeks to deliver on our election promises— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Bilyk. 15:26 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales That's been interesting. Senator Bilyk HZB I'm glad you were listening. Senator KOVACIC 306168 I have been listening, and I don't know where to begin, to be quite frank. I'll go back to what Senator Wong said to Senator Birmingham, which is that Australians don't want a recession, but we do actually have a technical recession. We have had six quarters of negative GDP per capita. We are in a technical recession, whether we want one or not. And then the response to Senator Hume's question was around the government not agreeing with our economic descriptions of what is going on in Australia. You don't have to agree with the opposition. The Reserve Bank and economists across the economy are actually giving the same descriptions. I'll just give you two. One from the AFR yesterday said: Higher spending and lower company tax revenue will push the budget into a deeper deficit this financial year, according to economists at Deloitte who forecast Treasurer Jim Chalmers will have presided over the largest deterioration in government finances on record outside the pandemic. That's not the coalition saying that. Another one—this time from the Australian—said: Economist Saul Eslake said it was possible negative growth on this measure would continue for the next two quarters before rising again. "It is significant issue … while GDP per capita is not quite as salient to voters as real disposable income, the two are very closely linked … it's another indicator that the economy is performing poorly," Mr Eslake told The Australian. That gives us some perspective about what's being said. Then I thought about what Senator Bilyk was saying around the government working hard to make the situation better and that some pretty good stuff had been done, particularly to get wages moving. For me, that's quite ironic because, in working hard to make the situation better, what we actually have is health costs going up 10.4 per cent, education going up 11.5 per cent and food going up 11.7 per cent. That's not better for people needing medical treatment, paying for education or buying food. By the same token, housing has gone up 12.9 per cent. Rent has gone up 16 per cent. Insurance has gone up 18 per cent, and gas has gone up 33.9 per cent. This is 'making the situation better', according to the government. Well, it's certainly not better for everyday Australians, who can't afford to fill their cars up with petrol and who are deciding what will or will not go into the trolley and determining which bills they will pay this week to stretch out their ever-reducing disposable income. That takes me to my next point. Getting wages moving again isn't relevant whatsoever when disposable income has dropped 5½ per cent under this government since 2022. You're effectively giving with one hand and taking away with the other. So we need to get some clarity around what Australians are really experiencing, and it is not good. I've spoken about this before. I've spoken about it many times. Young Australians believe, no matter how hard they work, they will never own their own home. Can you imagine what it's like to try and save to buy a home when everything that you need to pay for and buy is getting more and more expensive? How are you meant to save? You've got no options to cut back on your food and on your housing—your rent. If you're saving to buy a home, unless you're living at home with mum and dad, you are paying rent, and that has gone up 16.4 per cent. This government is sitting there and telling us that they're doing a great job. 'Everything is really good. We've made everything better. We've done some pretty good stuff.' Well, I'm telling you that, when you go out there and when you speak to everyday Australians, they're not saying that they are better off. They are saying that they are absolutely worse off. I think we need to get away from the talking points and the narratives and some of the bubble mentality and go, 'What is actually happening to everyday Australians?' And that is that they cannot afford the things that they need to buy, and they need people in this building to act to make things better. Question agreed to. Whyalla Steelworks 40 15:31 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Whyalla Steelworks. Last month, former senator Rex Patrick and I visited the steelworks in Whyalla, a follow-up visit to check on progress. We came away deeply concerned. You see, in 2016 the steelworks in Whyalla went through a crisis when the previous owner, Arrium, went into administration with $4 billion in debt. The British billionaire Sanjeev Gupta's GFG Alliance came in with plans of new investment in renewable energy projects to reduce operating costs—a 200-megawatt solar farm, pumped hydro and a large-capacity lithium-ion battery. The Whyalla plant would progressively transform into a 10-million-tonne-per-year green-steel megaplant, intoxicating words that offered hope and grand vision for the future. Then, in 2020, Green Steel Capital, GFG's financier, collapsed, and the steelworks started sliding back into strife. In March this year, a two-day scheduled stoppage resulted in the Whyalla plant's blast furnace cooling down far more than planned, and it's been offline ever since, making the situation even worse. GFG Alliance recently announced that it had secured a $150 million loan, which it will use to pay suppliers and fund efforts to fix the blast furnace. Before GFG's latest financial lifeline, the federal and the South Australian governments were talking about possible financial intervention. Understandably, they were nervous about just handing over money in case it went missing elsewhere in the GFG empire. Commercial businesses may make decisions in their commercial interests, not Australia's strategic or sovereign interests. They aim to make profit, not build a nation. I want to make Australia make again. If the Prime Minister really wants our future to be made in Australia, he needs to get involved and not be a somewhat interested bystander running around in a cowboy hat. If the Albanese government can gift $10 billion to the US and UK shipyards, he can surely invest a few billion in critical Australian industry. Prime Minister, you need to act now. Help Australian industry and help the community in Whyalla. Do what you promised in the last election and make Australia make again. Question agreed to. Middle East 40 15:33 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Middle East. This Friday, 29 November, marks the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This year is a significant commemoration. It is not a moment of despair, nor a moment to bow our heads in defeat in the face of endless slaughter. Instead, we mark a seismic shift in the global narrative on Palestine. Today, the Palestinian flag flies in all corners of the world. Millions have marched all year, have agitated, have organised boycotts and have chanted for Palestinian freedom. The movement for a free Palestine is growing. In attempting to erase the indigenous people of Palestine, all Israel and the United States have achieved through their genocide is the permanence of Palestinian existence. Despite Palestinians being maligned and dehumanised by racist politicians and media for decades, including in this country, the world is rising with the Palestinian people. Justice and truth go hand in hand. People in this country and around the world see the truth of Israel. They see it for the genocidal apartheid state that it is. They see it as a settler, colonial project built on violent racial supremacy. That is why more and more people are protesting and boycotting and chanting. That is why all the malicious attempts in this parliament and from the legacy media to distract and deflect are not working. None of your tactics to cover up for a genocide, to cover up for Israel's crimes, are working. The ICC arrest warrants are proof of that. The ICC has flushed out everyone in here who has spoken and worked to undermine every effort to hold Israel to account for this genocide. To those in this parliament and in state parliaments across the country, I call on you to sense this global shift, understand that you can't stop it, understand that attempts to shut down criticism of Israel won't stop justice from prevailing and understand that you are on the side of savagery. Justice will prevail, and Palestine will be free. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS 41 STATEMENTS Parliamentary Standards 41 15:36 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I've been dragged in here to withdraw something I said in the chamber yesterday, so I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I'm going to ask you to address the chamber correctly. You've been asked to come in. You were asked yesterday— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, please don't interrupt me. You were asked to withdraw yesterday, and you were asked again this morning. Senator THORPE 280304 I'm withdrawing. Thank you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. I would just like to add, in relation to the language used, that senators from across the chamber have expressed their concerns to me, making it clear that the language was not culturally safe. Earlier this week, the Senate agreed to a reference co-sponsored by Senators Thorpe and Faruqi. It referenced the need to improve safety and respect in the Senate chamber. I would encourage Senator Thorpe and all senators to reflect on the language used in this place and their role in improving the safety and respect in the Senate. NOTICES 41 NOTICES Presentation 41 15:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraph (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to eight bills as set out in the list available on the Dynamic Red, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. I table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document s read as follows— ONLINE SAFETY AMENDMENT (SOCIAL MEDIA MINIMUM AGE) AMENDMENT BILL Purpose of the Bill The Bill introduces an obligation on social media services to enforce a minimum age for access to their platforms. A Commonwealth-led approach to this important social issue will ensure Australian children are better protected from online harms and parents and carers are supported. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill will enable the implementation phase of the legislation to commence that will give effect to the law that will help protect Australian children from online harms caused by access to inappropriate or harmful content on social media which causes mental, psychological, social and real-world physical harms. This Bill is necessary as a matter of urgency to introduce legislation this year to place the onus on the platforms that deliver these services to prevent Australian children from accessing their services.. _____ SURVEILLANCE LEGISLATION (CONFIRMATION OF APPLICATION) BILL Purpose of the Bill Declare that material collected under the Operation Ironside warrants was not obtained by intercepting a communication, and was lawfully obtained under the warrants set out in the Bill. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill in the 2024 Spring sitting may be required to overcome any uncertainty that may result from a potential High Court decision. _____ MIGRATION AMENDMENT (PROHIBITING ITEMS IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITIES) BILL 2024 Purpose of the Bill The Bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act) to broaden the search and seizure powers of authorised officers to include searching for, screening and seizing 'prohibited things'. Currently, search and seizure powers are limited to weapons, escape aids and evidence which may be relevant to grounds for cancelling a visa. The Bill would provide the Minister the power to determine that certain things are 'prohibited things' in relation to immigration detention facilities and detainees (whether or not they are in an immigration detention facility), if the Minister is satisfied that possession or use of it might be a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility, or to the order of the facility ("immigration detention facility risk"). Prohibited things will be determined by the Minister in a disallowable legislative instruments and could include items that are either unlawful to possess under Australian laws or lawful to possess. The Bill includes other amendments to strengthen and clarify existing search and seizure powers. Reasons for Urgency The current day detention population predominantly comprises immigration detainees with serious criminal histories. These convicted criminals seek to continue their criminal behaviour in immigration detention, which has led to an increasing number of events that threaten the health, safety and security of staff and other detainees, as well as visitors. These events have included harassment, intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence, often fuelled by alcohol and illicit substances. There have been incidents of criminals in detention facilities using encrypted messaging services to run drug trafficking and other organised crime activities. These behaviours cause harm not just to people in detention facilities but to the broader Australian community. The Commonwealth has a duty of care for the safety and security of immigration detainees and people in immigration detention facilities and for maintaining the good order of these facilities. Passage of the Bill in the 2024 Spring sittings is required to ensure the Commonwealth is provided with reasonable, proportionate and essential powers to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all people in immigration detention facilities, and enable better management of immigration detention facility risks. _____ AGED CARE (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill is to make necessary consequential amendments and establish transitional arrangements to enable the aged care system to transition smoothly from the Aged Care Act 1997 and other existing legislation to the new Aged Care legislative framework. Reasons for Urgency If the legislation is not passed in the 2024 Spring sitting period, the consequential amendments and transitional arrangements necessary to support the operation of the new Aged Care Act, and implement priority reforms of the Government, may not be able to commence on 1 July 2025. This will delay the implementation of recommendations of the Royal Commission and other priority reforms which are designed to reform the sector and protect older Australians from mistreatment, neglect and harm. The Bill is necessary to support the Aged Care Bill to respond to recommendations of the Royal Commission and government election commitments and budget measures. _____ MIDWIFE PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY (COMMONWEALTH CONTRIBUTION) SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL Purpose of the Bill This Bill amends the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Act 2010 to ensure midwives have professional indemnity insurance (PII) coverage, enabling them to provide safe, insured low-risk homebirth services and intrapartum care outside a hospital while simultaneously ensuring essential support for Birthing on Country (BoC) models. This addresses a critical market failure, guaranteeing women's right to choose their preferred birth setting and expanding access to culturally safe maternity care options for First Nations communities. Reasons for Urgency The current exemption within the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law allowing midwives to practice homebirth without PII expires on 30 June 2025. Without insurance coverage in place, midwives cannot legally offer these services, severely restricting women's birth choices and the services a midwife can provide. This also leaves an essential legal gap unresolved, putting both families and midwives at risk. Furthermore, the lack of PII directly threatens the viability of BoC models, hindering progress towards Closing the Gap targets for First Nations' health outcomes. BoC services are proven to improve birth outcomes for First Nations mothers and babies. Urgent passage of this bill is crucial to safeguard the continuity and expansion of these invaluable, culturally safe programs. A recent tender process confirmed that no private insurer will cover low-risk homebirths and intrapartum care outside of hospitals without significant government intervention. This highlights a clear market failure that only legislation and government support can address. Delaying action would deny women their fundamental right to choose their preferred birth setting and the type of care they receive. International evidence supports the safety and positive outcomes of low-risk homebirths when midwives are appropriately supported. Timely passage within the same sittings period are essential. This ensures sufficient time for insurers to adapt their policies prior to the 1 July 2025 commencement date and avoids any potential service disruption. By addressing these urgent needs, we can ensure continued access to safe, women-centred maternity care options and support the critical work of Birthing on Country services. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health and Aged Care) _____ COMMONWEALTH ENTITIES (PAYMENT SURCHARGES) BILL 2024 COMMONWEALTH ENTITIES (PAYMENT SURCHARGES) TAX (IMPOSITION) BILL 2024 COMMONWEALTH ENTITIES (PAYMENT SURCHARGES) (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2024 Purpose of the Bills The purpose of the bills is to formalise and modernise longstanding Commonwealth practice by providing express legislative authority for Commonwealth entities to continue to charge and collect payment surcharges where the entity has the legislative authority to collect a payment. Reasons for Urgency Introduction and passage of the bills in the 2024 Spring sittings is needed to provide legislative authority for payment surcharges being collected across the Commonwealth. Presentation 43 Postponement 43 BUSINESS 43 BUSINESS Rearrangement 43 15:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Gallagher. Leave granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I move the motion as amended: That on Tuesday, 26 November 2024: (a) the hours of meeting be midday till adjournment; (b) the routine of business from 6.30 pm be consideration of the following bills: (i) Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, (ii) Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, (iii) Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024, (iv) Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, and (v) Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential)Bill 2024, (vi) Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024; (c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded; and (d) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the bills has concluded. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 44 DOCUMENTS Australian Defence Force 44 Order for the Production of Documents 44 15:39 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 6 December 2024: (a) a list of all schools visited (incursion) by Australian Defence Force (ADF) or Defence personnel since 1 January 2023 and the purpose and/or nature of each visit; and (b) a list of all schools that have participated in an excursion managed or overseen by the ADF or Defence since 1 January 2023 and the location and purpose of each excursion. Question agreed to. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority 44 Order for the Production of Documents 44 15:40 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by midday on Wednesday, 27 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. Question agreed to. Australian Bureau of Statistics 44 Order for the Production of Documents 44 15:41 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 4 February 2025, the following Australian Bureau of Statistics data for all deaths in Australia in 2021: (a) date of death; (b) date of last COVID-19 vaccination; and (c) age. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 695, standing in the name of Senator Rennick, be agreed to.      

The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 5 PAIRS Farrell, D. E. Canavan, M. J. Gallagher, K. R. Smith, D. A. Lines, S. McKenzie, B. Pratt, L. C. Brockman, W. E. Wong, P. Birmingham, S. J.

Question negatived.

BUSINESS 45 BUSINESS Withdrawal 45 15:48 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day no. 28, relating to the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, be discharged from the Notice Paper. 15:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I do not support the bill that is the subject of this discharge motion. Like Senators Hume, Kovacic and a number of my colleagues, I would not and will not ever vote for this bill or any measures that restrict women's reproductive rights. However, the coalition opposes this motion because this motion is a threat to the ability of private senators to perform their duties in this place. Private senators' bills have traditionally only ever been discharged by the sponsoring senator, rather than the majority denying a senator the right to even have their bill considered. Crossbench senators in particular should reflect on the precedent this motion sets, which could see other bills discharged just because a majority oppose them. Given that this bill has been on the Notice Paper for almost two years, the decision of the Greens to pursue this at this time is clearly about politics, not the substantive issue. The Greens did not oppose the introduction of the bill, the first reading of the bill or the Senate referral of the bill. In fact, frankly, until today, they've spent more time opposing transmission lines inquiries than this bill. Senators, whatever your views on the substance, I urge you to respect the principle of allowing each other to at least have bills debated and considered, by voting against this discharge motion. 15:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 One Nation opposes this motion. Only Queensland and Victoria publicly release fulsome data on babies born alive after abortion. From this information and from media reports, we know of the following babies born alive, tossed in a cold, stainless-steel kidney dish and left to die alone and shivering: Victoria, 396; Queensland, 328; South Australia, 54; Western Australia, 27; New South Wales, one—they don't know; Northern Territory, one; and the ACT—not reported. Senator Waters may never acknowledge this reality. These numbers are significantly less than the overall number of babies born alive following a failed abortion—babies born alive. Data reporting on abortion varies between states and territories, and there's only limited data publicly released. This is a disgrace. 15:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 This is not a bill that I intend to support. Regulations surrounding abortion care are matters for the states and territories, not for this parliament. Neither side should seek to play politics with what is an issue of women's health care. In the ACT, there are already laws that ensure care is provided to all babies born alive, no matter the circumstances of their birth. If senators feel that those laws are not being upheld, they should take it up with their state or territory. The bill is dishonestly framed to make political points; however, I believe it is undemocratic for the Senate to remove this bill without debate. There are many opportunities to oppose the first reading or the referral to committee, and those were not taken, as has been pointed out. This has been sitting here for two years. As much as we may disagree with the senators that have brought this bill into the chamber, under the standing orders they have the right to do so and to have their bills debated. 15:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator TYRRELL 300639 I think the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill is abhorrent. I don't support the bill, but I support the right of anyone who wants to debate the bill, either in support or in opposition, to have the chance to speak. When I saw this motion, my first instinct was to support it, but then I listened to Senator Babet speak in the chamber about debate on this bill being stifled. Senator Babet's words reminded me that our democracy gives us the opportunity to share our thoughts. I'm not supporting the motion to discharge the bill from the Notice Paper. We should all have equal opportunity to speak on what is important to us and to those that we represent. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion no. 677, standing the in name of Senator Waters be agreed to.    

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

 28 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 8 PAIRS Ciccone, R. O'Sullivan, M. A. Farrell, D. E. Sharma, D. N. Ghosh, V. Hume, J. O'Neill, D. M. Cash, M. C. Polley, H. Van, D. A. Pratt, L. C. Brockman, W. E. Sheldon, A. V. Kovacic, M. Smith, M. F. Bragg, A. J.

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 47 DOCUMENTS Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 47 Order for the Production of Documents 47 15:58 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 696, standing in my name, relating to an order for the production of documents, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion. Leave granted. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and I ask that it be taken as formal. 15:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Through the National Cultural Policy, Revive, the Albanese Labor government is committed to introducing Australian screen content requirements on streaming platforms to ensure continued access to local stories and content. The government is undertaking a genuine consultation process to help inform this obligation. The documents requested in Senator Lambie's motion contain commercially sensitive material and were provided to the government on an agreement of confidentiality to help inform this consultation process. Consultation with all stakeholders remains ongoing, and no decisions have been made. Question negatived. Gambling Advertising 47 Order for the Production of Documents 47 16:00 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: (1) That the Senate— (a) notes that the order for production of documents no. 657 made on 18 November 2024, for the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to provide by 2 pm on Thursday, 21 November 2024, the proposed wagering advertising reform model, dated 8 August 2024, and the wagering advertising reform consultation—schedule of questions, dated 30 July 2024, has not been complied with; and (b) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made by the minister on 20 November 2024 on the basis that: (i) 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, and (ii) the Minister is now advancing a different claim that is inconsistent with the previous freedom of information decision for the same documents. (2) That there be laid on the table by 2 pm on Wednesday, 27 November 2024, the documents so ordered in full compliance with the order made on 18 November 2024. 16:00 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The response to this order from the Minister for Communications represents a new low for the Albanese government when it comes to transparency. Either documents enjoy the protection of being cabinet documents and need that protection to be maintained or they're not and don't. This minister is applying a new and opaque set of words—that release of documents may 'pre-empt' cabinet deliberations. This PII claim is disrespectful to Senator Lambie and, of course, disrespectful of the Senate. This government's apparent commitment to transparency is so opaque it even has light bending around it! The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 697, standing in the name of Senator Lambie, be agreed to.    

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

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 8 PAIRS Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Brockman, W. E. Pratt, L. C. Cash, M. C. Farrell, D. E. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. McDonald, S. E. Smith, M. F. McKenzie, B. Watt, M. P. Scarr, P. M. Ayres, T. Smith, D. A. McCarthy, M.

Question agreed to.

 Minister for Education 48 Order for the Production of Documents 48 16:08 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 29 November 2024, all correspondence, meeting briefs and meeting notes held by the Australian Education Research Organisation relating to fundraising. 16:08 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 motion seeks documents belonging to the Australia Education Research Organisation. That organisation is legally constituted an independent entity. The Commonwealth does not hold these documents. Moreover, as AERO is jointly owned by the Commonwealth government and all state and territory governments, the Commonwealth is not able to release any such documents unilaterally. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is general business notice of motion No. 698, standing in the name of Senator Allman-Payne, be agreed to.    

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

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 National Housing Accord 49 Order for the Production of Documents 49 16:11 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania As the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 563 (the order) agreed to by the Senate on 13 August 2024, requiring the tabling of reports prepared by external consultants engaged by the Commonwealth to identify planning reforms, was not complied with, (ii) on 22 August and 9 October 2024, in response to the order, the Treasurer sought additional time to comply with the order, (iii) on 8 November 2024, the Treasurer made a public interest immunity claim on the basis that the disclosure of the document would have the potential to cause prejudice to future consultation and harm relations between the Commonwealth and the states, (iv) on 19 November 2024, motion no. 676 concerning compliance with the order was agreed to by the Senate, rejecting the public interest immunity claim and requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer (the minister) to comply by 5 pm on 20 November 2024, and (v) the minister failed to comply with motion no. 676 on 20 November 2024, and has provided no explanation for this non- compliance; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 27 November 2024, at the conclusion of consideration of private senators' bills and immediately prior to government business being called on, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order and motion no. 676, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 700, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.      

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

 42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. 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. 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. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 8 PAIRS Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Brockman, W. E. Pratt, L. C. Cash, M. C. Farrell, D. E. McGrath, J. Smith, M. F. McKenzie, B. Watt, M. P. Reynolds, L. K. Ayres, T. Scarr, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Smith, D. A. McCarthy, M.

Question agreed to.

Department of the Treasury 51 Order for the Production of Documents 51 16:18 Senator 281558 Tasmania ASKEW (—) (): 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, 27 November 2024, the report provided by the Board of Taxation to the Government on 23 February 2024 concerning a review of the tax treatment of digital assets and transactions (crypto assets) in Australia. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 51 BUSINESS Rearrangement 51 16:19 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That general business notice of motion no. 21 standing in the name of Senator Rennick, relating to a request to the Auditor-General, be called on immediately after formal business on 26 November 2024, take precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate. Question negatived. COMMITTEES 51 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 51 Reference 51 16:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that on Monday 25 November 2024, after 6.30 pm, a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Hanson relating to a proposed reference to the Community Affairs References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 23 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Ruston, A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. 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.

NOTICES 52 NOTICES Withdrawal 52 16:29 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I withdraw the motion standing in my name for tomorrow. PETITIONS 52 PETITIONS People With Disability: Australian Beaches 52 16:29 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia by leave—I present a non-conforming petition in relation to making Australia's beaches more accessible. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 52 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Agriculture 52 16:29 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Roberts has submitted a proposal under standing order 75: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "Australia's agricultural sector must not be sacrificed on the altar of climate change". 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 now set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The UK has just concluded a trial of a personal carbon dioxide allowance which, as the name implies, calculates how much carbon dioxide is produced annually in the UK, then divides that per person per day and then works out by how much that figure needs to fall in order to meet net zero goals. We have the white paper in my office that informed the trial. The whole concept of a daily carbon dioxide allowance is now out there for all to see—conspiracy theory no more; I bloody told you so! To anyone who is advised by data and empirical evidence, not mass formation psychosis, carbon dioxide is the gas of life, necessary for all life on earth. It's plant food. The more CO2 produced, the more food, plants and trees the earth is blessed with. The climate change scam is not founded on science; it's founded on feelings. It has become a religion for those who consider themselves above religion, and increasingly amongst those who could do with having some religion in their lives. Australia's agricultural sector and rural communities, and $100 billion of agricultural production and hundreds of thousands of jobs, are about to be sacrificed on the altar of climate fraud. It is driven by globalist politicians and directed by parasitic billionaires who will benefit from this criminal enterprise—including Coca-Cola, who sponsored the trial. Coca-Cola is the world's largest producer of plastic, with 120 billion single-use plastic bottles each year holding their toxic sludge and producing 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—so their support for this white paper and trial is nothing short of greenwashing. Coca-Cola's leading shareholders are Warren Buffett, of Berkshire Hathaway, as well as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These wealth funds invest on behalf of the world's predatory billionaires who will profit from a carbon dioxide allowance. This is in the open following the admission last week by British Prime Minister Starmer that farmland being stolen from British farmers via taxation extortion will be purchased by corporate partners, including BlackRock. I wonder if this is what Prime Minister Albanese spoke about in his recent meeting with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. What is the future for Australian food producers under this crony capitalist dystopian agenda headed our way? Red meat is top of the hit list. The methane cycle means cows do not produce methane in a way that remains in the atmosphere; I'll return to that point in a minute. Nonetheless, this trial used the figure for red meat carbon dioxide production of 100 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, which equals 100 grams of carbon dioxide for every one gram of meat. Quick maths means your daily food allowance of 2,600 grams of carbon dioxide will be enough to buy 26 grams of red meat—one mouthful—and then you eat nothing else that day. I raised this years ago in this chamber when the World Economic Forum first called for a limit on red meat of 30 grams a day—another conspiracy theory that's come true! A cooked breakfast will have to be half the size to squeeze into your daily allowance—again, with nothing left over for food for the rest of the day. Your daily allowance will cover two plant based meals a day because predatory billionaires like BlackRock and Bill Gates are buying up farmland to grow the cereals and soy needed for plant based meals. Not surprisingly, the whole thing is rigged towards the products they can exploit for their own financial gain—including plant based fake meat, which contains 20 chemical ingredients; most are shared with pet food. The nutrition profile is not even close to the nutrition profile of natural foods like red meat and dairy. Speaking of dairy: don't wash your yummy plant burger down with a glass of milk, because you can't. One glass of milk is your entire food budget for the day, with just enough left over for the coffee to go in it. The hypocrisy here was on display to everyone at last week's COP 29 meeting for the UN, in Baku, where the area dedicated to meat based foods was packed and the one dedicated to plant based foods was empty. The World Economic Forum at Davos has hosted speakers calling for this system to include carbon dioxide credit trading so rich people can live their lives exactly as they do right now and poor people can skimp on food, clothing, travel, electricity and entertainment and sell their excess credits to rich people. The rules never apply to the people who make them. The war on livestock is a war on good nutrition and is based on a lie which is designed to enrich billionaires. Over 150 nations signed the Global Methane Pledge without even bothering to check if the methane was man made. Methane from fossil fuels has a higher carbon-13 isotope ratio, and, even though hydrocarbon fuel use is rising, the carbon-13 levels of atmospheric methane are falling. Between 2020 and 2022, microbes in the environment drove methane emissions more than hydrocarbon fuels did. That's a pretty big deal. Methane has supposedly caused 30 per cent of our current temperature rise—say the broken climate models. Yet 90 per cent of that recent rise was nature's microbes, not cattle. The Big Brother in every aspect of our lives is based on fake science of carbon dioxide and methane. 16:35 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise to speak briefly on the matter of importance moved by Senator Roberts. The Albanese government is committed to improving our agricultural industry, which is one of the best in the world—the economic data shows this in no uncertain terms. Having contracted during the pandemic, agricultural employment is recovering very strongly. As of August this year, 285,000 people were employed in the ag sector. That's a 12 per cent increase in agricultural employment over the last 12 months. Despite poor seasonal conditions affecting production in the last financial year, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry forecast the gross value of agricultural production to rise by four per cent, to $86 billion, this financial year. This is very important, because back in 2018 the National Farmers Federation laid out its road map to grow Australian agriculture into a $100 billion industry by 2030. Back then, the industry was worth around $59 billion. The sector has added nearly $25 billion in value since 2018, and it's set to continue this strong growth. The numbers simply don't lie. Given these very encouraging figures, I don't understand how we can be accused of sacrificing Australian agriculture on any altar, not least climate change. To suggest that climate action is intended to hurt Australian agriculture is to misunderstand both climate change and agriculture. Farmers are more dependent on and connected to the environment than people in any other profession are. Across the world, agriculture will be hit first and hardest by climate change. It's why I've been so encouraged over the past few years to see representatives from our fine ag sector, including organisations like the National Farmers Federation, come together on this issue. From putting forward innovative solutions on the world stage in forums like COP to taking the initiative in their local communities, Australian producers don't want climate action stopped; they want their government to help them do the right thing. Taking action on climate change and strengthening our agricultural industry aren't mutually exclusive ambitions. We can and, in fact, need to embrace both. Modelling also suggests that, due to inaction on climate change, Australian farmers lost, on average, $29,000 per farm from 2001 and 2020. And, as climate change worsens, that bill will only get higher if we delay. That's why the government are taking decisive action. We're spending $28 million over 10 years to help farmers better understand their emissions, using digital technology to ensure it's easy to keep up with climate standards. To help farmers get access to market insights and make good financial decisions, we're investing nearly $40 million to expand the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES. We're also spending $30 million over the next four years to supercharge reductions in agricultural and land-practice emissions, building on existing outreach programs. For years I have been very passionate about our ag sector and about reframing our approach. I also believe that agriculture is as critical and crucial to our national security as it is to our economy. Since taking office, federal Labor has focused on growing and securing ag in the face of recent supply change disruptions to the global economy. We must face the reality that, while supply chain disruptions began in earnest during the COVID pandemic, they almost certainly will not end with it. As climate change continues to exacerbate natural disasters and cause disruptions, as we see constantly throughout the supply chain, a secure ag industry with sufficient capacity to feed Australia and broaden our region may become our most valuable national asset. By working to prevent climate change and to secure our ag industry against these effects, we do the opposite of sacrificing it. We ensure its survival, its prosperity and its potential to provide for our country and for our people for many years to come. 16:40 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I want to thank Senator Roberts for bringing this very important and very pertinent issue to the chamber. Senator Ciccone spoke about models. I often ask about models in the portfolio areas that I'm interested in. When I asked Dr Colman of the CSIRO about the models they're using, particularly with respect to an update of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, he said, 'While models are an important line of evidence, they aren't the truth,' which is true. Millions are being invested in producing models to inform our policies and decision-making, but we must always remember: they are models; they are not the truth. When our primary industries are at stake, when billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, that distinction becomes very important. While I believe the climate is changing, I also firmly believe that primary industries have a vital role to play in being part of the solution—unlike Labor, who think things like agriculture and forestry are part of the problem. Take, for example, their countless anti-agriculture policies. I'll start in my portfolio area of water. Despite the government already holding on to more than 2,100 gigalitres of water in Commonwealth environmental portfolios and despite the states holding hundreds of gigalitres of water in their environmental portfolios, the government says we need a new basin plan to address climate change, while pursuing more water buybacks across the basin, despite the unanimous concerns of communities. Goondiwindi, Dirranbandi, Moree, Dubbo, Griffith, Deniliquin, Shepparton, Mildura, Renmark and Loxton—every single one of those communities says water buybacks are not the solution, but, no, Labor knows best, apparently. Labor wants the new Basin Plan to account for climate change. That's ignoring the fact that irrigation is one of the best tools we have in our armoury to be able to continue to feed the world in a changing climate. That's ignoring the fact that our farmers are already taking steps to address soil carbon sequestration, through farm forestry, through new broadacre agricultural practices, through using techniques like a fungi inoculent that increases the carbon uptake of soils, and through new water efficiencies. Our farmers are doing this despite the government tying their hands behind their back and despite looking down the barrel of new carbon emissions reporting structures that will cost them time and money and achieve no real substantial change. Then let's talk about Labor's sole solution to the changing climate when it comes to energy: acres and acres of solar panels; hundreds of thousands of wind turbines, on and off shore; and tens of thousands of transmission lines. And where do all of these things go? They're not in Mosman. They're not in Toorak. They're not in Brisbane's South Bank. No. They go right across regional Australia, across prime agricultural land and forestry land. Forestry is a carbon sink. It's okay to rip up hectares of forests to put in transmission lines and build roads to get the wind turbines to the top of the ridge, but it's not okay for a farmer to put in a development application for an intensive dairy? I commend Senator Roberts's motion to this place, and I say we need to start recognising that agriculture is part of the solution. We, on this side of the chamber, the Liberals and the Nationals, stand behind our farmers and support our farmers and will do so into the future. 16:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It's good to hear Senator Davey say she accepts climate change is real and supports solutions and that she believes agriculture should be part of the solution, because I totally agree. But I think we need to be realistic here. It's no reflection on you, Senator Davey, but you're part of a political party that, since I've been in this place for 13 years, has done nothing but undermine climate action—consistently undermine climate action. One of your colleagues here in the Senate, Senator Canavan, has been on the record—he covered his face with coal dust and put it on his social media—saying that he stands with coalminers. He's very proud of the stance he has taken on supporting dirty fossil fuel energy, which of course is one of the big parts of the problem that we have to solve—how we transition away from dirty fossil fuels. So you can't stand with farmers if you are part of a political party and a movement that is, in its DNA, totally opposed to climate action. I don't need to go through, for senators, all the actions we've seen in this place in the last decade to undermine climate action and transition of our economy, but it has been really sad to watch. We are seeing the weather and the climate change around us now. This is just a small technical point for Senator Roberts: yes, CO2 is plant food; however, as you may know or as any student of botany from high school or university will tell you, the stomata, which take on the CO2 in the plants, will close to conserve water when it gets hot. This is just basic science. I know you don't accept science or facts and you never have, but I'm just telling you how plants actually work, Senator Roberts. On a hot day, they will shut. They won't take on CO2. That's just a little fact I thought you might want to be aware of. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Roberts, on a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 That is a negative imputation on me—false. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I'll just have to take some advice on that. On this occasion, it may just have been a debating point, Senator Roberts. So I ask you to proceed, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 It was a debating point. If I'd called you the village idiot, you'd have a good reason to stand up and take a point of order. But I didn't. I was making a perfectly valid point about how plants work. They have these things called stomata, Senator Roberts, which are tiny little apertures— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I'll ask you to address your remarks through the chair. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 Senator Whish-Wilson said that I don't believe in the science. That is false. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Again, I think that's a debating point; I don't think it's a personal reflection or imputation. So I invite you to— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 These plants have things called stomata. They are millions of little apertures where they take in CO2. So you're correct; they do actually use CO2. But when it gets hot they close. Anyone who understands the basics of how plants work would be able to tell you that. And, of course, in the future of climate change, it is going to get hotter. We are seeing extreme weather events— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 I am not contributing to the debate on this, but I think you have asked Senator Whish-Wilson to direct his comments through the chair, and he keeps referring directly to senators. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Whish-Wilson, thank you in advance for directing your comments through the chair. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I thought I was directing them through the chair. My, my, how sensitive we are in the chamber today, talking about climate change and the LNP's and One Nation's decades of opposing it! Farmers, as Senator Ciccone said, are on the front line of climate change. We've got a movement of Farmers for Climate Action around the country who are coming together—there are over 10,000 of them now—and who are talking to each other about how they can take climate action. Senator Roberts might be interested to know that a new report just commissioned by Farmers for Climate Action—which they're talking about on their social media today—surveyed 1,000 farmers, and 70 per cent support clean energy projects on farmland in their community. In fact, this reporting shows, as CEO Natalie Collard stated today: … the quiet majority of rural Australia is clearly in favour of clean energy projects locally, although many don't realise they're part of the quiet majority … And that is because we have a noisy minority in this place who call themselves the Liberal and National parties and who continue to say that they're advocating for farmers and that they speak for farmers when they clearly don't. They clearly don't speak for farmers. Farmers are on the land. They are the ones subjected to droughts, to pestilence—we're seeing significant new biosecurity threats arising because of climate change—to floods, to bushfires, to extreme weather events, to disruptions to their supply chains, to disruptions to port infrastructure, to export markets, and I could go on. They're the risks of modern-day farming, and they're made worse by climate change. But, ultimately, they're made worse by people in here like Senator Roberts who actually don't even want to understand the science. They waste the Senate's time and the taxpayers' time by coming up with motions like this, which are so cooked up with all the different elements to them that they just don't make sense. But I have no doubt that Senator Roberts will find a few seconds of clips to cut out and put on his social media to show that he's got some kind of international conspiracy agenda around climate change and is taking action to support farmers. I look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions. It's been fascinating. 16:51 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria There's perhaps no more important role in our nation than that of our farmers. We eat and we are clothed every day because of these hardworking men and women. Our farmers take huge risks every year with no guaranteed financial return, yet our government—both sides of this chamber, in my opinion—deliberately punish them with their crazy climate agenda. That's what it is. Teal voters on Sydney's North Shore would be outraged if you suggested that a solar panel might take up a corner of their beloved dog park, but those same voters, urged on by the climate fanatics that they send to Canberra, don't think twice about tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines being installed across prime agricultural land, massive wind turbines, huge solar farms, increasing restrictions on vehicles, forced water buy-backs, banned live exports and emission reduction targets aimed at livestock. If you're a farmer, the attacks from your own government just never end. The irony, of course, is that it is our farmers who we rely on to feed our nation. It is our farmers whom the government insists must bear the greatest burden of so-called climate action. It is worse than unfair. It's stupid. It's mean. It's self-destructive. On a sidenote, why do we call these things 'renewable energy'? What is renewable about Chinese made solar panels which need to be installed and then replaced regularly or wind turbines which also need to be rebuilt every couple of decades? Where do these things go at the end of their useful life? Into landfill. There's nothing renewable about renewable energy—far from it. I'll tell you what is renewable, though: the cost. That's what's renewable. The government keep telling us that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. I don't know about that. Have you checked your power bill? Have you checked it? They keep going up. Our farmers already carry this nation on their back. They should not have to shoulder net zero as well, which I will add is nothing but a wealth transfer. It has nothing at all to do with the environment. If you care about the environment, how about you stop plastic going into the ocean? How about you stop pesticides and chemicals running off into the ocean? How about you do that? How about you stop cutting down old-growth forests? Those are real environmental things. Net zero has nothing to do with this—nothing at all. It's difficult enough being a farmer in this country with ridiculous cultural heritage laws piled upon the red tape that's piled upon the green tape that restricts everything that they do, and don't get me started on the taxes. If inner-city elites really want to walk to work, cancel their overseas flights, sit at home in the dark or suck on soggy paper straws laced with forever chemicals to 'save the planet'—good luck to them! But the same people should remember that the soybeans and lentils they love to consume so much are grown by the blood and the sweat and the tears of hardworking farmers. What our primary producers need from this government—both sides, Left and Right—is to just get the heck out of the way. Let them do their darn jobs. Let our farmers farm. At the end of the day, this is the problem—too much government, not enough freedom. You can apply that line to absolutely everything. Government is always, always the problem. 16:55 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to support this motion today that we should not sacrifice our farmers on the altar of climate change. I have to say, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bragg, I'm disappointed that Senator Whish-Wilson didn't refer to me before as well, because I would enjoy the debate about the science very much. You see, the problem with climate change is it's a motherhood statement; it lacks specific equations that show and measure cause and effect. If I were to lodge my tax return and say my income had changed, the tax office would, quite rightly, come back to me and say, 'You need to be more specific.' Yet, we have the government spending taxpayer dollars on this notion of climate change, but they don't really want to define what 'climate change' means. I've asked the CSIRO in estimates if they could give me the method by which they're going to calculate net zero, and the reply was, 'Well, which method do you want—there are 40 different models.' I think that goes to show that if the experts can't even agree on how to calculate net zero, they clearly aren't very specific about the impacts of CO2 on the environment. The other question I've asked them, while talking about plants, is we forget that the biggest absorber of CO2 in the planet is phytoplankton in the ocean, which absorbs about 40 per cent of the world's CO2. We know, after the bushfires in 2019-2020 there was a phytoplankton bloom in the Southern Ocean because they absorbed all that extra CO2, so the fishes and the whales—our fisheries in Australia are actually quite low compared to other countries, so we need all the CO2 blowing off the land over our coastline to get as much fish and marine life as we can. It is important to note that CO2 boosts plant productivity—that's well known—but what I want to focus on here today is not the notion of climate change, which is undefinable and indistinguishable—it's just a motherhood statement that has no real cause and effect associated with it—is the greenhouse gas effect. That was the original lie that started this whole climate change discussion in the first place. By the way, I accept the climate changes—it changes every day. And the world has been heating for about 12,000 years—it's called the Holocene period. There are lots of reasons the climate changes. I also believe that CO2 does increase the temperature. We know that, because of the ideal gas law. Now, CO2 is a gas, and if you're going to do proper science, you have to ask yourself, 'Is there an equation out there that demonstrates the cause and effect between gas and temperature? There is: it's the ideal gas law. I've spoken about it before, it's PV equals nRT. Pressure is force over volume, so there's your volumes gone. Force is mass times acceleration. If you take mass and you take your temperature, which is just a measure of mean molecular momentum, you have your mass energy equivalents from Einstein's 1905 paper. That's what it comes down to, that mass is energy. If we looked at it through those eyes, we would then realise that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a function of mass and not radiation. I should note that CO2 absorbs incoming radiation at 2.8 microns, which, as we know per Planck's law, is five times more powerful than the outgoing radiation it absorbs at 15 microns. But ultimately, as per the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the system will always increase, and this is where the greenhouse gas effect falls over. In the greenhouse, you have a solid object that stops hot air from rising, in the atmosphere, it's actually gravity that stops hot air from rising as it pulls the molecules closer to earth, which is the reason Mount Everest, which is closer to the sun, is cooler than the surface of the planet. 16:59 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Farmers in this country do it tough enough as it is. They struggle to stay on the land, especially through the vagaries of different weather and commodity fluctuations. We have a situation right now where our government is making their lives harder through its obsessive pursuit of completely ineffective climate change policies. The government has decided to pursue a climate reporting mechanism which even its own figures say would cost Australian businesses over $2 billion a year, and some of those businesses will be farm enterprises. Under this absurd approach, a bank or insurance company will have to assess not only the carbon emissions of its own operations but those of its customers. Let's say one of those customers happens to be a cattle grazier in Central Queensland, where I'm from—Rockhampton, the beef capital of Australia. That grazier, banking with, let's say, ANZ, will have to assess, write down and tabulate all of the methane emissions from their cattle; from the fuel use on their property and the associated carbon emissions; and from any construction they do, with the embodied emissions in things like concrete, steel, et cetera. It is a bureaucratic nightmare being imposed on them by this government, a red-tape tsunami imposed on our hardworking farmers along with many other businesses across the country. What is it going to do? It's going to do absolutely nothing. Obviously, the incoming Trump administration is pulling out of all this stuff. As to anything we do, what our farmers collect: what's going to be done with the information? It will be collected, it will be sent down here, there will be people employed to tabulate and report on it, and then nothing will change except that a whole lot of people will have had their lives made a whole lot more frustrating. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for the discussion has expired. Economy 57 17:02 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McGrath: The Labor Government's reckless and irresponsible economic management has resulted in the longest ever household recession since the 1970s, with Australian household incomes dropping as those in comparable nations have grown Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland For those listening at home, I'll read out the matter before the Senate: 'The Labor government's reckless and irresponsible economic management has resulted in the longest ever household recession since the 1970s, with Australian household incomes dropping as those in comparable nations have grown.' If you're scared about what's going on at the moment, you should be, because we have a Labor government who, quite frankly, have just switched off. We have a Prime Minister who has bought his retirement home. If you listened to question time, you would think that Queen Marie Antoinette had come back to life and replicated herself, and that replicas of her were sitting around the cabinet table. That's because every single minister echoes the sentiments of that long-dead Queen by saying, 'Let them eat cake,' because Australians have never had it so good as they have it under the Labor Party and Prime Minister Albanese. You have these cabinet ministers of the rank of Marie Antoinette saying, 'Let them eat cake with icing and cherries on top, because we've done it so good for them, us here in Canberra.' If you think Canberra is a bubble, well, that's an understatement. There is no such think as a Canberra bubble; it's 'Canberraworld'. It's not a rubbish theme park or a bad TV series; it is a really gruesome reality show that is on your news every night, and you're paying for it through your taxes. You're paying for it because your quality of life has gone backwards since the Labor Party came to power. But the Labor Party think you've never had it so good and you should be grateful because you're paying more in tax, because there have been 12 interest rate rises, because your rent has gone up, insurance has gone up and power has gone up. This is a Labor Party that promised 97 times before the last election it would cut power bills by $275. We have a Labor government in Canberraworld that is not just out of touch but off this planet when it comes to understanding how tough Australians are doing it. But it could be a lot worse, because we know the Labor Party only ever win elections because they do a preference deal with the racist, antisemitic Greens party. We just have to look at the policies of that racist, antisemitic party to see what Australia could be facing following the next election. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator McGrath! Senator Barbara Pocock, on a point of order? Senator Barbara Pocock BFQ That is an insult to our party. It's completely incorrect and it should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Pocock, I think that is a debating point. If it were made about a specific senator then I think there would be consideration of it being out of order, but my understanding is that if it is in relation to a political party it is within standing orders. Senator Barbara Pocock BFQ Well, I'm sitting here and I take it personally. I think it should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Pocock, as I've said, I think if the comment were made in relation to an individual senator there would be grounds under the standing orders to have the comment withdrawn, but, if it's against a political party, that is consistent with standing orders. I have to allow the comment. Senator Barbara Pocock BFQ On the point of order: it is untruthful and it should be withdrawn because it is an untruthful statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Pocock. Again, I think that is verging on a debating point. Senator McGrath, I'll ask you to continue with the debate, but please be mindful of your comments. Senator McGRATH 217241 I'm very mindful to make sure that my comments about political parties—in particular, the new nasty party, the Greens party, who are a racist, antisemitic party—are directed to the party and not to any individuals in that party. But you do have to look at some of the individuals in the party. Remember, you've got Senator McKim, who in this chamber said that everybody in the coalition should be put up against the wall and shot. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator McGrath! Senator Allman-Payne, on a point of order? Senator Allman-Payne 298839 I'm just being mindful that Senator McGrath is now straying into the territory of naming particular senators. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Allman-Payne, Senator McGrath made a reference to another senator and was then continuing on with his remarks. I was listening very closely to his remarks but I don't think Senator McGrath had said anything that contravened the standing orders at that point. Senator McGrath, you have the call. I'm listening carefully, as always. Senator McGRATH 217241 Thank you. For those who are listening: doesn't it show how touchy the Greens are, because it does go to the heart of the Greens political party and the fact they are a blot on the political landscape of the modern Australian democracy. Of course, we also have senators like Senator David Shoebridge, who only the slow of learning fail to take an instant dislike to when it comes to his conduct in this chamber and how he deals with fellow senators. We've also got Senator Faruqi, in terms of the manner in which she approaches development of land. This is the party that the Labor Party are going to do a preference deal with. This is the party the Labor Party need so as to stay in power. The Labor Party are going to do a preference deal with an extreme political party who are on the far left of Australian politics but, more worryingly for Australians, are also on the far left of economic policy. If you're doing it tough now under the Labor Party, who, quite frankly, have trouble dealing with reality sometimes because everything is going so well under our semi-retired Prime Minister, just imagine how tough you're going to be doing it in a few months time because the Labor Party have had to do a preference deal with the Greens and, in the worst-case scenario, are in a minority government, with people like Adam Bandt, Nick McKim and those Rhodes scholar runners-up sitting around the cabinet table directing public policy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Sorry, Senator McGrath. Senator Allman-Payne, on a point of order? Senator Allman-Payne 298839 I would just ask that Senator McGrath use people's correct titles when referring to them, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne, for the reminder. Senator McGrath, please use people's correct titles when referring to them. Senator McGRATH 217241 It is fascinating how touchy the Greens are because they don't like the truth when it comes to their far left extremist ideology: the fact the Greens party is an anti-Queensland party and an anti-Australian party, and everybody should throw them out of office, because friends don't let friends vote for the Greens, and friends don't let their enemies preference the Greens. 17:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor's responsible economic management and what we have accomplished in just 2½ years, which those opposite couldn't do in 10. Under Labor, real wages are moving again in this country with four consecutive quarters of growth. The minimum wage has gone up by over $7,000 a year. Early childhood educators and aged-care workers are being valued with historic 15 per cent pay rises, and over a million jobs have been created, with the majority being full time. We are building a stronger economy, and we are building a stronger workforce because, unlike those opposite, we know that working people are critical to our nation's prosperity. Mr Dutton and the coalition disagree. That's why they kept wages low as a deliberate design feature of their economy. The Liberals love low wages. They love them. And they have opposed every single measure that we have put in place to get wages moving in this country. They do not stand up for Australian workers. They never have and they never will. Under our government, meaningful cost-of-living relief is rolling out to Australians. There is energy bill relief for every household, as well as cheaper medicines that have already saved Australians over half a billion dollars. Free TAFE and cheaper uni are giving people the opportunity to improve themselves and do better. There have been three million additional bulk-billed visits to the GP and tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer—all 13.6 million of them. We on this side of the chamber under the Albanese Labor government believe that Australians should earn more and keep more of what they earn too. But let's consider what Mr Dutton apparently believes in. He believes in saying no to cost-of-living relief. He believes in denying cost-of-living relief. Mr Dutton's 'noalition' is simply not interested in helping Australians with the challenges they face today. Mr Dutton's 'noalition' voted no to cheaper medicines. They voted no to our record investment in Medicare. In fact, the Albanese Labor government has invested more in bulk-billing in two years than the Liberals and Nationals did in their entire decade in office. And now they want to cut fee-free TAFE. Listen to what Sussan Ley, the deputy Liberal leader, said: 'A key principle and tenet of the Liberal Party is, if you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' She was talking about fee-free TAFE. What an insult to the half a million Australians who have taken up the opportunity of fee-free TAFE. These are people who are relying on this. These are people who are taking this opportunity up in droves. Half a million Australians absolutely value the opportunity that they've been given, and they are taking it up. They are doing courses like early childhood education and aged care. They are becoming fitters and turners. They're improving their electrician qualifications, and they absolutely respect and value the opportunity that they have been given. After a decade of Liberal neglect, we inherited a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. There was not a lot to show for it in terms of investment in the kinds of services that Australians want and need from their government, just deficits from years of reckless spending and colour coded spreadsheets. Let's talk about surpluses for a moment. How many did the former Liberal government deliver? That's right: not a single one—not a single one in almost a decade. On this side of the chamber, under the Albanese Labor government, we have delivered not one but two back-to-back surpluses. Our responsible economic management is delivering. We are providing targeted cost-of-living relief in an environment where we know inflation is biting for Australians. That's why we are paying down debt. It's why we're paying less interest and it's why inflation has more than halved under our watch. When we took over, it had a six in front of it; now it has a two in front of it. We will always back Australian workers with higher wages. We will always pursue more jobs for Australians, and we will always fight for cost-of-living relief for Australians, while those opposite say no, no, no. 17:14 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak to the motion before us today. I want to acknowledge the thousands of people in this country who've been forced by Labor and coalition governments to live on poverty payments. It is bitterly disappointing that, by refusing to raise the rate of income support, this government has thrown up its hands at improving the lives of the thousands of people who receive that support. I want to share some comments that a constituent has shared with me. They say: When the current prime minister took office, I had the hope that he would take steps to make the system kinder for people like me. After all, he did promise that nobody would be left behind, and that he empathized with and understood people with disabilities. His mum lived in public housing on the DSP with disabilities of her own. However, he, and other staff in his cabinet who deal with welfare services have treated me with the same contempt as the LNP. The Prime Minister has ignored me. I've gone from being able to afford a somewhat decent shop for us a fortnight, to barely getting through my shopping list, to not getting through it at all before i'm over budget and having to pick and choose what we eat based on what I can afford. 10 years ago I could get a large variety of fresh vegetables boxed for $5. Now, we can only eat frozen vegetables once a week. I've had centrelink suggest that I ask my partner for 'pocket money' like I'm a child. The stress of knowing that I am less than $10 away from being cut off the DSP yet again is so heavy that it's something else that's on my mind a lot, keeping me awake and in a state of feeling physically sick … I want to thank that constituent for sharing that story with me and enabling me to share it here in the chamber. Thousands of people in this country are forced by this government to live on desperately inadequate payments, including JobSeeker and the disability support pension. The cost of inaction on this is human. It is being kicked out of your home. It is not being able to escape domestic violence. It is starving because you can't afford food. It is freezing in winter and boiling in summer. The government needs to raise the rate above the poverty line. 17:17 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I'm very grateful to have an opportunity to speak to this matter of public importance from Senator McGrath. When we are sent to these jobs by the Australian people, they would expect that we would seriously consider and spend serious time on the economic strategy of the Commonwealth government and regularly evaluate that, which is exactly what this matter of public importance is designed to do. I would say that the central charge against this government's economic approach has been that it is a government for vested interests only, and, because of that, it hasn't had time to solve the great economic problems of the day. The reason that Labor have failed on inflation and failed on housing, to name just two things, is that they have spent all their time working out how they can feather the nests of the people that they are personally close to and the people that help them in their campaigns organisationally in a policy sense but also in a financial sense. They have used the great resources of the Commonwealth government to support their favourite fellow travellers. I believe that is ultimately why the government has not been able to put in the time and effort needed to kill inflation—which has been killed in almost every comparable country—or to fix the Australian dream and to make sure that younger Australians, those millennials and gen Zs, can actually get access to a first home. Of course the budget strategy has been a disaster. They removed the break that we had on tax increases, and they have thrown in the bin the attempts that we made in the last parliament to deal with bracket creep. The re-insertion of a tax bracket, in this parliament, is one of the most regressive changes that we've seen. Who would have thought that in this parliament we would have such a low level of ambition that we would restore a tax bracket which we just abolished in the parliament before? One of the central revenue-raising measures of this government—it's already in the budget—is the superannuation tax, but that has now been left to die by Dr Chalmers, the great doctor. He says he can't get it through, so he's not going to pursue this tax increase. This was a broken promise from Mr Albanese and Dr Chalmers, who promised that they would not increase taxes on superannuation but felt that they had to because, of course, their budget doesn't stack up. Yes, it is true the government has delivered two paper surpluses. But, as we read in today's papers, they have locked the nation into a structural deficit which means that, over the longer term, there will be deficits and red ink as far as the eye can see. This has been an ugly period. We are living through the greatest per capita household recession since the 1970s. Australians are feeling it. They are finding it harder and harder to keep going, and the government has seemingly no solutions here other than crony capitalism. We see that with the Future Made in Australia agenda. We see that with the National Reconstruction Fund. Who knows what we're actually reconstructing from. It's not clear to me why we have a national reconstruction fund when we haven't had a world war, because the last time we talked about reconstruction was when we had World War II, which was the biggest conflict of the 20th century. Now we have a $15 billion reconstruction fund that is stacked with union mates on its board. We have the Housing Australia Future Fund, which spends more on executive salaries and on corporate affairs than it does on actual housing, and then we have the billions and billions of dollars of crony capitalism, where Dr Chalmers gives away taxpayer funds to his mates. We have—and it's perhaps the mother of them all—the idea that Minister Husic fancies himself as a white-shoe-wearing venture capitalist. He's not a white-shoe-wearing real estate agent from Queensland but a venture capitalist from Silicon Valley. He's going to give a billion dollars of taxpayer funds to PsiQuantum, an American company, to build a quantum computer, which he just decided to do one random day. This has been the biggest disaster since the 1970s in terms of having a government engaging in maladministration of the economy. The Australian people are feeling it every single day. We have to get the country back on track, and the only way to do that is to have a Liberal government. 17:22 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales We on this side actually support Middle Australia, and I'm going to start by talking about those fellow travellers that I think the previous speaker was referring to. Under the Liberals and the Nationals, annual real wages fell by 3.4 per cent and went backwards in the five quarters leading up to the election in 2022. Millions of Australians, those fellow travellers, were ambushed by the economic policies that the Liberal and the National parties took to the last election, which for 10 years led to record hopeless wage growth. People were seeing Middle Australia shrinking. Under this government, real wages grew by 0.7 per cent in the year to the June quarter 2024, which is the fourth consecutive quarter of annual real wage growth. Yes, millions of Middle Australians—all those fellow travellers, all those people the Australian Labor Party see as absolutely critical parts of the Australian community that we represent—have got real wages growth under this government, whilst wages declined under the previous government. Then we've got to look at some of the views about these issues of wage growth and the fact that minimum wage is increasing. For example, Mr Joyce, the member for New England, told Channel 7 in March that Labor's move to increase the minimum wage was 'window dressing'. People are receiving thousands of dollars extra a year in income, and it's simply referred to as 'window dressing'. The latest data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the national gender pay gap fell from 14.1 per cent in May 2022 to 11.5 per cent in August 2024. That's an 18.4 per cent decrease within one term of the record-low gender pay gap decrease. That's the decrease that we saw happen under this government. For all those fellow travellers, all those women who have received pay equity and who are getting closer to pay equity—and there's still further to go—that's not window dressing. They're not the fellow travellers that those opposite think are important. The Australian public, Middle Australia and all those women that have received the benefit of the policies put forward by this government are critical to making sure that we have a fairer country. Of course, the government supported the Fair Work Commission's work value pay cases, funding aged-care workers to receive a 15 per cent wage increase in 2023. The Liberals and Nationals opposed this. This week, we're looking to pass legislation to provide a 15 per cent rise for up to 200,000 workers in the early childhood education and care sector. Are they fellow travellers? They are for the Australian Labor Party, because that's hundreds and tens of thousands of women in a feminised industry that will now receive the pay justice that every Australian deserves. Of course, this government want to see more money in their pockets and more money in the pockets of families. The Liberals and Nationals voted against the bargaining legislation that made it possible to make sure that we had fairer return for those incomes that are paid, and they voted against limiting fees for parents to 4.4 per cent for the year to August 2025 for early education and care centres to make sure they're available to get that funding for those wage increases. We on this side support aspiration. We support small business, and that's why we passed laws to set minimum standards for gig workers and, in the road transport industry, owner-drivers. You can't get more micro than that. Individual owner-operators, often supported by their families, received support to turn around and get minimum standards, and, of course, those opposite—the Liberal and National parties—and many of those on the crossbench voted against it. Mark Reynolds, an owner-driver and board member of the National Road Freighters Association, said: Our industry is in a desperate race to the bottom … This legislation will play a vital role in establishing minimum standards for all and allowing the industry to become safe, viable and sustainable. Minimum standards to make sure that we lift the standard of living in this country for small business and for hardworking Australians and making sure that families receive the benefit of what we've done in the important steps that we've made in the early childhood education sector—these are all critical steps in making sure that we have a fairer go. I could go on to the many other things that those opposite want to repeal, with same-job same-pay, the right to disconnect and all those areas to make sure people work longer and harder for less. It's a joy to see them put this proposition before us in the MPI, because it gives us— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator Hanson. 17:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Australia is going backwards. National productivity is down. GDP per capita is falling. Our standard of living is down. Real spending by Australian households is down nine per cent. We have Australian families and Australian children going hungry and homeless. We've been in a per capita recession for six quarters in a row. We've been told that it's the longest household recession in the past 50 years. It's no wonder the Treasurer has never had a real job in his entire life and neither has the Prime Minister. They've never had to run a business. Their solution to our recession has been to hide it by bringing in millions of migrants to paper over the cracks and boost GDP. That's right—they're forcing Australian families onto the streets to hide their economic incompetence. Economists are telling us that this recession, this harmful economic downturn, could continue for years to come. Instead of helping our economy, Labor continues to sabotage it. They helped their union boss mates hold the construction industry hostage. They have made our energy some of the most expensive in the world with their stupid pursuit of renewables. They blow tens of billions on this while the rest of the world turns to cheaper, more reliable energy or goes nuclear. They blew almost half a billion dollars on the spectacular failure that was the referendum on the Voice. Australia has become an economic basket case and an international laughing-stock under Anthony Albanese, and it's the Australian people who are suffering from his incompetence and his stupidity and Labor's net zero empathy for the community they are supposed to serve. Australia's future is in the voters' hands. Let's kick this worthless mob to the kerb. 17:29 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Last week, during my visit to the Young Liberal Convention in Kiama, I had the opportunity to speak to various young people. The conversation should have been filled with optimism and excitement about their future. Instead, we spent over an hour and a half discussing the harsh reality of what it is like to be a young person in an economy like what we have today and the harsh reality that many young Australians have lost the hope of ever being able to own their own home. Hence, I would like to thank Senator McGrath for voicing the frustrations of so many Australians, especially young Australians. Amidst a cost-of-living crisis, which Labor has so poorly tackled, a larger problem has arisen. The Australian dream of owning your own home has been destroyed. Under this Albanese government living standards have fallen more than any other OECD country. The blow to Aussie households is now worse than almost all comparable developed nations. Not only is it virtually impossible to own your own home but once someone actually finally gets their foot in the door, they have to struggle to keep their home. So many people have had to do so over the last couple of years as they've faced a dozen interest rate rises. Earlier this year, the RBA revealed that real disposable income has declined by 5.5 per cent since early 2022. The fall in disposable income has surpassed the past four major recessions, including the 1970s inflation crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Australians can no longer afford to sustain themselves, with rising costs for essentials like food, energy and housing making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet week after week. The government's failure to address these issues has left families and individuals feeling financially squeezed and uncertain about their future. Labor's response has been nothing but out of touch. Minister Gallagher says that record business failures are proportionate and that it's okay. Let's not forget that earlier this year the Treasurer also suggested that Australians should have more children. How can families and young people be expected to take on the responsibility of raising children when they are already struggling to meet their own basic needs due to the cost of living in this country under this government? What we have continually heard from Labor is a never-ending barrage of unrealistic and detached responses to a crisis that requires immediate thoughtful action to improve affordability, to improve job security and to improve overall economic stability for all Australians. Moreover, the intergenerational bargain has been broken for young people. For most of it, the bargain has been generous and hopeful, with the belief that each generation would leave the world better for the next. Almost all Australians picture themselves owning a home, just like their parents and grandparents did—who enjoyed this foundational piece of the Australian dream. But this promise can no longer be kept. Young Australians today find themselves locked out of the housing market, forced into a perpetual rental cycle due to this ongoing economic crisis. Amongst the gen Z non-homeowners, 93 per cent say they would like to own their own home. They haven't said that they would like to live in a build-to-rent. They've said that they would like to own their own home, yet the financial reality they face makes this dream increasingly difficult to achieve. The drastic decline in living standards, driven by the rising cost of living, has placed homeownership out of reach for them. Labor ignore their economic record and instead hide behind figures driven by migration and iron ore prices to make it look like they have a plan. The reality is that the current cost-of-living crisis has led to the steepest decline in living standards since 1959. With inflation pushing up prices and wages stagnating, young people are more focused on simply staying afloat financially, covering their basic daily expenses and perhaps managing rising HECS debt, than saving for a home. This has created a generation where the promise of advancement and homeownership is becoming a distant memory. Ultimately the Labor government's irresponsible economic management has pretty much destroyed the Australian dream and forced many Australians into stressful economic hardship and sadly many young Australians into the belief that they don't have a hope of reaching the dreams that they aspire to in owning their own home. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Order! The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Tabling 62 17:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to table these documents that have been accepted by the whips of all the political parties. Senator Faruqi 250362 What is the document? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I do not know what the documents are. The Senator is seeking leave. Senator HANSON BK6 The documents were presented to the whips' meeting last night and were agreed upon by the whips at the meeting. Leave not granted. COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 63 Additional Information 63 17:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee relating to estimates. Human Rights Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee, Treaties Joint Committee 63 Report 63 17:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human rights scrutiny report: report 10 of 2024; on behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's eighth and ninth reports of 2024; and I present the 223rd report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. BILLS 63 BILLS Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 63

Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024

Report from Committee 63 17:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Migration Amendment Bill 2024 63

Migration Amendment Bill 2024

Report from Committee 63 17:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Pursuant to order, at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee I present the committee's report on the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 63 Additional Information 63 17:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 63 Report 63 17:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the committee's activities for 2023-24, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. 17:38 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I won't take too long, but in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I thank Senator Urquhart for doing a fine job in tabling that report on my behalf. With respect to the committee's annual report and its activities for 2023-24, in line with the requirements under section 31 of the Intelligence Act 2001, the committee annually reports on its activities and provides very detailed dealings of the committee's work in the financial year that ended on 30 June 2024. Over the course of the review period, the committee continued with a very busy work program. It was largely occupied with reviewing a range of prospective and existing national security legislation in addition to its ongoing oversight activities. The year also saw reforms proposed or implemented that affected the committee work, including in relation to terrorist organisations and citizenship cessation, as well as changes to the committee's composition and other matters relating to the committee's administrative workings. Following the commencement of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No.2) Act 2023, in August 2023 the committee's membership increased from 11 to 13. On 14 September 2023 two new members were appointed by the House of Representatives. The committee then had 12 members and one vacancy for the remainder of the period, up until now. These 12 comprise five senators and seven members of the other place. The act also amended the quorum for the committee, from six to seven. Over the review period, the committee presented 14 reports, including the annual report, two reviews of the intelligence agencies' administration and expenditure, three reviews of the listing of terrorist organisations, four statutory reviews, and four bill inquiries referred by ministers. The committee also held over 50 meetings and briefings, including eight public hearings, which supported the committee's work across 21 inquiries in total during that period. Notable reviews and inquiries concluded during the review period included the review of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill, which banned the use and trade of symbols associated with listed terrorist organisations; amendments to citizenship cessation provisions under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007; and a review of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, in which the committee recommended significant changes to improve the effectiveness of the scheme. On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank all those who made contributions to the committee's inquiries and reviews during the 2023-24 financial year. I'd like to acknowledge former committee member Mr Peter Khalil MP, who chaired the committee during the period covered by this report, and I'd like to thank all the committee members for their constructive and bipartisan approach over the past year. I commend the report to the Senate. Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) Select Committee 64 Report 64 17:42 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I present the final report of the Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence, together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to take note of the final report of the Senate Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence. First of all, I want to thank the deputy chair, Senator Shoebridge, other committee members and the secretariat for all their work on what has been a very collegiate inquiry. I also want to thank everyone that provided evidence. The committee was tasked with inquiring into the adoption of AI in Australia. Throughout the inquiry there was no doubting that AI is already here and is already impacting the lives of Australians in a number of ways, both positive and negative. It has the potential to substantially increase productivity, wealth and wellbeing. It can automate menial, unfulfilling tasks, freeing up our time to pursue productive, creative and fulfilling uses of our time. There was also no doubt that this is only the beginning. AI will be a transformative technology that will one day in the not too distant future touch on everyone in every aspect of their lives. That much is obvious. The real question before the committee and before regulators around the world is: who will see the benefits of the age of AI? We're now at an important crossroads for AI regulation. As it stands, in the absence of regulation, the spoils of AI will disproportionately go to the richest and most powerful people in society, particularly the big tech companies and their billionaire backers—the likes of Amazon, Google and Meta. It's up to us to ensure that the value created by AI is enjoyed by all Australians, not just by those at the very top. This report contains 13 recommendations that aim to do just that. Throughout the inquiry, we heard the same core concerns about how these AI models work. The most common concern was about transparency, especially with the big general-purpose AI models being developed by big tech; that means models like OpenAI, GPT, Google's Gemini and Meta's Llama. Stanford University's Center for Research on Foundation Models produces the authoritative index for how transparent these models are. Stanford has repeatedly found that these general purpose AI models are opaque black boxes, especially when it comes to what data is used to train them. Do these use copyright data? That's an important question. Private or personal data? Where does the data come from? How do they select what data goes into it? These are all questions that big-tech developers try to avoid answering. As the Law Council said, echoed by many other submitters: To improve public trust and confidence … AI technologies need to be transparent, well understood, and subject to stringent safeguards … We also heard the related issues of bias and discrimination present in AI outputs. The content and decisions that AI models generate reflect the biases in the data that goes in. We heard about the experience at Amazon where they introduced an AI recruitment system to help them with hiring. As the ACTU assistant secretary, Joseph Mitchell, told the committee, they trained their dataset to recommend new employees based on the existing employees in the workplace, not realising the AI was predicting they should preference white, male, private school attendees in their hiring practices. That's what you do when you hire based on the past. That's just one example of how AI can reinforce, even unintentionally, damaged bias and discrimination. Another related issue was data privacy. Many Australians will be surprised to hear that Meta unilaterally decided that all the content uploaded to Facebook or Instagram since 2007 is fair game for training their AI products. When the committee asked Meta how someone in 2007 could consent to a photo of their children being used to train an AI product that wouldn't exist for another decade, they said, 'Well, I can't speak to what people did or did not know.' It's the sort of ridiculous response we got from big-tech platforms over and over again, especially on questions of privacy. I asked Amazon about using audio recordings in people's homes through Alexa to train its AI products. Amazon refused to answer. I sent Google a list of 28 Google products and services, ranging from Android phones to Google Docs to Gmail, and asked which of those services they've taken using data to train their AI products. Google refused to answer. Do you see a pattern emerging here? This lack of transparency becomes particularly problematic when you consider high-risk uses of AI. I commend the Minister for Industry and Science, Minister Husic, for the significant work he's undertaken to this point. Throughout this year he's engaged in consultation on how we can best legislate guardrails around high-risk AI uses. The first three recommendations of this report provide the committee's view. We need new dedicated AI legislation mandating transparency, testing and accountability requirements for high-risk uses of AI. That brings us in line with the approach taken around the world, including the EU, Canada and the UK. We need to ensure that general purpose AI models, those with the biggest and broadest impact but the worst record on transparency, are captured by these guardrails. The other issue is how AI will impact on people at work. At the most severe end, there are concerns about job losses. The Finance Sector Union said: It is also clear that certain categories of jobs are far more susceptible to impacts from AI … There is also a risk that these impacts will be felt more by people of lower socioeconomic groups, worsening inequality. The risk of job losses highlights why it is so important that government, employers and unions come together to identify pathways to retraining and reskilling. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said realising the benefits of AI depends on 'embracing retraining opportunities, and investment in research and education'. For most people, their jobs will not be fully automated by AI but their work will change. This is already happening. For example, the SDA NSW & ACT secretary, Bernie Smith, told the committee that retail companies like Amazon are already using AI to surveil workers, monitor performance, set rosters or even track them outside of work. As Mr Smith said: … this technology has either the capacity … to improve the … equity … and security of work … or, alternatively, the capacity to … increase insecurity and tether insecure workers to their apps in a virtual Hungry Mile of always on-demand hiring, where the fastest finger gets the next shift. In fact, there was widespread concern about AI being used to manage work in ways that would create unsafe work environments. The Victorian Trades Hall Council said AI workplace surveillance is 'dehumanising, invasive and incompatible with fundamental rights'. That's why the committee's recommendations (5), (6) and (7) call for the use of AI in the workplace to be categorised as high-risk and for our longstanding tripartite work health and safety laws to be extended to apply to the workplace risks created by AI. What that means in practice is that employers should have duties to consult with their workforce on how AI is introduced in workplaces. They should have duties to minimise risks, including psychosocial risks. And the workforce should have the right to representation and to stop work if there's a serious and imminent threat to their safety. As the report touches on, this approach is supported by a broad range of stakeholders, including unions, Digital Rights Watch, Centre of the Public Square, the Human Rights Law Centre, industrial lawyers and Australian AI developers. One of those developers, Michael Gately, the CEO of Trellis Data, said: The idea that AI … fits under … [the] OH&S set of frameworks we already have is brilliant. That is exactly where we should be. Of course, the point on consultation is particularly important. As Professor Nicholas Davis from the University of Technology Sydney said: … despite the fact that tech companies are saying that artificial intelligence offers the greatest opportunity for workplace productivity … workers are invisible bystanders in this conversation. They are not consulted … The committee make it very clear that we believe workers deserve to have a say in how AI is used in their workplace, to make the outcomes better for employers, the workforce and for society more generally. That includes authors, journalists, scriptwriters, graphic designers, voice actors, game designers and many more. Big tech AI developers like Amazon, Google and Meta have committed arguably the largest theft in history by scraping the work of these people and using it to train their AI products, and then using those AI products to produce inferior imitations of their work, putting their future earning capacity in jeopardy. When I asked Amazon if they engaged in this, including work published on their own Kindle and Audible platforms, they said, 'We don't disclose specific sources of our training models.' It's a simple matter of us protecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Unfortunately, your time has expired. Senator SHELDON 168275 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:53 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The coalition agreed with a small number of recommendations in this report, but we certainly disagreed with a larger number of recommendations, which is why Senator Reynolds and I provided a dissenting report. The governance of artificial intelligence does pose one of the 21st century's greatest public policy challenges. Any AI policy framework ought to safeguard Australia's cybersecurity, intellectual property rights, national security and democratic institutions without infringing on the many, many potential opportunities that AI presents in relation to job creation and productivity growth. AI does present an unprecedented threat to Australia's cybersecurity and privacy rights. AI technologies, especially large language models such as ChatGPT, are trained on substantial amounts of data in order to be able to generate outputs—that is, in order for large language models like ChatGPT to gain their predictive capacity, the large language model needs to be fed significant quantities of data to enable the technology to develop its own text, images or videos. One risk of AI is that these models become the amalgamation of the data that they are fed. As a result, if the information going into that particular large language model is biased or prejudicial, there is a significant risk that the model would then replicate such biases and discrimination on a mass scale. However, one of the greatest risks associated with the modern advancements in AI is the inappropriate collection and use of personal information, as well as the leakage and unauthorised disclosure or de-anonymisation of personal information. With little to no domestic regulation of large language models, especially those owned and operated by multinationals such as Meta, Google and Amazon, the storage and utilisation of significant amounts of private data on its users is a real risk. When asked about the extent to which these organisations use the private data of their users in the development of their AI models, these organisations provided very unclear responses. Indeed, Meta did not even answer questions about whether it used private messages sent through Messenger or WhatsApp in its generation of its large language model, Meta AI. Notwithstanding the severe privacy considerations related to this type of conduct, as large language models have not yet matured, there is a significant risk that private information on certain users may, unintentionally, form the basis of future outputs. Such a risk to the cybersecurity of the Australian people is unprecedented. On a similar basis, AI presents a significant challenge, not just to Australia's creative industries but to the entire intellectual property rights structure in Australia more broadly. As the final report highlights, a significant issue in relation to copyright arises where copyrighted materials are used to train AI models. Indeed, the data that large language models require to acquire predictive capacity, including images and text, are often extracted from the internet with no safeguards as to whether this data is owned by another individual or entity. When Meta, Amazon and Google were asked whether they use copyrighted works in training their large language models, they either did not respond, stated the development of large language models without copyrighted works is not possible, or stated that they trained their large language models on so much data that it would be impossible to even know. These potential violations of Australia's copyright laws represent only the beginning of the threat that AI generation poses to the ongoing management of intellectual property rights in Australia. The Department of Home Affairs highlighted the severe national security risk presented by AI in its submission to the inquiry. Due to the recent exponential improvements in AI capabilities, coupled with the unprecedented level of publicly available personal and sensitive information on many Australians, foreign actors now have the ability to develop AI capabilities to target 'our networks, systems and people'—that is, foreign actors could gain the ability to target specific Australians through AI capabilities trained on their own private and sensitive data. The ability for foreign or malicious actors to use sophisticated AI technology for scamming and phishing represents a significant threat to Australia's national security. As this inquiry into AI occurs in the context of the two-year anniversary of the public release of ChatGPT, these threats have been clear and in the public domain for 24 months, yet the federal Labor government has seemingly done absolutely nothing to deal with these threats to Australia's cybersecurity, intellectual property rights and national security across this entire two-year period. Indeed, 10 months ago, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources stated: existing laws do not adequately prevent AI-facilitated harms before they occur, and more work is needed to ensure there is an adequate response to harms after they occur Yet absolutely nothing has happened over the past 10 months. The Labor government has neglected its responsibility to deal with any of the threats that the growth of the AI industry poses to the Australian people and their entities. If the inquiry illustrated anything, it reaffirmed the view that the governance of AI is an intractable public policy problem. The inquiry has also demonstrated that AI poses an unprecedented risk to our cybersecurity, intellectual property rights, national security and democratic institutions. Though it is essential that the federal government minimises compliance costs for businesses that do not develop or use high-risk AI, the federal government must act to address the significant risk that AI poses to Australia's security and our institutions of governance. The Labor government's complete inaction on any AI related policymaking whatsoever, despite its own admission 10 months ago that its existing laws do not adequately prevent AI facilitated harms, is a disgrace. Nevertheless, the coalition will always welcome the opportunity to work with the government on tackling public policy challenges associated with the governance of AI in our contemporary society. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 18:00 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I will first of all associate myself with the comments by Senator McGrath, and I totally endorse him and the dissenting report. But I do congratulate all colleagues, including the chair, for the way in which this important inquiry was conducted. The committee did highlight the profound impact that AI will have and, in fact, already is having on all aspects of life. From my perspective, through this inquiry and also through work that I've been doing with the IPU globally, it is very clear that that is something that our nation has to be engaged in. Everybody has to be engaged in the discussion about the threats and opportunities that AI now presents. The technology is developing so fast, particularly in generative AI, that it is really important, I think, that as a nation we hasten with caution—that we adopt things that we are confident about but that we at least have a good appreciation of the unintended consequences and are able to mitigate those risks. But, as Senator McGrath has said and also Senator Sheldon has noted, there are vast quantities of data that are scraped from, probably, the records of all Australians—on social media and on many other platforms—without their knowledge, that have gone into that generative AI, the LLMs. This is something that should be of concern to all Australians, and I hope that this report will stimulate that discussion. I also am disappointed that the government hasn't moved far more quickly on this in terms of analysing where current laws are sufficient to cover the regulation of AI that is currently being used, and to then identify the gaps where laws will be needed as this technology develops. I want to spend the last couple of minutes talking about how valuable this inquiry and the findings have been for an inquiry that has just been stood up for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, of which I am co-chair with Linda Burney, from the other place. We are now looking at the use of AI in all its forms across the federal public sector, in departments and agencies. We've had 41 submissions so far, and I must confess that what we've seen and what we've heard is quite alarming. That inquiry feeding into this one and what is happening across the Commonwealth public sector is going to be very important. The use of AI is patchy. We've got different departments with different rules, doing different things. There are working groups everywhere. But I fear that a number of departments who make decisions about the entitlements of all Australians—which is pretty much most departments—will step into areas that will cause great pain and angst, and there will be a lack of transparency for many Australians. So I am very much looking forward to seeing where that goes. We are also having a look at the national security implications of AI's use by state and non-state actors, and at how AI can be used by criminals in terms of expanding their reach and the rapidity with which their criminal activities, including spear phishing and other things, can impact on all Australians. I commend the report to chamber, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee 68 Report 68 18:06 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I present the final report of the committee's inquiry into the operation of the National Redress Scheme, entitled Redress: journey to justice, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report is extensive, at around 267 pages, including appendices and an easy-read summary, reflecting the depth of work undertaken over the almost two years, to the day, taken to complete this inquiry. On 28 November 2022, the committee resolved to inquire into and report upon the operation of the National Redress Scheme. A key focus of the committee's work was to examine the experience of First Nations applicants and applicants with disability in their dealings with the scheme. The committee also examined the accessibility and effectiveness of support services and legal advice for survivors and their advocates. This unanimous report has 29 wide-ranging recommendations that cover the full scope of the scheme's operations. Time is running out. A critical concern of the committee is that the time left for the scheme is running out. The scheme closes to new applications in mid-2027 and ceases in 2028. Unless changes are made, some survivors could miss out on redress. To address this, the committee has recommended that the Australian government work with states and territories to extend the life of the scheme and, if this is not possible, to take steps to extend aspects of the scheme, such as the counselling services, and to allow survivors to register to ensure their applications continue to be considered after the cut-off date. We recommend increasing funding for the Department of Social Services, knowmore Legal and other support services to ensure all applications can be finalised on time, and we recommend undertaking a publicity campaign to ensure that survivors are aware of the deadline. The scheduled eight-year review should consider how the scheme will close, how to maximise the number of applications dealt with in the time remaining, and alternative options for survivors if redress cannot be offered because a responsible institution does not fulfil its intention to join. The committee received evidence relating to the experience of survivors within the scheme. Retelling their stories as part of their application is traumatising for so many. Frankly, many of them deserve a lot better. The committee has recommended improvements to the way the Department of Social Services deals with clients, including making reasonable adjustments to application procedures, reforming the manner and language used in communicating outcomes, taking greater care to respect nominee arrangements, adjusting communication styles to meet the survivors' needs, updating the application for review of decisions to make the language plainer and remove legal jargon, and reforming how applicants can track the progress of their applications. More than 900 institutions have been declared into the scheme, including a number that are listed on the website as 'intending to participate'. During the inquiry, a witness drew the committee's attention under parliamentary privilege to the case of Gymnastics Australia, which subsequently, recently, became a scheme participant. We think the scheme would be improved by regular information from the Australian government on the names of institutions that have refused to join. In addition, the government should consider, before the scheme closes, what penalties will be directed to institutions that did not participate. The committee received numerous examples of inconsistent outcomes from the scheme. We were told that sometimes two applications describing very similar events can lead to drastically different outcomes. A critical recommendation is that decisions on eligibility should be considered by panels of independent decision-makers, or, if this is not possible for all applications, those found ineligible should be automatically escalated to a panel review. Further, we heard that a number of applicants are afraid to ask for a review of their decision. To address this, we recommend the legislation be amended to especially provide that a review of a redress determination cannot result in an offer being reduced or reversed. We think greater transparency and support to applicants would assist them to include relevant information in their applications. The scheme is complex to navigate for survivors, and there is confusion about the landscape, which now includes a number of state based schemes. Access to sound legal advice is paramount for an inclusive scheme. The committee has made a number of recommendations regarding legal issues, including: providing greater encouragement to survivors to get legal advice; having the scheme pay a fixed sum to delegated legal advisers where the survivor elects to receive legal advice before proceeding with a redress application or accepting a redress offer; and introducing measures to protect successful claimants from loss. The committee also recommends the government work with states and territories to urgently address claim farming and exploitative practices. The committee further recommends that the Commonwealth encourage state and territory governments to codify in legislation the basis on which the courts may grant permanent stays, consistent with High Court rulings. The importance of having support services available is paramount. The committee has made several recommendations regarding the better targeting of services to support survivors applying for redress. In particular, the committee recommends that funding for support services should be extended until two years after the expiration of the scheme. Among the stories of appalling abuse heard by the committee, one area that particularly stood out was the issue of virginity testing. This practice carried out on girls as young as eight years old has had abhorrent long-term effects on individuals. Alarmingly, the outcome for victims applying for redress has not been consistent. I'm pleased that, following engagement with the committee, the Department of Social Services has committed to a range of priority improvements in how claims involving virginity testing are handled. The committee recommends that a consistent approach to virginity testing in Australia be articulated, and this should be the subject of a separate inquiry. In conclusion, these are fundamentally important reforms which we hope will ensure that the maximum number of survivors possible receive the help that they need from the scheme. This has not been an easy inquiry. By its nature, evidence has been confronting and often traumatising, not only for survivors giving evidence but for all involved with this inquiry. Before finishing, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts taken by survivors who have contributed to this inquiry. The committee acknowledges exactly how difficult it can be to relive a traumatic experience and appreciates the huge efforts taken by those in the hopes that their stories can help improve the redress scheme for all survivors. You are heard and you are believed. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members for their hard work, diligence and ongoing engagement throughout the inquiry, including the deputy chair, Senator Smith. Finally, I thank the secretariat for its support to the committee—in particular, Nathan Fewkes, inquiry secretary for most of the inquiry, as well as Andrew Bray, Kate Portus, Josephine Moa, Kate Morris, Adrian Daniel and April Stephenson for their careful handling of such sensitive material provided to the committee and their support to potential witnesses. I also thank the Parliament House Broadcasting team. I commend the report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Select Committee 69 Report 69 18:14 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I present the final report of the Select Committee on the Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Premiums and Availability together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Throughout this inquiry, the committee heard directly from affected communities about the impacts of climate driven disasters on their lives and livelihoods and how the insurance industry is failing these communities. I want to centre their voices. We received submissions and heard harrowing testimony from around the country—from flood victims in the Northern Rivers in Melbourne to cyclone affected communities in Far North Queensland, farmers in South Australia and small businesses in Western Australia. Through their stories of loss, pain and persistence, it is clear that we are in the midst of a growing insurance affordability crisis, particularly in areas seeing more frequent and more intense climate-driven natural disasters. We heard from a pensioner in Mullumbimby, New South Wales, who has seen her premiums almost double since the February 2022 floods in the Northern Rivers. She told us that she finds it very difficult to come up with this money but is really scared not to have her house insured. We heard of people leaving the Northern Rivers region as they can no longer afford to insure their homes. Chels Hood Withey, the president of the Community Disaster Action Group, said: … entire streets in towns remain empty, with residents unable to return due to inadequate insurance payouts or delays or ineligibility for government assistance. Community centres, schools, and local businesses—the backbone of the social fabric—are still struggling to rebuild. One resident spoke of the extreme financial hardship caused by skyrocketing premiums that have now reached $25,000 a year for an insurance policy that has left their home underinsured. For many who continue to seek an insurance payout, the insurance experience has proven to be more traumatic than the disaster. These experiences have obviously traumatised communities. It's bad enough that they are struck with the tragedy that comes with these climate-driven disasters, but to have that compounded by an insurance industry unwilling to assist these communities makes matters even worse. This account from Noelle Maxwell from the Northern Rivers is one example: I'd like to speak to the PTSD that I now suffer as a result of my insurance experience, one that I didn't even know I had until last week when I received a letter in the post cancelling my policy because one of my auto payments didn't go through. I had corrected this and paid, but it didn't register so they cancelled my policy. That required me to phone them, something that I had stopped doing after the first year as I just couldn't stomach it. When I made the call, I was unable to think clearly or to respond to the word prompts. I actually became physically ill listening to the hold music. I burst into tears when they answered the phone and I couldn't talk for a while. There is something clearly very wrong with the way insurance companies deal with people, and also very wrong with the way insurance is priced if people are having to pay tens of thousands of dollars for premiums while the CEO from IAG, Australia's largest insurer, walked away with a 78 per cent increase to his statutory pay, and the Suncorp CEO who enjoyed a 61 per cent increase in his pay. That is why this report includes recommendations for greater transparency into how insurance premiums are priced, and expanded scope for the ACCC to monitor the insurance sector. This insurance crisis requires a multifaceted approach which includes government responsibility and action, hence the recommendation of expanding the cyclone reinsurance pool to cover all natural disasters. This should also take account of lessons learned from the operationalisation of the current pool. Above all, it is clear that insurance has become another major stressor caused by the growing climate crisis, and it's the most vulnerable who are suffering the most and who will bear the brunt as the climate crisis worsens. It is renters who are disproportionately not insured. It's retirees and those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged who tend to live in the areas considered of high risk, as this is the only affordable housing they can find. That is why we all need to pay attention to this inquiry and to this report. It's the cascading impacts of the climate change crisis that requires a response from government and industry alike. A natural disaster isn't just a natural disaster; it's the climate crisis that is exacerbating an insurance crisis, that is then exacerbating the housing crisis. It's all interconnected. It's all interrelated. The Actuaries Institute says 1.6 million households are experiencing insurance stress, which is up five per cent from two years ago. The Climate Risk Group warned that by 2030 more than three million homes—that's 21 per cent of all homes—will have exposure to some level of riverine flooding, and this will only get worse as the climate crises escalates. The State of the climate 2024 report, co-developed by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, warned that changes in the weather and climate are happening at an increasing pace. We are at a crucial juncture where we can either tackle this issue head-on or allow it to escalate and get worse. Temperatures have risen, and we will have to adapt to deal with more frequent and intense disasters. That's why the committee report includes recommendations for what the government can do today to help communities prepare and respond when disaster hits. As the ANU Institute of Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions wrote to the committee: Federal and State governments need to pursue rapid and concerted efforts to reduce GHG emissions in line with our commitments under the Paris Agreement to restrict global temperature increases. …   …   … Effective GHG emission reduction policies must be urgently implemented globally to change our course toward future temperature increase and its impact on rising insurance costs. The insurance affordability crisis that is impacting communities across the country adds to the urgency for governments to act now on reducing emissions. That means ending new coal and gas and stopping pouring more fuel on the fire. That means taking every action to transition away from fossil fuels right now. Why should families, renters and retirees bear the burden of the climate crisis? Why should they pay absurdly high insurance premiums for a climate crisis they didn't cause? The answer is simple: they shouldn't. The ones who should pay are the ones that caused the crisis and profit from it. That is why the committee report includes recommendations for a polluter-pays model. The report calls on the Treasury to develop options for a levy on coal and gas companies; the funds raised from that could be used for disaster mitigation, resilience measures and the cost of rising insurance. It's time to make fossil fuel companies pay for the damage they are causing. Fortunately, we have a precedent to help guide our decision-making. The US state of Vermont recently introduced laws to make big fossil fuel companies pay for the damage from weather disasters fuelled by climate change. The law requires big oil companies and others with high emissions to pay for that damage based on the degree to which climate change contributes to extreme weather in Vermont. We need to do the same here, and we need to do it urgently to help communities suffering from the double burden of climate driven disasters and skyrocketing insurance premiums. Finally, and importantly, I thank colleagues on this inquiry and the committee secretariat, especially Jane Thomson and Annika Khawaja in particular—and my team, without whom this work would not have been possible. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned.   Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 71 Report 71 18:23 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the report of the committee on its inquiry into the Department of Defence annual report 2022-23 and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 71 Report 71 18:23 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I present the second report of the 47th Parliament of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on general issues concerning the NDIS and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 71 Report 71 18:23 Senator 299352 Victoria STEWART () (): I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on its inquiry into economic self-determination and opportunities for First Nations Australians. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 71 Additional Information 71 18:24 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Chandler, I present additional information received by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on its inquiry into Australia supporting Ukraine. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 71 Government Response to Report 71 18:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I present the government response to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into the Iron Boomerang project. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report: Project known as Iron Boomerang November 2024 Background On 5 September 2022, the following matter was referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (the Committee) for inquiry into the Project known as Iron Boomerang (PIB), with reference to: a. the employment likely to result from the project during construction and once completed b. the effect on Australia's gross domestic product and balance of payments from this significant change in Australia's productive capacity c. capital, energy and resources required to build and operate the proposed 10 steel plants, 5 at Port Headland, Western Australia and 5 in the Bowen Basin, Queensland d. the feasibility of the proposed clamshell design and electric/diesel propulsion to safely transport iron ore and coal across the 3000 kilometre route e. the environmental benefit of the reduction in bulk ore exports in regard to marine pollution and energy consumption f. any environmental impacts from the proposed alignment g. any impacts of the rail line or steel parks on the Aboriginal community h. the relevance of the Iron Boomerang project to our national security i. any other related matters. The Committee's report was tabled in the Parliament on 10 August 2023. Introduction The Australian Government appreciates the work of the Committee in considering the project. The Government is committed to making our future here, making the most of our potential, and making sure the benefits are widely shared. Our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia Plan (Plan) will drive advanced manufacturing in Australia, helping us to maximise the economic benefits of the move to net zero and secure Australia's place in a changing global landscape. This will build a stronger, more diversified and resilient economy. As part of our Plan, we have announced a $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund to advance next generation Australian manufacturing capabilities by investing in new industries such as batteries, green metals and low carbon fuels. We have consultation underway on unlocking green metals opportunities for a Future Made in Australia. Our National Rail Procurement and Manufacturing Strategy is helping build scale and efficiency in the sector, promoting investment and leading to the sector being more globally competitive. Australia has a generational opportunity to capture new economic opportunities emerging from the global net zero transformation, and to drive investments in low emissions and renewable technologies that will help achieve a 43% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030, and net zero emissions by 2050. The Australian Government has committed to developing a 2050 Net Zero plan to support the transition to a net zero economy, help build new industries, and support the Government's ambition to become a renewable energy superpower. Importantly, the Australian Government recognises the opportunity for Northern Australia to enhance prosperity through new investment across multiple sectors, including resources, defence, renewables, and advanced manufacturing. The Australian Government's Critical Minerals Strategy 2023-2030 sets out the ambition to achieve growth in the critical minerals sector in coming years. The recent Budget establishes a production tax incentive for processing and refining critical minerals at an estimated cost of $7 billion over the next decade. It also commits up to $1.2 billion in strategic critical minerals projects through the Critical Minerals Facility and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. This includes the Critical Minerals National Productivity Initiative to work with state and territory governments to develop pre-feasibility studies for critical mineral common-user processing facilities. The recent Resources Statement to Parliament also highlights the commitment to strengthening the resources sector and its critical role in pursing the transition to a net zero economy. To support our future resources industry, the Future Made in Australia program will include $566 million over ten years in a new Resourcing Australia's Prosperity program to map prospective regions and resources needed for the transition to net zero. The establishment of the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, with $3 billion for investment in renewables and low emissions technologies and $1 billion for value-adding to resources, also represents a significant government commitment to diversifying and transforming Australia's industry and economy, creating high-value jobs, and driving sustainable economic growth. Response Recommendation 1 of the Committee's Report The committee recommends that East West Line Parks resumes engagement with Infrastructure Australia and provide it with the information that it requires to complete an assessment of Project Iron Boomerang. Response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Comments The Australian Government welcomes engagement with proponents on the development of submissions for Infrastructure Australia's assessment. On 1 June 2023, Infrastructure Australia received an addendum to its Ministerial Statement of Expectations requiring that Infrastructure Australia only accept proposals from Australian state or territory governments [1]. This does not preclude East West Line Parks from preparing a submission but would require engagement with an appropriate government entity to lodge a submission with Infrastructure Australia on its behalf. [1] Recommendation 2 of the Committee's Report The committee recommends the Australian Government commissions and publishes a scoping study on the establishment of a steel plant/s located in Northern Australia. The study should consider: the most suitable location/s including economic viability and financing arrangements of such a plant/s, taking into account trends in and affecting the global iron ore and steel markets the use of metallurgical coal and/or hydrogen as potential reductants the capacity of the Australian Government to provide potential guarantees, loans, grants, and/or equity arrangements legislative or regulatory approvals exposure to risk employment, environmental and social impacts, and land acquisition engagement with Indigenous communities and local communities the national security implications of increasing the domestic steel supply. Response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. Comments The Government does not support a government funded scoping study on the establishment of steel plants located in Northern Australia. Instead, the Government will consider Australia's iron and steel producing sectors as part of its net zero sector plans and Future Made in Australia. The Australian Government will continue to support Australian companies and researchers to invest in research and development, renewable energy, and workforce development required to harness Australia's potential to become a long-term and trusted supplier of green iron and green steel to global industries. Further information on the existing support arrangements are outlined in response to later recommendations. Recommendation 3 of the Committee's Report The committee recommends the Department of Defence details the use of steel in, and the value of steel to, Australia’s defence industry in the Defence Industry Policy Strategy, covering: steel use and demand in current defence projects projected future supply and demand requirements the strategic value of any excess capacity arising from a capacity increase, such as from a new steel plant the risks to, and impact from, any disruption or shortfall in both the domestic and global steel markets. Response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Comments The Defence Industry Development Strategy establishes the framework and principles for the direction of defence industry policy in what will be an important decade in Australia's national security. This includes identifying the sovereign defence industrial priorities Australia needs for our own self-reliance. Recommendation 1 of the Government Senators' Dissenting Report The project proponent work with interested parties (including the Department of Industry, Science and Resources) to explore opportunity for green iron and green steel production. This engagement should focus on understanding: the sovereign capability that such projects would represent the jobs and capability that could be created the role that Traditional Owners, governments (at all levels), and local communities can play the potential for carbon emissions reductions in Australia and in partner nations. Response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. Comments The Australian Government is updating Australia's Net Zero 2050 plan. As part of this process the Government will develop six sectoral decarbonisation plans which, between them, will cover all major components of the economy and consider issues around green iron and green steel production. The Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy will work together to develop the Industrial Sector Decarbonisation Plan, which will consider iron and steel production. As part of the whole of government development of sector plans, the Government will undertake engagement with the community, industry, experts, and unions to ensure its actions are well informed and reflect real-world economic, commercial, and industrial realities. Additionally, the Government will ensure that First Nations people who are affected are fully consulted including on social impacts and job creation. Green metals have been identified as a priority industry as part of the Government's Future Made in Australia agenda. This is because of the important role green metals will play in Australia's net zero transformation, potential for comparative advantage in this industry, and the need for public investment in order to align economic incentives with the national interest and unlock private investment at scale. The Future Made in Australia package also includes $18.1 million over six years from 2024-25 for foundational initiatives to expedite the emergence of Australia's green metals industry including enhanced industry and research collaboration, exploration of opportunities to improve the use of Australian scrap metal, and further consultation on incentives to support the production of green iron and steel, together with alumina and aluminium. Recommendation 1 from the Additional comments by Senator Malcolm Roberts Recommendation 2 should include an additional term of reference which covers the use of emission capture and reprocessing in steel production. Response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. Comments The Government is committed to supporting technology development and additional abatement options for the industrial sector. This includes programs that support the reduction of emissions in steel production. These include: 1. The Carbon Capture Technologies Program which supports carbon capture and utilisation technologies. 2. The Safeguard Transformation Stream of the Powering the Regions Fund provides matched funding through competitive grants to support eligible facilities to bring forward investment and technology adoption to reduce on-site emissions. 3. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), through its strategic priority to accelerate the transition to a low emissions steel value chain, provides support for novel technologies that are within its mandate. This will be enhanced by the $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund that has been established as part of the Future Made in Australia package. Further to the above, there are numerous research organisations and collaborations exploring technologies and process improvements to reduce emissions in the iron and steel sector, including CSIRO and the Heavy Industry Low Carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre (HILT CRC). The Government will continue to work with the key steel industry stakeholders and those with new technologies, through ARENA, the National Reconstruction Fund, Powering the Regions Fund and other avenues, to explore opportunities to decarbonise the sector, consistent with Australia's 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction targets. 18:24 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 74 Report 74 18:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales We have just tabled the report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is an annual review, and in my 5½ years in this place we have done this review every single year. The one recommendation of the report is that we continue to do these reports. This may be my last opportunity—or most likely is my last opportunity—to speak as the deputy chair and, potentially, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I say this with a very, very heavy heart because in no way do I feel secure that the NDIS is genuinely on a path not only of sustainability but of achieving the goals that it was meant to achieve. I know I stated in my first speech in this place—I'm glad Senator Ciccone is here; God love him for going to get my speech when I forgot half of it. But I was up to the autism part. When someone said to me, 'Jeez, you did well without your speech,' my son and daughter—she never gives me any credit!—said, 'That's alright; she was up to the autism part, and she could do that with marbles in her mouth underwater!' What I have always thought that the NDIS was there to achieve was to support people with a permanent and lifelong disability, and it was always important to me that it was for people with a permanent and lifelong disability. That was what the scheme was designed for, and that was how the scheme was going to be sustainable. Even in the time I've been here we have seen the number of participants in the scheme continue to grow, and I think there are a multitude of reasons for this. One is that we saw a change from the DSM-IV to the DSM-V, which changed the categorisation of a lot of conditions—conditions that would never have been considered permanent and lifelong disabilities. All of a sudden lots of conditions and diagnoses disappeared—global developmental delay, Asperger's and a glorious one called PDDNOS, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. They're all now autism. It has also become quite chic—it's almost a bit fashionable—to have a child with autism. Honestly, the people that come up to me and tell me, with great joy, their child now has autism clearly are not experiencing the autism of my child and what I experienced as the parent of a child with severe and profound autism, global developmental delay and ADHD amongst an array of other conditions. But he achieved and was fortunate to receive best-practice intensive early intervention, and that's what the NDIS is for. We funded it before the NDIS. It was over $100,000 a year. It was very, very expensive. But I have a child now who we were told would be very low functioning. If it had been in the fifties, they'd have told me to put him in an institution and forget about him and focus on my other kids, because that's what they used to do. Instead, he got intensive early intervention—best practice. It was pre the NDIS. It was very expensive. That's why, in my divorce, I got debt. I didn't get any assets, because we got rid of them all to fund care for our son, and we'd do it all again because I now have the most extraordinary teenager who I talk to on the phone. What worries me is that there are children who are not getting access to intensive, best-quality early intervention, because the scheme has grown out to the point where it is enormous. We have 11 per cent of all boys seven to nine years of age on the NDIS. There is no way 11 per cent of seven- to nine-year-old boys in this country have a permanent and lifelong disability. They just do not. But the political courage is lacking. I had hoped that I could work with the government to—I've offered! I'll help you politically. We've got to get these kids off. We've got to get some of these people off the scheme. There are a lot of people who come onto the scheme as adults for conditions diagnosed—and autism is a big favourite. There are people who have careers and families and have been diagnosed in their 40s, 50s and 60s and are now getting plans of $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000. This is ridiculous. This is why the scheme is going to be unsustainable. I fear, as I move away from this committee—and I have listened to and heard all the people across this parliament that I have sat on the joint standing committee with; they do not understand the importance of sustainability and that that means making tough decisions—the tough decisions aren't being made. The sustainability is at risk because too many people are on it. It needs to get back to being fit for purpose. It needs to go back to being for people with permanent and lifelong disability, not for someone who stubbed their toe all of a sudden getting a $20,000 NDIS plan. It is about getting back to what it was designed for and helping our most vulnerable. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We've come to the appointed hour. Pursuant to the order agreed earlier today, the Senate will now proceed to government business. BILLS 75 BILLS Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 75

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

In Committee 75 18:31 The CHAIR 287062 The committee is considering the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The remaining votes on those amendments will now be held. I will now deal with the amendments on sheet 3046, moved by Senator Henderson. The question before the committee is that schedule 2 stand as printed.    

The committee divided. [18:36]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. 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. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. 8 PAIRS Brown, C. L. Pocock, D. W. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Smith, D. A. Pratt, L. C. Brockman, W. E. Smith, M. F. Cash, M. C. Sterle, G. Sharma, D. N. Urquhart, A. E. Chandler, C. Wong, P. Birmingham, S. J.

Question agreed to.

18:39 The CHAIR 287062 As a result of the vote, the second opposition amendment cannot be put as it was consequential; it was only necessary if schedule 2 was negatived. I will now proceed with the division on the amendments on sheet 3140, moved by Senator Faruqi. The question before the committee is that the amendments on sheet 3140, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [18:44]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:46 The CHAIR 287062 The question now is that the requests for amendments on sheet 2952, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [18:47]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:50 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 3047: (1) Schedule 2, page 29 (before line 4), before item 1, insert: 1A At the end of subsection 19-38(1) Add: ; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or (d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity. 1B At the end of subsection 19-38(2) Add: ; or (c) the election of a person as a member of the governing body (however described) of a student led organisation; or (d) a protest activity or an action that relates to a protest activity. I want to make a couple of important points. The coalition did seek to remove from the bill the requirement that 40 per cent of the student support and amenities fee be allocated to student led organisations. We did seek to remove that from the bill, and that was not successful. We would ask the Senate to support this amendment because we are proposing, with this amendment, an important safeguard to prohibit the use of student support and amenities fee funds, SSAF funds, for student elections, student protests or protest related activities, because what we want to ensure is that these very valuable resources directly benefit student welfare and essential services. I am concerned that the government may vote against this amendment, and I really do not understand the basis for that, because this is very much an ideologically driven provision in the first place. It also overlooks critical concerns of the universities about not just the misuse of funds but also the incapacity of some student led organisations to appropriately deliver critical services to students. Without this amendment being passed by the Senate, without these important safeguards, we face a situation where these funds could be used for improper purposes. We have seen on university campuses, since 7 October 2023, horrific levels of antisemitism, shocking protests and shocking behaviour. The thought that moneys from students were being directed to student led organisations for the purposes of improper activities, including antisemitic activities, is frankly abhorrent. We don't believe that this should be permitted, and not just in relation to antisemitism but in relation to any sort of protest activity. These funds need to be safeguarded for the important purpose for which they are being paid by all students, and that is to ensure that student needs are properly supported—important needs like health care, mental health support, legal support and other services on campus that students will call upon. I do want to add, in relation to this provision in the bill generally, that Universities Australia recommended that 'changes to how the SAFF is used be deferred until the proposal has been further developed in consultation with the sector because of substantial concerns raised by UA members'. Charles Sturt University indicated that it could not support the SAFF changes without further amendments and argued that the model 'may not be workable for regional and/or multicampus institutions, or those with a high proportion of part-time or online students'. The higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton said: The general issue raised by a fixed allocation of funds to third-party organisations is how this intersects with the legal obligations of universities regarding services of a non-academic nature. Specifically, if the university relies on student-run organisations over which it has limited direct control, is it risking non-compliance with other statutory requirements? Let's not forget that we're talking about a very substantial amount of money here. In 2023, more than $278 million in student services and amenities fees funds were collected by 44 providers, and the Department of Education's submission to our inquiry into this bill noted that more than $110 million of this amount was allocated by providers to student led organisations. The issue is that universities are being robbed of the ability to ensure that these funds are directed appropriately so that, if some of these funds are provided to student led organisations, they have the capacity to provide these services. I do note that, for smaller and regional unis, this is a particular challenge. They don't have very large student led unions and other organisations like the bigger universities. But, then again, this is not surprising from the government, because we've seen the government, in the ESOS bill, back-in the big end of town and back-in the G8 universities at the expense of the regional and smaller universities. Now the threats that the government is making in relation to the ongoing use of Ministerial Direction 107 will compound that shocking unfairness and disadvantage. We know what happened this year as a result of MD 107 and how much regional universities suffered. As I say, this is an important and sensible amendment. It safeguards the funds for the purposes for which they are intended. It doesn't fuel or fund any sort of protest activity on campus, and, as we have seen, the coalition is deeply concerned about the gross mismanagement of antisemitic protests on university campuses since October 2023 and, frankly, the weakness of leadership we have seen from this government. We call on the Senate to back this amendment. 18:57 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales This is just the next step in a long, concerted and pretty shameful campaign by the Liberals, and in particular Senator Henderson, to silence dissent and protest on our university campuses. Protest has, historically and always, been a core part of democracy on university campuses, and students have been at the forefront of so many social movements, from justice for Palestine, to climate justice, to First Nations justice and everything in between. Attempts to control and silence students should never be tolerated. The Greens will not tolerate this, and we will be opposing these amendments. 18:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government also will not be supporting this amendment. I refute the allegations from Senator Henderson regarding the leadership that Minister Clare has provided in regard to antisemitism on campuses. Concerns of how the SSAF can be committed are unfounded. It is yet another example of fearmongering, and we're accustomed to that from those opposite. Section 19-38(4) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 provides a list of things that SSAF can be put towards—things like providing food and drink, sporting activities, caring for children, promoting health and welfare of students, and so on. It does not provide for protest. The legislation also includes requirements of providing and collecting SSAF. These are the same legislative requirements which have been in place since 2012. There are no changes to eligible activities. Providers must comply with the legislation. If they don't then the Department of Education can take compliance action. 18:59 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Firstly, I absolutely refute the allegations of Senator Faruqi. This is not an attempt to subvert legitimate protest on university campuses. This is an amendment which preserves these funds for their proper use—that is, for the health, welfare and wellbeing of students on campus. I said nothing at all, Senator Faruqi, about shutting down protests other than, of course, that the universities have done an appalling job in not shutting down antisemitism. Things are better than they were, but it's been a shocking 12 months. This does not go to the legitimate right of students to protest. What this amendment is all about is ensuring that these funds are used properly and that they are used for the health, the wellbeing and the legitimate needs of students. It's not for engaging in printing vile posters or engaging in transport costs so that students can go to the Land 400 protest, as I understand and am told occurred in the case of one university student led organisation. We want to make sure that this very significant amount of money reaches where it's meant to go. I will also address the comments of the minister. I appreciate what the bill provides in relation to health and welfare, food and drink, and all the rest of it, but the bill does not prohibit these funds being used for protest and protest activity. If the government shares our concerns—and I think the government should share our concerns—then it should back this amendment. If your intention is to not support protest activity, not to support printing costs to be printing vile posters and not to support all the other stuff that's gone on in universities, then the bill fails to make that clear. It's not prohibited. This makes it crystal clear that those sorts of activities—you'll note in the amendment that we've limited the scope of these activities fairly narrowly. If you share our concerns about using these funds properly, you will support this amendment. I will finish by saying that I totally disagree with the way that you've reflected on the Minister for Education, Mr Clare. Mr Clare on many occasions has failed to show adequate leadership when it comes to combatting antisemitism on Australian university campuses. He never once publicly spoke against the encampments, despite the fact that they were fuelling and inciting horrific levels of antisemitic hatred. He never once raised publicly the concerns about members of Hizb ut-Tahrir menacing Jewish students on campuses, which was frankly abhorrent, particularly under circumstances when the University of Sydney was on notice that those people were on campus and for many weeks did nothing until it was exposed in the media. Minister Clare never said anything about the two visiting Israeli academics who were effectively locked in a room, barricaded, in what was the most appalling conduct at the University of Sydney. You can make the motherhood statements you like, but I'm afraid Minister Clare has a very shocking history in not appropriately safeguarding Jewish students and not appropriately speaking with moral courage and clarity in relation to antisemitism. Going back to this amendment, I would say to you, Minister, if it is your intention that these funds not be used to support protest activity, which could of course be used for very improper purposes, then I would urge you, please. I don't expect the Greens to support this amendment, but I do expect that the government would be responsible enough to support this amendment. It's a responsible amendment. It reflects the proper purpose of these funds. It's the right thing to do, and I would ask the government to support this amendment. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that the amendments on sheet 3047 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [19:08]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 24 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Colbeck, R. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 10 PAIRS Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Brockman, W. E. Pratt, L. C. Canavan, M. J. Urquhart, A. E. Cash, M. C. McCarthy, M. Chandler, C. Gallagher, K. R. Davey, P. M. Lines, S. Duniam, J. R. Bilyk, C. L. Fawcett, D. J. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. Brown, C. L. Sharma, D. N. Pocock, D. W.

Question negatived.

 19:12 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—At the request of Senator Pocock, I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3137 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert: (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 1, insert: 1A Paragraph 140-5(1)(b) Omit "1 June", substitute "1 December". 1B Subsection 140-5(1) (method statement) Omit "1 June" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 December". 1C Subsection 140-10(1) Omit "for 1 June in a financial year", substitute "for 1 December in a financial year". (3) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 1), before item 6, insert: 5A Section 140-20 Omit "before 1 June", substitute "before 1 December". (4) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 3), after item 6, insert: 6A Section 140-20 Omit "that 1 June", substitute "that 1 December". (5) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 26), after item 17, insert: 17A Application of amendments The amendments made by this Part apply on and from 1 December 2025. (6) Page 28 (after line 10), after Schedule 1, insert: Schedule 1A — Maximum student contribution amounts for places Part 1 — Main amendments Higher Education Support Act 2003 1 Section 93-10 Omit "The maximum student contribution amount for a place", substitute "(1) Subject to subsection (2), the maximum student contribution amount for a place". 2 At the end of section 93-10 Add: (2) The table in subsection (1) has effect in relation to a place in a unit of study included in the Society and Culture *funding cluster as if the amount specified for the cluster was instead the amount specified immediately before the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Act 2020 commenced. Part 2 — Application provisions 3 Application provision The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a unit of study that has a *census date that is on or after the commencement of that Part (whether the unit of study is part of a course of study commenced before, on or after that day). 19:13 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens will be supporting Senator Pocock's amendments to change the time of indexation, to start off with. We have to be clear that student debt, firstly, cannot be fixed, because student debt really shouldn't exist. Similarly, indexation cannot be fixed, because indexation shouldn't exist either. Nevertheless, there are ways in which the current system can be made fairer, and Senator David Pocock's amendments do try to make the system fairer. It makes no sense to charge indexation on a debt that has already been paid off. All repayments should be taken into account before a debt is subject to indexation. This amendment represents a change that can make some difference to the burden of student debt, and I really urge the government to support this amendment. Similarly, the Greens support the undoing of the punitive fee hikes and funding cuts that the coalition brought in under the rightly much-maligned Job-ready Graduates scheme. These fee hikes were brought in by the Morrison government as part of this disastrous job-ready program. The Universities Accord has unequivocally called this program a failure and has called for its immediate remediation. Labor should have undone and reversed these fee hikes that have now led to $50,000 arts degrees and are, again, piling more and more debt onto students and are actually making people rethink whether they should go to university or not. Labor should have done it immediately, as soon as they got into government, but they have waited for 2½ years, and they're still not doing it, so we need to support this amendment today. I've said it before and I'll say again: this bill is such a missed opportunity when it comes to this urgently needed reversal of the Job-ready Graduates fee hikes, which really have drastically shifted the cost of delivering university education away from government, whose responsibility it is, and onto students. This amendment does represent a small step in the right direction, and the Greens will support it. 19:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thank you, Senator Lambie and Senator Faruqi, for your contributions. The government will not be supporting this amendment today. The Albanese government is taking action to provide significant relief to Australian students and workers with student debt. In this bill we're taking action to cut the cost of degrees through our changes to indexation. We've also announced that we'll cut 20 per cent off all student debts and that we'll raise the minimum repayment threshold so that repayments are lower and will kick in when you earn more. All up, this means that the Albanese Labor government will cut close to $20 billion from student loan debt for more than three million students. As we've said before, the Universities Accord made a number of recommendations in relation to the HELP system, including changing the date on which indexation is applied. It also said that the former government's Job-ready Graduates scheme's changes had failed. We understand that there is more to do in regard to higher education. We've said from the beginning that we wouldn't be able to implement all parts of the accord's recommendations in one go, but we're making substantial progress with this bill tonight. 19:16 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I want to very briefly respond to the minister on those very politicised comments that he made. If he's saying that the Job-ready Graduates program failed, then he's basically deserting all the students studying teaching, nursing, maths, languages and engineering who had the cost of their degrees dramatically lowered as a result of the coalition's initiatives. In contrast to this government, which, of course, has now fuelled a national teacher workforce crisis, we took really strong action to encourage more students into these vital degrees. The fact that the minister is suggesting that this has failed is very concerning. I think that bells the cat, indicating that the government is planning to increase the cost of teaching, nursing, maths, engineering and the other degrees that we dramatically lowered. I'm very suspicious, Minister, because, if you were serious about changing the Job-ready Graduates program, you would have done so by now. If the Australian people have the misfortune of seeing the government re-elected, I think the government will push this off till after the election. It's a very deceptive plan, and I am deeply concerned that the government's plan is to increase the cost of these degrees, which are so vital for so many thousands of young Australians. 19:18 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I have to remind the government side over here that, when these guys on the coalition side put up the cost of those arts degrees, you went off like pork chops. As a matter of fact, I remember sitting here and hearing you say, 'Yes. We're going to take them back to where they were.' Quite frankly, you've done nothing. Maybe they're not doing the Job-ready Graduates stuff because they need to go into those arts programs to work out exactly what they want to do in their lives. So maybe you should lower them back down, instead of carrying on like pork chops, like you did before the last election, when this other side did it. You've had 2½ years to change that and reduce those arts degrees back to where they used to be. Then those kids can go and do those arts degrees at that age and work out exactly what they want to study. At least it would give them a touch of everything, and then they can determine where they want to go. Quite frankly, carrying on like pork chops—and, God, you guys carried on! They were fried, those chops. Fair dinkum! Seriously! Goodness me! Reduce those arts degrees back down, because, quite frankly, I think that's what determines where these kids want to go in life. You may want to relook at that and go back to that instead of carrying on and doing nothing about it when you are in government. 19:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie—always entertaining. As a proud arts graduate, I certainly do value the importance of those arts degrees. In terms of what I said before, we always said that the reform agenda of Universities Accord process—and it is substantial—is going to set the path in higher education for decades to come. We were upfront at the start that we wouldn't be able to implement every part of it straightaway. It was going to take time. We're making substantial progress with this bill today. In regard to Senator Henderson's comment about 'deceptive', I think the only person being deceptive here is Senator Henderson, with a fear campaign about something that is non-existent. 19:20 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I do appreciate what Senator Lambie has said, because all the two major parties are doing is calling each other 'deceptive' while the students are suffering every single day. Stop playing these games. Labor, you are in government. You can do this. You know the Universities Accord process—and it was a good process—said that this change needed to be done urgently. What is stopping you? If you support this amendment you'll put students out of their misery—or at least some of their misery. You can start here right now. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 256063 The question is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3137 from Senator David Pocock, moved by Senator Lambie, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [19:26]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Bragg)

 15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

19:28 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move the amendment on sheet 3045: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 9), omit the table item, substitute: This concerns the Commonwealth prac payment. It's an amendment which requires the government to table the eligibility and means test requirements for the Commonwealth prac payment before any new grant payment can commence. This amendment is very important because in the bill there is literally no detail about how this payment is going to be delivered. For many stakeholders and higher education providers from whom we heard during the bill inquiry, there is a lot of concern about the nature of this payment because it's not being administered through Centrelink. It's actually being administered via some grant bucket. While we support the prac payment for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students, which will apply from 1 July 2025, we are very concerned, and we share the concerns of higher education providers about the way in which this has been proposed and will be administered. The bill does not include critical information such as the eligibility criteria or the means test requirements, and we believe this reflects the government's rushed and chaotic approach to policymaking in the education portfolio. The higher education expert Professor Andrew Norton told our Senate inquiry into the bill: Apart from the Prac Payment's insecure legal foundations, the decision to base the program on a legislative instrument rather than legislation means less debate about how the Prac Payment will work … The government says that the Prac Payment will be means tested, but neither this bill nor the government's public statements explain … what 'means' will disqualify students or cause their payments to be reduced. The Regional Universities Network also raised very similar concerns, saying: … should universities be the administering body for Commonwealth Prac Payments, then inconsistencies may arise at a national level between the individual institutions within the sector (and potentially even between the faculties of the same provider), in terms of the outcomes of administrating student eligibility and verification, the timeframes for processing payments, and dispute resolution processes. Despite this payment being announced and the minister speaking about the benefits of this payment, this will be delivered not via Centrelink but through a grant bucket for which there is no actual obligation in the legislation to deliver this funding. You would think that, if the government were serious about delivering this payment, it would actually make a clear provision in the legislation requiring the government to do so. While this is also not in this bill, the government has confirmed during budget estimates that eligible students will face a means test that will require them to be eligible for an income support payment and meet a need-to-work requirement. We're also concerned that there's been no consultation with state and territory governments or industry to share the costs of this measure, as the minister originally declared would happen, despite the fact that they will be the beneficiaries of the incoming teachers, nurses, midwives, social workers and the like. As I say, this amendment requires the government to table the eligibility and means test requirements, because this parliament has a right to ensure that, when the government says it will do something, that will actually happen. So we proposed this amendment as a moderate measure to give the parliament confidence that the government is on track to deliver this payment. We just can't take the minister's word when so much about this payment is actually not in the bill. Tabling the guidelines will also provide transparency ahead of the payment commencing to ensure that students and the higher education providers which will be assessing student applications understand the requirements before the payment begins. Without clear eligibility guidelines, students will continue to remain in the dark about this payment. If the minister were able to table those guidelines now, that would be terrific. We would celebrate that, because understanding how this will apply in practice is very important, and it's just not appropriate that we're seeing, time and time again, that the government is not putting the nuts and bolts of legislation in the bill itself, limiting the oversight of the parliament. So we would welcome the minister tabling these requirements and guidelines, and, in the absence of his doing so, we would urge the Senate to support this amendment. 19:34 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Henderson. The government will not be supporting this amendment. Eligibility for Commonwealth prac payments will be targeted to students on income support and students who typically need to work to support themselves while studying. These students typically face the greatest financial pressure during placements. Eligibility criteria will be finalised in consultation with stakeholders following passage of legislation and well before the commencement date on 1 July next year. The guidelines are disallowable instruments. They can be considered by members of parliament once tabled. This is standard practice for a measure like this. 19:34 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, could you please provide the Senate with more information about who will be eligible for these Commonwealth prac payments? How many students will receive this payment? 19:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's obviously what is being worked through and being consulted on at the moment. Those guidelines will be tabled well in advance of the 1 July 2025 commencement date. 19:35 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Are you able to indicate the proportion of students studying teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work who will receive a prac payment? It just seems that the government is trying to work this out on the run. This has been in the pipeline now for many months. It was a recommendation of the University Accord Panel, and it's very surprising that the government doesn't seem to have any idea of how this payment will be administered and how many students will benefit. So, could you provide the information on the proportion of students who'll receive this payment? Also, what will be the total value of the payments made to each of those four categories of students? 19:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The dollar figure per week is $319.50. That's the same for all those people who are eligible. The department has estimated the following number of students for the prac payment, by discipline, by the end of the forward estimates, based on the latest available data at the time, which was 2022 verified: nursing, 24,000 students per year; midwifery, 2,000 students; teacher education, 35,000 students; and social work, 7,000 students. However, obviously the final numbers of students are likely to vary from the above, as it's not possible to predict changes in enrolments and take-up, which are driven by student choice. 19:37 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria So, what will be the total anticipated amount over the forward estimates that will be paid under this measure? 19:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The anticipation is about 68,000 students per year who would be eligible. 19:37 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Are you able to provide the Senate with any more information in relation to the 68,000—how that was calculated?—because I don't believe this information has been made public before, as well as any other information you can provide. Also, could you indicate how these students will be means tested? Will they be required to hand over their income statements? Will they be required to hand over Centrelink statements or any other private information? And how will that occur? Will the universities be given the responsibility of asking for that information in order to means test them? I mean, quite genuinely, this is a very unusual scheme, where the government is asking third-party institutions to means test students under circumstances where that could give rise to all sorts of quite significant privacy issues. So, could you explain how people's personal information is going to be handled? 19:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The 68,000 figure is what's been estimated by the department. I'm very confident that we've covered that at estimates on previous occasions, after the announcement was made. The negotiations and consultation with stakeholders are ongoing. Obviously working with the universities to implement this is important, because they are the ones that have the direct relationship with students. Obviously the privacy concerns are at the forefront of those discussions. As I mentioned, the guidelines will be disallowable instruments and will be tabled before that 1 July start date next year. 19:39 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, given the universities may need to ask of students private information, will any further legislation be required in relation to the protection of those students' privacy? This gives rise to some quite significant legal issues, I put to you, and it is of concern—and my concerns have not been alleviated—that students are being required, or may be required, to hand that personal information over when there doesn't appear to be any cognisance, let alone provisions, in this bill which protects the privacy of thousands of students attending university. 19:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Department of Education have considered this matter. Their advice is that universities already collect a range of personal and sensitive information about students. They also consider that the relevant legislation is clear about provider obligations relating to the protection of personal information. 19:40 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, I appreciate that they collect information in accordance with their legislative obligations. I suggest to you that the collection of private information for the purposes of means testing students doesn't come within the existing legislation. Can you give this Senate confidence that requests by universities for this information will comply with the law? 19:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It would ultimately be voluntary for the student to hand over any information. It wouldn't be compulsory for them to do it as part of the scheme. 19:41 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Where is that requirement that students can do so voluntarily? By reason of the obligation being a voluntary obligation, doesn't that put students in a very invidious situation where, if they are being required to hand over personal information under circumstances where there's not a legislative basis for the universities to ask for that information—doesn't it put students in a very invidious position where, in order to get the payment, they might be facilitating the provision of private information which may otherwise be in breach of the law? 19:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I go back to my previous point. Implications for students in providing this level of personal information to their providers were considered by the department, noting universities already collect and hold a range of personal and sensitive information about students. Division 179, 'Protection of personal information', of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 is clear about higher education provider obligations and procedures relating to the protection of personal information. 19:43 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, I well understand the provisions of the Higher Education Support Act in relation to the obligations of universities, but this is something very new. You're asking universities to ask for personal information for a very different purpose, not in relation to the student's enrolment and the student studying at university. I don't have any confidence that the government has got this right or that the government has appropriately thought through the privacy implications for students. I also raise very serious concerns that this puts universities in a very difficult position. Can you confirm whether these payments are subject to taxation? 19:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes, they are. 19:44 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Will the tax be withheld before the payment is made to the student? 19:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland No, it won't be withheld. 19:44 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Universities are not being asked to withhold tax before a payment is made, so there will be taxation consequences for the receipt of the payment. If this payment is made and the taxation consequences are not dealt with at the time of the payment being made, isn't there a risk that students could end up with a taxation debt because they haven't actually had any taxation deducted from the payment? 19:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's a bit hard to speculate. Obviously individuals' tax arrangements are a matter for them. 19:45 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria But you understand the point that I'm making. The point is that if the taxation issues are not dealt with at the time of making the payment, which ordinarily of course is the obligation in an employee-employer relationship, then that could lead to taxation consequences. I'm just not sure, and I'm concerned that that hasn't properly been thought through. If a student has to be receiving Centrelink and undertaking paid work for at least 15 hours per week, which I understand is the case, won't this mean that they are more likely to pay tax, and therefore won't this give rise to a situation where they are more exposed to the prospect of having to pay tax? 19:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'm not going to get in the process of giving tax advice to people in various scenarios, but what I will say is that I'm very confident that this will be outlined in the program guidelines, and it will be made clear to people when they apply for the payment as well. 19:46 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, do you have a copy of the guidelines that you can table now? That would be really helpful. 19:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland No, sorry, I don't. 19:46 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria In relation to this payment, I'm not asking you to give tax advice; I'm asking you to explain how the payment works and how universities can possibly administer this payment, particularly in light of the fact that you're dealing with, in some cases, students who have just left school. This could be the first time that they receive any sort of payment, and so it puts students in a pretty invidious position if they don't know the taxation consequences. Will the payments be made each week of the placement or in a lump sum? How will they be paid? 19:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is that those are the things that are being worked through as part of the consultation process. 19:47 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria When do you expect the consultation process to be completed, and what will be the timeframes for applications? I understand that students will need to make applications for the payment. How long will they need to make application before they actually are eligible, and what information will the student need to provide as part of that application? 19:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Those things are still being worked through as part of that consultation process. 19:48 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I did also ask as part of my question when that consultation process would be completed. It has been quite a number of months already. Could you just explain what the status of the consultation is? 19:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Obviously we know that we need to have this implemented by 1 July next year for those eligible. That work will be ongoing. I'm sure that, as soon as there is something ready to announce, you will be the first to know. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 3045, as moved by Senator Henderson, be agreed to.      

The committee divided. [19:53]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. 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. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 9 PAIRS Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Brockman, W. E. Pratt, L. C. Cash, M. C. Stewart, J. N. A. Chandler, C. Farrell, D. E. Davey, P. M. Brown, C. L. Duniam, J. R. Pocock, D. W. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. Sharma, D. N. Bilyk, C. L.

Question negatived.

19:56 The CHAIR 287062 Is there any appetite from honourable senators for further debate in committee? I intend to put the final questions and then report. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. 19:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the report of the committee be adopted. 19:58 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move Greens amendment on Sheet 3185: At the end of the motion, add "and the Senate calls on the Government to immediately legislate its pledges to raise the minimum repayment threshold for all student debt and introduce a marginal repayment system". The 10000 The question before the Senate is that the amendment to the report from the committee of the whole be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [19:59]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.
Report adopted.

 Third Reading 88 20:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 88

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

In Committee 88 20:04 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3036 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 11), omit "20 per cent", substitute "25 per cent". (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 19), omit "20%", substitute "25%". The amendments on sheet 3036 seek to amend section 35A of the Australian Education Act 2013 to raise the share of the Commonwealth's contribution to public schools to 25 per cent. It has been over a decade since the Gonski review said that we needed a truly needs-based funding system for our schools. Since that time, we've had underfunding, with 98 per cent of public schools now underfunded. More than half of private schools are funded at a higher level than our public schools, with government money. Will the government—for the young people of this country and for the teachers who work every day in their schools—commit to finally getting those schools to 100 per cent of the SRS by lifting the Commonwealth contribution to 25 per cent? I commend this amendment to the Senate. 20:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government won't be supporting this amendment. The Minister for Education has been clear: there will be no blank cheques, and additional funding needs to be tied to reform. It is important that this be a joint effort between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. This amendment wants the Commonwealth to bear the entire burden of filling the five per cent funding gap. This ignores the way that funding for our public schools works and how it is a shared responsibility between us and the states and territories. 20:05 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, I want to ask a question in relation to a provision in the bill in relation to funding. This bill will introduce differential treatment for government and non-government schools by making the funding instrument for government schools not subject to disallowance whilst non-government school funding will be disallowable. Can you explain why that is the case? 20:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Approximately 40 per cent of non-government schools are transitioning down. Therefore, this amendment would result in additional costs that would require further consideration, resulting in delays. The Australian government intends to continue maintaining the Commonwealth's share of non-government schools at 80 per cent. 20:07 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria That didn't quite address my question. What I want to know is why there is a difference in the bill between the treatment of government and non-government funding. I understand there are different shares, of course, but, as I say, for government schools the funding instrument is not subject to disallowance, yet for non-government school funding it is disallowable. It's a very significant difference. Could you please explain that very important difference and the decision the government has made in this respect? 20:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland A ratchet mechanism isn't appropriate for non-government schools because the Commonwealth's share for these schools needs to be able to transition down to 80 per cent of the schooling resource standard. Approximately 40 per cent of non-government schools are in the process of transitioning down. Should a future government wish to seek a different set of Commonwealth shares for non-government schools, this would be subject to disallowance by the parliament. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 The question is that the requests for amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3036 be agreed to.      

The committee divided. [20:13]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:14 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3040 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 11), omit "20 per cent", substitute "22.5 per cent". (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 19), omit "20%", substitute "22.5%". Given that the government won't support increasing the Commonwealth contribution to 25 per cent, this amendment seeks to increase the contribution of the federal government to our public schools to 22½ per cent. Minister, this is your policy. This is the amount of contribution that you put in your offer to the states. Voting for this amendment is your opportunity to protect our public schools from backsliding under a coalition government. If you believe that 22½ per cent is a fair contribution that should be made by the federal government to our public schools, then you should lock it in for all of them. In your previous comments, you stated that you don't want to give blank cheques. I can tell you now that public schools, public school teachers and public school students have not been asking for blank cheques and we've been running on empty for over a decade. Teachers dip into their pockets every year to the tune of $1,000. No-one is asking for a blank cheque. They're asking for a government that gives a damn about public education in this country. It is on its knees. There is a reason why parents feel like they have no choice but to fork out thousands of dollars to send their kids to the private school up the road because it is better resourced than the public one. It should be the job of governments to give every young person in this country the opportunity to have a well-funded, high-quality, world-class free public education. For over 13 years, we have not had that—not under the coalition and not under Labor. You went to an election and said that no-one would be left behind. You wanted and you believed in public education. If the minister believes in public education, show us. I speak for thousands upon thousands of public school teachers in this country who believe that the federal government does not care about our public schools, because they see the amount of money that gets shovelled out of the door—$51 million every day—into our private school system. They drive past them in their cars with their cranes and their new buildings going up. They go into their classrooms that need paint, that have asbestos in them, that aren't cool in summer and that don't have the resources that they need. They look at the young person in front of them who is neurodiverse and who can't get a support teacher for more than two hours a week. They look at the young child with a disability who can't get up to the science block, because they don't have a lift. Teachers deal with this and young people in public schools deal with this every single day, yet the teachers show up because we care about the kids in front of us—the majority of kids in this country who are educationally disadvantaged who attend our public schools. Teachers do this every single day, despite the fact that their governments don't care, despite the fact that they are underresourced, despite the fact that there is no end in sight to that underresourcing and despite the fact that they get abused in the media and by governments. By telling us there are no blank cheques, you might as well just say, 'You're not doing a good enough job.' Try doing the job when you are underresourced year after year. Teachers have had enough. When you got elected to government, they thought that somebody cared and it was going to change. Well, it's changing a bit, but it's not 100 per cent, and you know it. So, if you really care, if you really believe that public schools in this country should get 22½ per cent, like you've put on the table, then lock it in for all of them. I commend this amendment to the House. 20:19 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I recognise Senator Allman-Payne's commitment to public education as a former teacher, but I want to put on the record that I did not appreciate the slight against our government, because the previous coalition government nearly doubled annual school funding, from $13 billion in 2013 to $25.3 billion in 2022. I think it's also important to point out that the funding shortfall, to be fair, is actually not the responsibility of the Commonwealth under the existing legislation. So, Senator Allman-Payne, you really should be looking at the states which have fallen well short of their contribution. I think it's really important that anyone listening to this debate or reading the Hansard understands the facts that, under the current Gonski funding model, the Commonwealth was meeting its 20 per cent share and that there were dramatic shortfalls in funding but the shortfalls were not the responsibility of the Commonwealth; they were the responsibility of the states and the Northern Territory. The only jurisdiction meeting its Gonski funding commitment to government schools was the ACT. So I think it is very important to put those facts on the record. 20:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. I've seen your passion in regard to public education in this chamber and also in Senate estimates. The government has a proud record of support for public schools. Indeed, the minister himself is someone who's been very passionate in his defence of public schools and, at the same time, the teaching profession. He recognises the role that teachers have played in his life, and the work that he wants to do to lift the standing of teachers and the profession across the country is really important. The government won't be supporting this amendment. The minister has been clear that additional funding needs to be tied to reform. This amendment wants the Commonwealth to provide additional funding for states and territories without embedding the reforms that will actually help Australian students catch up, keep up and finish school, which are exactly what we want to do to build a strong and sustainable education system in this country. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 The question is that requests for amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3040 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [20:26]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

20:28 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move amendment (1) on sheet 3037. (1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 15), at the end of Part 3, add: 14A Subsection 22A(5) Omit "The total SRS amount", substitute "Subject to subsection (5A), the total SRS amount". 14B After subsection 22A(5) Insert: (5A) The total SRS amountfor the State or Territory does not include an amount prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection. (5B) Without limiting subsection (5A), regulations made for the purposes of that subsection must prescribe the amounts listed under the heading "2.1.3 Accounting exclusions and deductions" in version 8.8 of the document titled "My School Financial Reporting Key Principles and Methodology" published by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. The purpose of this is to remove the four per cent accounting loophole that was instigated by a coalition government and which for some reason Labor seems intent on keeping. Then shadow minister Plibersek said before the last federal election to a roomful of teachers at a conference that the government was going to remove this loophole. This is the loophole that allows states to include depreciation of buildings, busing of students in their share of their contribution to public schools. Some of those things are used by private schools but they don't lose that money. The government says that everybody needs to do their fair share. Well, the government could remove this four per cent loophole and that would bring the states up. Then they could lift their contribution and maybe we would get to 100 per cent. As long as this four per cent loophole remains, no matter what the government says, every public school in this country—WA, NT, Tasmania—will really only be at 96 per cent of the schooling resource standard. So I implore the government to stick to the commitment that you made before the election, remove this loophole and let's get us closer to a hundred per cent of the SRS. I commend this amendment to the Senate. 20:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this amendment. Let me be clear about what the now government said before the election, when we were in opposition. The now Prime Minister said: … Labor remains committed, working with state and territory governments, to getting every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level. That was at the Press Club on 25 January 2022. As shadow minister, the member for Sydney said on Insiders on 8 May 2022, 'We need the states and territories to increase their effort as we would increase our effort to get every school up to 100 per cent of its fair funding level.' That was what was said by us in opposition. The focus of this bill is the missing five per cent of the school resourcing standard. The four per cent is used by states to fund a mix of things, including school transport and early childhood education costs. It's a matter for the states whether they wish to claim that four per cent or not. 20:31 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, wasn't it confirmed at estimates by the department that that four per cent was never included in the original Gonski calculation? 20:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The 2011 review of funding for schooling, the Gonski review, sets out that the SRS should include the full cost of delivering schooling services, regardless of whether these are delivered in an independent school or in a systemic school. A provision for general maintenance and minor acquisitions below an established capitalisation threshold has recommended excluding sector costs, such as regulation of schools, certifications of teachers, national school testing and development of curriculum. 20:31 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland It's true, though, isn't it, that that money is being used by some states for their school teacher registration authorities? Is that correct? 20:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes, that's my understanding, Senator Allman-Payne. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 296331 The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3037 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [20:36]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Grogan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

20:38 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3038 together: (1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (after line 26), after section 127A, insert: 127B Annual inquiry by Senate Committee (1) The Senate Education and Employment References Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must, by the end of each year: (a) conduct an inquiry into the matter covered by subsection (2); and (b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing the inquiry. (2) The matter covered by this subsection is the level of disadvantage in schools across Australia, including the level of disadvantage in schools when grouped by one or more of the following: (a) location; (b) whether the school is a government or non-government school; (c) any other characteristic or metric that the Committee considers appropriate. (2) Schedule 2, page 11 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add: 5 Application provision — annual inquiry The first inquiry conducted by the Senate Education and Employment References Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, under section 127B of the Australian Education Act 2013, as inserted by this Schedule, must be completed before 1 January 2027. The purpose of these amendments is to add to the bill's intent, which is to address equity and disadvantage, to ensure that a regular statement by the minister on the progress of the bilateral agreements is brought forward each year to be inquired into, and it would also compel ACARA or another body to prepare and table a report including such data. This would give us a much better opportunity and additional opportunities to track how we are actually going in addressing inequity, which is a big purpose of this bill. I commend these amendments to the Senate. 20:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. The government won't be supporting this amendment. Enhanced transparency measures in the bill and the ministerial report to parliament provide greater levels of accountability. The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement will build trust in the system, showing the public how funding is distributed for the benefit of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Further, education ministers will review the measurement framework for schools to ensure it remains relevant, ensuring equity and access for disadvantaged students. Question negatived. 20:40 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland by leave—I move: (1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 10 (after line 26), after section 127A, insert: 127C Annual report by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority etc. (1) By the end of each year: (a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority; or (b) if another person is directed by the Minister—that other person; must prepare a report into the level of disadvantage in schools across Australia. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include information relating to the following matters: (a) the distribution of socio-educational disadvantage for schools when grouped by location, sector or any other measure; (b) the percentage of students with socio-educational disadvantage in schools when grouped by location, sector or any other measure; (c) the percentage of students that attract any of the following: (i) student with disability loading; (ii) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander loading; (iii) socio-educational disadvantage loading; (iv) low English proficiency loading; (v) location loading; in schools when grouped by location, sector or any other measure; (d) the Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage value for schools when grouped by location, sector or any other measure; (e) the fees, charges and parent contributions charged by each school; (f) the fees, charges and parent contributions charged by schools when grouped by location, sector or any other measure. (3) The information that is to be included in the report under subsection (1) must include, to the extent possible, information that relates to previous years. (4) The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, or the other person, must give the Minister a copy of the report under subsection (1) as soon as practicable after the report is completed. (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives a copy of the report. (6) This section does not limit the application of section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (7) In this section: Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage value for a school means the value that identifies the socio-educational advantage of the school, as published by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority from time to time. (2) Schedule 2, page 11 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add: 6 Application provision — annual report The first report prepared under subsection 127C(1) of the Australian Education Act 2013, as inserted by this Schedule, must be completed before 1 January 2027.   I commend the amendments to the Senate. 20:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. Again, the government won't be supporting this amendment. The provisions of this bill give greater oversight in relation to Commonwealth investments in schools and progression of reforms,including requiring the education minister to provide an annual report to parliament. Much of the intent of this motion will be met through the implementation of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which will require jurisdictions to report on how Commonwealth funds are invested, share information via a public dashboard and review the measurement framework for schooling in Australia. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 94 20:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024 94

Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024

Second Reading 94 20:43 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024, a measure which seeks to extend the unique student identifier to students across the school sector across this country. Implementing the unique student identifier, or the USI, is a reform measure of the former coalition government's National School Reform Agreement. The USI is an important part of the coalition's school reform agenda to drive better student outcomes in Australian schools. It has been in use for higher education and vocational education and training students since 2015. Importantly, allocating a USI to every school student will help provide a better understanding of a student's progress throughout their school life, travelling with them from one school system to another, allowing for the efficient and timely transfer of personal information so that they can be easily identified. Subject to the agreement of education ministers, there is also the potential to use student identifiers for a broader range of purposes, such as to support the identification of students who are falling through the cracks or to target students needing additional support through any part of their school life and their school journey. They could assist with building the evidence needed to deliver improved teaching methods and other measures to support every child's schooling journey. Subject, of course, to the appropriate agreements and sanctions by the education ministers, other issues they may assist with are around issues with school refusals, non-attendance or even withdrawals from school. Since 2015, more than 15.6 million USIs have been generated for higher education and VET students. Privacy is a very important part of this measure. The bill specifies the very limited circumstances where the collection, use and disclosure of information is authorised. The Student Identifiers Registrar and any other entity administering student identifiers are also required under the bill to protect this information from misuse or unauthorised access and disclosure. Of course, the ability to identify a student's progress has never been more important. We know that one in three children are not meeting the expected proficiency standards under NAPLAN. As a nation, we need to do a better job for our teachers and students to ensure that every young Australia can reach his or her best potential. We have seen some very concerning NAPLAN results that don't seem to be getting any better, so I am pleased we had a very strong reform agenda when we were in government. And I am pleased that the government has picked up this reform and is pushing through with it. I do want to raise a number of concerns about the government's reform agenda, though. While the USIs are important, I've raised continuing concerns about the government's proposal, the new National School Reform Agreement. While there are important reforms in that agreement, I have raised concerns that they don't go far enough, and they're not appropriately detailed. An example of that is Victoria. I very much commend the Victorian government for moving away from balanced literacy, or whole language learning, to explicit instruction, the explicit teaching of phonics between prep and grade 2. But, at the moment, the government is planning to only provide 25 minutes of phonics in the classroom each day, and the evidence overwhelmingly is that is not sufficient. So, when we see school systems within states and territories, thank goodness, moving to evidence based teaching and to celebrating and implementing the science of reading and learning, it's incredibly important that it is consistent with the evidence. We don't want this to fail. We don't want the Victorian government to fail. So making sure we have all the right reforms in the next school reform agreement is critical. I am concerned there is not the appropriate amount of detail in relation to what those evidence based reforms should look like and how they should be implemented in the classroom. We don't want systems implementing measures that they think are appropriate when, in fact, they don't meet the requisite standards. Senator O'Sullivan shared a very significant inquiry into classroom disruption. We have some of the most unruly classrooms in the world. Many, many teachers are leaving the profession because of safety fears, and this agreement was a very significant opportunity to drive reforms to combat classroom disruption, including to implement a national behaviour curriculum. It is regrettable that this agreement doesn't go far enough. Those details really do matter. As I said, this bill implements the USI in Australian schools. It is an important reform measure. It will enable students to move schools and to move interstate and take their information with them and to ensure when there are issues in student progress that those support interventions will perhaps be more easily able to be implemented. I do commend this bill to the house, but we really want to see those additional reforms driven in Australian classrooms. I end by saying that while we have passed the bill to increase funding for government schools it is very regrettable that it's now almost the end of November and that for more than 81 per cent of government schools there is still no reform and funding agreement. That means there has been no national reforms delivered, and it is deeply concerning that time is running out. We have to get these reforms in every classroom in every corner of our country. We have no agreement. The government has failed to enter into an agreement with New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland—and that, as I said, represents more than 80 per cent of government schools. There are four weeks to go. The agreement runs out on 31 December. The minister set a deadline of 30 September. If the government is serious about driving these reforms, I would say: please get on and finalise these funding agreements. This is so important for students. This is so important for teachers, for parents and for our nation. 20:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I was going to thank senators for their contribution in this debate, but I'll just thank Senator Henderson. I note that she did commend the bill as part of her other commentary, but I will leave that for another day given the hour. The Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024 amends the Student Identifiers Act 2014 to extend the system of national unique student identifiers to the school sector, allowing school students across the country to have a singer identifier that will travel with them throughout their education, from school to higher education and VET. The bill meets the Commonwealth's obligations under the current National School Reform Agreement to set up the architecture for school identifiers to be issued to students. Practical use cases for school identifiers must be agreed between the Minister for Education and state and territory education ministers. This important safeguard is backed by robust privacy protections in the bill. These safeguards keep privacy at the centre of the student identifier system, protecting students whilst they benefit from the opportunities a streamlined and unified system offers. I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I thank Senator Henderson for her contribution on this bill and I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 96 20:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3211 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 46, page 15 (lines 17 to 25), omit subsection 18(5), substitute: Protected information and personal information (5) The Registrar is authorised to use or disclose protected information of an individual if: (a) the use or disclosure is for the purposes of research: (i) that relates (directly or indirectly) to school education, or that requires the use of protected information or information about school education; and (ii) that meets the requirements specified by the Education Ministerial Council; and (b) for a disclosure of information that is personal information—the disclosure meets the requirements specified in an instrument made under subsection (6). (6) The Education Minister must, by legislative instrument and with the agreement of the Education Ministerial Council, specify requirements for the purposes of paragraph (5)(b). (7) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003, an instrument made under subsection (6) of this section may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating, with or without modification, a matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time. (8) Despite subsection 44(1) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to an instrument made under subsection (6) of this section. (2) Schedule 1, item 55, page 17 (lines 2 to 11), omit subsection 25(5) (not including the heading), substitute: (5) The use or disclosure by the Registrar of personal information about an individual is taken, for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988, to be authorised by this Act if: (a) the use or disclosure is for the purposes of research: (i) that relates (directly or indirectly) to school education, or that requires the use of schools identifiers, school identity management information or information about school education; and (ii) that meets the requirements specified by the Education Ministerial Council; and (b) for a disclosure of information that is personal information—the disclosure meets the requirements specified in an instrument made under subsection (6). (6) The Education Minister must, by legislative instrument and with the agreement of the Education Ministerial Council, specify requirements for the purposes of paragraph (5)(b). (7) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003, an instrument made under subsection (6) of this section may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating, with or without modification, a matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time. (8) Despite subsection 44(1) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to an instrument made under subsection (6) of this section.   20:54 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will be supporting this amendment. I thank Senator Thorpe for her work on this question of the disclosure of schools identifier data for research purposes. Privacy has always been at the heart of this legislation. The existing provisions are robust and ensure that any data collected is secure and used only for approved purposes. This is complemented by the work that will be done through the Education Ministers Meeting on the data governance framework. This amendment will allow parliament oversight of how data is used for research purposes, through the introduction of a legislative instrument. This is a sensible amendment to the bill, and we are happy to support it. 20:55 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The Greens will also be supporting Senator Thorpe's amendment, and we want to thank her for bringing it forward. 20:55 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The opposition will also be supporting this amendment. We want to thank Senator Thorpe for bringing this forward. I think one of the big issues with USI is to ensure that there are very important provisions in relation to protecting the privacy of students. We really appreciate the work that you've done, Senator Thorpe, and we will be supporting this amendment. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 97 20:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 97

Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024

Second Reading 97 20:57 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move the amendment on sheet 3064 standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) the Government's economic mismanagement and cost-of-living crisis has led to higher wage bills, and higher utility, rent and grocery bills for providers; (b) the bill will place further administrative burden on providers, particularly small and medium providers; (c) the Government's decision to include a workplace instrument in this bill is unnecessary and puts pressure on service providers to unionise their workforce; (d) the bill will put further financial pressure on providers who will have to cover the majority of the on-costs, cannot increase their fees and have to pay the wages upfront, whilst receiving reimbursement in arrears; (e) the Government has still not provided all relevant details of the grant program to service providers, which has put further undue stress on service providers, and created confusion within the sector; (f) the Government has done nothing to address child care deserts and thin markets around the country, and this bill will not increase access for parents who currently have none; and (g) the bill is a one-off sugar hit, which will only increase inflation and further contribute to current cost-of-living pressures". The Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 legislates a special account to assist with a government funded 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators and teachers. The special account will be used to administer grant funding through the early childhood education and care worker retention payment program. I do note the bill does not credit any funds to the special account, and we assume appropriation will occur at a later point in the budget process. The bill does not set out what the wage increase will be—however, we know from the media announcement it will be 10 per cent from next month and an additional five per cent in December 2025—nor does the bill include the specific conditions that service providers will need to meet to be eligible. Some conditions have been included in the grant guidelines, but there are some key details that have still not been provided to service providers, and that, obviously, is of concern. The special account is time limited and will cease on 30 June 2028. The coalition does have several concerns with this policy, but we will not stand in the way of a pay rise for early childhood educators and teachers. I have to say that it was clear to anyone who heard this announcement in August that this was a pre-election sugar hit which perhaps shows that the Albanese government cares more about politics than tackling cost-of-living pressures. The $3.6 billion price tag of this policy will do very little for educators and teachers, and that's because they have to deal with the escalating cost of living under this government—paying the bills; putting food on the table; paying the mortgage or the rent. As all Australians know, the costs are going through the roof under this Labor government. The Prime Minister's claims of a pay increase of up to $155 per week fails to take into account the ongoing cost-of-living crisis which will see much of this wage increase eroded by inflation. Not so long ago, you could walk into a supermarket, spend $100 and buy a fair amount of the week's shopping for a family. It's difficult now to buy more than a couple of meals for that amount of money. The costs are just horrendous. So many Australians are really suffering. That, of course, is because the Albanese government has mismanaged the economy to the point where so many families are in crisis. Labor's failure to break the back of inflation means hardworking families are paying higher prices, higher interest rates and higher taxes for longer. It's not just families struggling with cost-of-living pressures. It's also businesses, and they include, of course, small- and medium-sized early learning providers—providers who are currently weighing up whether this grant program is worth the additional administrative and financial burden. We are concerned about the lack of transparency from this government which has left providers scratching their heads as to whether they can afford to sign up to the program. The grant guidelines released in October should have given service providers some clarity around the program, but instead they've given rise to more questions than answers in many cases. Since the announcement in August, the government has been coy about releasing the full details of the scheme, with many basic questions left unanswered—or, in some instances, providers being given a generic response. These providers, particularly small businesses, are really wondering, in some cases, how they are going to keep the doors open, because costs have gone up so much. Less than a month out from the start date, providers are still unsure about how much they will receive, how exactly they will be audited to ensure the funding is appropriately spent and what will happen when the program ends in two years. There is also a lot of confusion regarding the fee restraint cap of 4.4 per cent in the first year and 4.2 per cent in the second year. While Labor has tried to reassure the sector that they have used appropriate data to get to these figures, many providers are still confused and frustrated about the lack of transparency. During the Senate inquiry into this bill, we heard from several stakeholders who are concerned about financial uncertainty, as the government has still not released the full details of this scheme. That really is not good enough, and, as I say, it creates a lot of uncertainty. The grant program, as I mentioned, imposes a fee cap on providers, but it fails to cover the full cost of the wage rise. So leaving the majority of service providers out of pocket to cover their associated on-costs is a big concern. Now, that's probably not the case for large providers. That's something that maybe they can deal with, but for small and medium providers, particularly not-for-profits who are just getting by, that really is not an option. According to the Productivity Commission report released in September, only 13 per cent of providers currently have an enterprise agreement in place. Early childhood educators do an incredible job of caring for and educating our youngest Australians, but we are deeply concerned about the requirement for providers have a workplace instrument in place to be eligible for this program. We believe this is very ideologically driven. This is a classic example of Labor trying to appease the unions. Numerous stakeholders have raised concern about the cost and the administrative burden of implementing a workplace instrument in such a short timeframe, and we know we heard in the Senate inquiry that this is actually not needed to deliver the program. So this is very much driven by ideology and by looking after the unions. It is another example of the government not caring for small and medium businesses. In particular, Brent Ferguson from the Australian Industry Group told the Senate inquiry: … forcing an employer to enter into formal workplace agreements to secure funding will impose unnecessary red tape and burden on employers. He also said: … this could be achieved by requiring employers to implement a written contractual agreement with their employees to implement wage increases instead of through a formal workplace instrument. In its submission, the Business Council of Australia also raised concerns about the workplace instrument, saying: It should be the decision of the ECEC provider as to what is the most appropriate … The complex and time-consuming process of bargaining and agreement making may not always be appropriate. As I say, we've had a number of concerns raised. I also understand that the Australian Childcare Alliance and P&Cs Qld told us in the inquiry that it would cost thousands of dollars to sign up to the multi-employer agreement or to establish their own agreement across multiple services, which, of course, is another enormous industrial relations burden placed on childcare operators by this government. The Outside School Hours Council of Australia has sent numerous versions of an IFA to the Department of Education to ensure the document they will be using is acceptable, but they are still waiting to hear whether it's okay. That's just not acceptable. Here is an example of a council of many providers wanting to do the right thing. They're wanting to make sure that the workplace instrument that they enter into is compliant and doesn't give rise to any issues, and the government is not able to provide that sort of information. Given the very shortly lead time—the scheme is just about to start—providers will be placed under the most enormous strain. In fact, it's pretty clear that this was deliberate. The government wanted to do that. The government wanted to do everything it could. Unfortunately, the result of that effort is that it is small and medium early education providers, who do the most incredible job, particularly in rural and regional Australia, that will face the most burden. I mentioned that I will also be moving a second reading amendment. I want to just outline what that second reading amendment is. While we are not declining to give the bill a second reading, we are asking the Senate to note and endorse that the government's economic mismanagement and cost-of-living crisis has led to higher wage bills and higher utility, rent and grocery bills for childhood education providers. The bill will place further administrative burden on providers, particularly small and medium providers. The government's decision to include a workplace instrument in this bill is unnecessary and puts pressure on service providers to unionise their workforce. The bill will put further financial pressure on providers, which will have to cover the majority of the on-costs and cannot increase their fees and have to pay the wages upfront whilst receiving reimbursement in arrears—again, another burden. The second reading amendment also includes a provision that the government has still not provided with relevant details of the grant program to service providers, which has put further undue stress on service providers and created confusion within the sector. The government has done nothing to address childcare deserts and thin markets around the country, and this bill will not increase access for parents who currently do not have access to a childcare centre. As I mentioned before, the bill is a one-off sugar hit which will only increase inflation, further contributing to current cost-of-living pressures. 21:10 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Early childhood education in Australia is a system in crisis and requires urgent attention and reform. The government has proposed the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 in the hope that it can address one of the key issues of our childcare system—that is, acute workforce shortages. The Greens welcome Labor's long-overdue recognition of the importance of early childhood educators, and we congratulate the unions and the sector for their hard-fought advocacy over many years that has shone a spotlight on wage justice for early educators. This bill is a critical first step, but the government can and must go further. For too long educators have been underpaid and undervalued. They are overworked and burnt out and, as a result, they are leaving the industry in droves. Childcare centres are struggling to fill thousands of educator roles because educators have been forced to find better-paid jobs elsewhere. Let's be clear: educators can't afford to be educators. Australia desperately needs a workforce strategy that continues to build capacity. So how should a government attract workers to an industry where people are leaving in droves? A decent wage that they can actually live off is a good start, as is ensuring pay parity with educators in primary and secondary schools. These aren't radical propositions. To quote a witness at the wage justice bill inquiry: It's just not satisfactory that someone can have a degree or a diploma qualification and be delivering education, like their peers in schools, and not be paid at an equal rate. That was Elizabeth Death, CEO of ELACCA, who celebrated their 10th birthday today. One witness said: … a teacher is a teacher, whether they work in a school or work in an early childhood centre. They should be paid appropriate professional wages, and there shouldn't be a disparity between the wages paid across sectors. That was Samantha Page, the CEO of Early Childhood Australia. Early childhood educators and the unions have fought long and hard for a 25 per cent pay rise, and it's thanks to their tireless efforts that the government is finally starting to value the essential work they do, the work that—let's be frank—mostly women do. Ninety-seven per cent of the early childhood education workforce are women. They do the critical work of educating our kids yet continue to be paid well below other educators at the same or similar levels of responsibility and skills—and with fewer conditions in many cases. Improving early childhood educators' pay is critical to addressing the gender pay gap. Labor has introduced a bill that would create a special account to fund grants to early childhood education and care providers, who can opt to support a wage increase of 15 per cent for their workers for a limited period of only two years. Quite clearly, a 15 per cent pay bump falls well short of what our educators deserve, what unions in the sector have been calling for and what would bring early childhood educators closer to pay parity with primary and secondary schools. This is a workforce that performs the critical role of educating and caring for our kids in those crucial early years. It is a workforce that is overwhelmingly comprised of women, who continue to take home less than two-thirds of the average weekly adult wage. Even with the government's proposed 15 per cent pay bump, early childhood educators will still be underpaid. While Labor grandstand about their decision to lift wages by 15 per cent, the stark reality is that, even with the pay rise, it would take an educator 31 years to save for a home deposit on an average house—31 years. During the inquiry into this bill, we heard from witnesses in regional Australia about the challenges of attracting educators due to the lack of affordable and available housing, rising rents and poor conditions across the sector. We heard that the combined effect of low wages and the housing crisis is only exacerbating the issue of childcare deserts across this country. As one witness, the Isolated Children's Parents Association of Australia, told the wage justice inquiry, rural and remote settings require more than a 15 per cent increase to rectify staffing shortages and to meet the needs of attracting and retaining early childhood education staff to rural and remote areas. If the government really wants to stop educators from leaving in droves, it must ensure they're paid enough and have suitable workplace conditions to stay. That is why I foreshadow that the Greens will move a Committee of the Whole amendment to increase the worker retention grant from 15 to 25 per cent. We're calling on Labor to give early-years educators the 25 per cent pay rise they deserve and they've been calling for. Another significant flaw in this bill is that it makes no guarantee of a pay rise beyond June 2028, which has service providers scratching their heads about what happens after that date. While Labor is calling it a pay rise, as it stands it's actually only a two-year grant, or a pay bump. At the inquiry into this bill, I along with the government heard witness after witness provide evidence of the uncertainty over who will cover the costs once the government grant ends. Will it be providers, will it be parents or will it be the government? Why hasn't Labor met union and sector demands for a 25 per cent pay increase and provided certainty beyond June 2028? Will providers make up the shortfall afterwards, or will they pass those costs on to sustain the 15 per cent increase? This is a major concern right across the sector. As the CEO of ELACCA explained at the wage justice inquiry, it can take many years to build the capacity of a service to deliver really high quality education and care. We need that longevity of our workforce. They need the confirmation that they will be valued and paid much longer than just two years into the future. Another witness, G8, said: … that lack of certainty was placing us in the difficult position … after two years, of either having to increase our fees to sustain the increased wage costs or—worst-case scenario … reduce the pay rates of our educators to award levels. Can you imagine that—giving a pay bump to your staff, only to take it back after two years? Where's the wage justice in that? The Greens want to guarantee that early-childhood educators have well-paid, secure jobs. We want to ensure a sustainable workforce to fill the gaps in childcare deserts. In October I wrote to Labor ministers Jason Clare and Anne Aly, urging them to amend the sunset provision of this bill, to commit to fully funding the educator pay rise beyond 30 June 2028 and to extend it until the Fair Work Commission's decision is operational. Unfortunately, the government's response provided no assurance of funding the pay bump beyond the sunset clause. This bill was a chance to fill the childcare desert gaps. It was a chance to give long-overdue recognition of our underpaid and overworked workforce. Sadly, this bill falls short. That is why I move the Greens second reading amendment, standing in my name, for the government to fully fund the Fair Work Commission's feminised industry decision and ensure educators get the pay rise beyond the two-year grant period: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: ensure that early childhood education and care is universal, free and high-quality across Australia; and commit to fully funding the outcomes of the Fair Work Commission's gender pay equity research project, including ensuring that educators continue to receive funded pay rises after the 2-year period of the grant program proposed in this bill". There's no denying that paying educators a decent wage is critical to fixing Australia's early-years education system and closing the gender gap, but so is providing free early-years education, just like primary and secondary schools. Research shows that women in families with children under the age of five have the lowest levels of labour force participation amongst people of prime working age. Many of these women would love to re-engage with work but say caring for children is the main barrier to them re-entering the job market. Free early-years education makes economic sense. It would allow more parents the chance to return to work, which would increase women's workforce participation and boost Australia's economy. We already know this to be true from the brief moment during COVID when the Morrison government made early child care free. It helped reduce total inflation by over one per cent for that quarter. Recent research suggests that reforming early-childhood education in Australia to include low-cost or free child care would help increase the size of the economy by $168 billion and allow the government to collect an additional $48 billion in revenue. It sounds like a no-brainer, so why won't the government fully invest in free early-years education? We know that it would boost economic productivity and ease the cost-of-living crisis felt across this country. That is why I moved the second reading amendment standing in my name to ensure that early-childhood education and care is universal, free and high quality across Australia. I call on Labor to seize this moment to work with the Greens to ensure all children have access to early-childhood education and women have the opportunity to work. Early-childhood educators have fought long and hard for a well-deserved pay rise. It is absolutely clear that this bill is a step in the right direction, but it simply doesn't go far enough. Labor will not fix our broken system with half-hearted measures. If we want high-quality, universal early-years education and care, we must invest in a sustainable workforce and fully invest in our educators. Labor has made a small first step towards recognising educators aren't paid enough, and ow it must commit to going further. Labor must rise to this occasion and pay our educators what they deserve for doing the most important work imaginable: educating and caring for our children. The Greens have a vision for an equitable and inclusive early-years education workforce. We want to work with Labor to make this transformative change needed to fix our early-years education system and close the gender pay gap. We will remain willing to work together with the government to seize upon the social and economic opportunities of reforming early-childhood education and care in Australia. Let's fix our early-years education system to create one that we can be truly proud of that recognises the extraordinary work of this largely feminised industry of educators and that's universal, high-quality, and accessible. Every child and every family deserves an education. 21:21 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak to the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024. We all know what incredible work early-childhood educators and care workers do. Without their hard work, dedication, love and care for our babies, many of us here today would not be in this job. We could not forge careers without knowing that our babies are in good and reliable hands. Early-childcare education provides children with a worldview beyond that of their own families. It is a space where they can forge their first friendships, make their first social mistakes and learn about themselves in so many different ways. It is a home away from home. In many cases, children spend a significant amount of their young lives in early-childhood education and care settings, and it is incredibly important to ensure that these places have all they need to provide the best care possible. That starts with properly valuing the work of early-childhood workers, which include educators, teachers, centre managers, cooks, cleaners and many more. Most of them go beyond what is officially required of them, pour their hearts into the job and work long and sometimes unpredictable hours. And yet, their pay is low relative to workers in other sectors, including those with similar qualifications. These people looking after what is dearest to us—our children, our babies—earning just above the lowest 10 per cent when ranked with other occupations is shameful. It is no wonder then that many people transition to other jobs, which leaves the sector understaffed by the thousands. I therefore appreciate the intention of the bill in raising wages for the early-childhood education and care sector, which will go partly towards addressing these challenges. There is, however, a need to raise wages in the sector long term and to the full extent required to achieve wage parity, which is a 25 per cent increase rather than the 15 per cent before us today. Unfortunately, the grants program proposed is falling short of what is needed. It will be inaccessible for some of the providers that need the financial support the most. I therefore foreshadow my second reading amendment, which outlines some of these concerns. First and foremost, through the requirement for childcare subsidy eligibility, the grant program excludes many, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations. Access to quality early childhood education and care is one of the targets under the beloved Closing the Gap program, the 'gammon gap' program, yet our providers are left out from this much needed equity and sustainability measure. Our workers should have the same opportunity of wage justice as everybody else. How is it that First People's services, the ones you say that you wave the flag for, are the ones getting excluded? Why are you excluding us? Why are our babies never seen to be the priority? After what you've just rambled on for the last two days about—your support for First People—you exclude us in this. Right now more than 22,900 of our children and young people are removed from their families. The so-called child protection system continues to inflict harm on our families and is the modern form of the stolen generations and an act of genocide which, Labor, you're complicit in—not only Palestine but the ongoing genocide here—by allowing our children to be taken away from their families. Making sure families with small children are properly supported is the first step in tackling this crisis, and childcare services are a really important part of that—not the black ones, according to you. However, how then are our community controlled services not a priority for this scheme? Maybe the Minister for Indigenous Australians can write a letter to your Minister for Education, wake him up a little bit and say, 'Don't forget about us.' The Productivity Commission's report found that governments continue to fail on their commitments to shared decision-making with First Peoples and supporting the community controlled sector. This has real impacts on our lives and those of our children. Improving outcomes for our communities starts by us self-determining how best to care for and educate our children. Self-determination is about us determining what is best for us. You don't seem to get that. Our community led organisations provide a culturally safe space for our babies to grow and learn. They are not isolated from our families and communities but wrap around them. They have a holistic approach and are central in ensuring our communities can thrive and our babies stay with their families. This is why I am proposing an amendment to the bill to allow for eligibility of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations to the program. We know that you don't support that. Shame on you for that. The proposed program also falls short of supporting smaller providers in general. The program works on a reimbursement basis, where providers have to front up the increased wages for their staff and will get reimbursed later. This poses challenges for many smaller providers—those that run just one or up to a few centres and don't have a huge profit margin. These are exactly the centres that need the financial support, yet many won't be able to apply due to the risk of facing cashflow problems. I therefore have an amendment before the Senate which would allow for upfront payments to be paid for those providers that would otherwise face cashflow challenges hindering them from applying. Many smaller providers also don't have enterprise agreements in place. I am a huge advocate for safe and supportive workplace conditions and can appreciate the requirement for enterprise agreements to be in place. In reality, unfortunately, this will exclude providers with small workforces that don't have the necessary information, resourcing and capacity to develop such agreements. These also take time to develop and come into force, and I therefore call on the government to put in place support mechanisms for providers who wish to engage in this process. Last but not least, the inquiry into this bill made clear that early childhood education and care providers are worried about the sunset provision of the bill and what it will mean beyond June 2028. Providers are rightfully worried that they would be faced with a situation where they would have to increase fees drastically to sustain the higher wages of their staff or reverse the pay increase of their staff, which would likely result in understandably upset staff and risk substantial staff losses. This is a big risk to take, and some providers might instead decide to not apply for the grant at all so as not to be put in that situation. I therefore call on the government to fully fund the pay increase until the Fair Work Commission decision on gender undervaluation is operational and to fully fund the Fair Work Commission decision on early childhood education wages thereafter. This bill is an important step in the right direction for wage justice in the early childhood education and care sector, but it's important that we get it right. Don't leave Aboriginal childcare services out. I used to be the cook, when I was 17, at Yappera Children's Services. Don't leave us out. We provide a holistic approach. It is very, very important for our communities. You've done the wrong thing in leaving us out of this, and you should fix that. For this program to be inclusive and supportive to those that need it most, we need to start truly valuing the work of those holding our society together and looking after our future generations. Don't leave anyone else out. 21:32 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia This is a really important bill. I will be brief. I will associate myself with the comments of my colleague Senator Hodgins-May and endorse the view of others that this is a bill that takes steps in the right direction. It increases wages by 15 per cent for two years for a really important group of workers in our society. Early childhood education and care workers provide an essential service—infrastructure that gets people to work in a way that a road or a car does. It is essential for our social good. It's essential for our economy. The first five years of a child's life are a very vital period, and the best investments we can make, out of anything that the government spends on, are in quality, accessible, affordable early-childhood education. US economist James Heckman tells us that a dollar invested in these services returns $7 over the life of a child. He describes those investments as the best way to reduce an economy's deficit. They're especially critical, as we just heard from Senator Thorpe, for our First Nations children and families, and it is vital that we get them right. The spend that we do on those early childhood years cuts incarceration rates. It reduces spending on our jails. It reduces spending on welfare. It means more productive workers and workplaces and happier kids, families, communities and women. It's particularly important to the workforce participation of women, where better—and more—child care drives growth in our economy. Good child care is underpinned, most importantly, by a settled, experienced, qualified, happy workforce with low turnover that delivers continuity of care for our kids. That means paying people properly and giving people security about their pay and conditions. It means helping workers who give decades of their working life to childcare work to be able to afford to retire. The Australian system of child care is, at the moment, amongst the most expensive in the world—and that is not because we are paying workers in the sector properly. The current bill, while it steps in the right direction with improved pay for childcare workers, disappoints on two important points. Firstly, the childcare workforce and their union have been calling for a 25 per cent pay increase—well beyond the 15 per cent on offer in this bill. We know that is what they deserve, as so many witnesses and much evidence to the inquiry into this bill made clear. Fifteen per cent is not enough; it's far from enough to deal with the decades-long underpayment of this skilled and experienced workforce. Secondly, this pay rise is really, as my colleague said, a pay bump; it is not a secure long-term pay increase. It's a payment for just two years. When did we last give a pay rise to construction workers or miners or truck drivers and tell them it was just for two years? When did we give them a pay rise that wasn't embedded in their working conditions for the long haul? If we told those truck drivers, 'You've got a pay rise for two years', I'm pretty confident that within a day or two this parliament would be surrounded by a bunch of very angry truck drivers—probably led by Senator Sheldon and Senator Sterle—who would see the injustice of making a pay rise that is not guaranteed in the long term. In this feminised industry, that is what we are offering those women—those 97 per cent of workers who are women. You just wouldn't get away with it in a male dominated industry. A government interested in fixing the long-term underpayment of our childcare workforce would not just be offering a pay bump; it would be facing up to the long haul and doing the right thing. We should do for the essential infrastructure workers of our childcare system what we do for truck drivers. The sustainability and quality of early childhood education and care is inextricably linked with the strength and the sustainability of our workforce, and currently that workforce is in crisis. No-one is arguing about this. Wages are too low, workloads are unmanageable and too high, workforce attrition is extremely high and centres are understaffed. The United Workers Union told the inquiry into this bill that early educators are barely able to survive on the wages they are paid amid the cost-of-living crisis they are enduring. As a result, staff are leaving in droves and the workloads of those who remain, the union told us, are unacceptably high. As many as 30 to 48 per cent of educators leave the sector each year; that's an incredible rate of loss of skilled and experienced workers. Currently in long day care up to 19 per cent of centres are operating with a staff waiver—that is, they are unable to meet the standards of qualification and ratios for our kids in their care. This puts their development and certainly the workloads of those carers at risk. This especially lets down, as we heard from Senator Thorpe, our First Nations kids, who need appropriate, quality care, with the involvement of local communities in culturally appropriate and locally managed care. It also means too many children cannot be included in all the activities of their local centres because there are not enough carers to look out for and include kids with disability. There are too many childcare deserts in our country towns and too many suburbs of our cities. We need to fix all this with a decent pay rise for our childcare workforce—a rise that goes beyond 15 per cent to meet the expectations, evidence and case for a 25 per cent rise. This bill is a step in that direction. But we need a lot more. We need affordable, accessible, quality care for all who need it. Our economic future depends on it, our families are looking for it and, more importantly, the healthy future of our kids depends on it. 21:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland This bill, the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024, does two really important things: it delivers a long-awaited pay rise for early childhood educators and carers, and it supports families with the cost of living. These are issues that early childhood education and care workers have been campaigning for for many years, and I'm very pleased that, under the Albanese Labor government, they are beginning to get the remuneration and respect that they deserve. These workers very much deserve our support. The work they do is incredibly important to families, to our economy and of course, most of all, to the kids they care for and educate in their earliest years. On that basis I commend the bill to the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Minister. We have three second reading amendments to be put to the chamber. I'll deal first with the one moved by Senator Henderson. Then I'll go to Senator Hodgins-May, and I'll then I will go to you, Senator Thorpe. Minister? Senator WATT 245759 Acting Deputy President, I omitted to table—and I now table—an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [21:45]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 24 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 21:47 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move the second reading amendment standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) ensure that early childhood education and care is universal, free and high-quality across Australia; and (b) commit to fully funding the outcomes of the Fair Work Commission's gender pay equity research project, including ensuring that educators continue to receive funded pay rises after the 2-year period of the grant program proposed in this bill". The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hodgins-May be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [21:49]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 33 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 21:50 Senator 280304 Victoria THORPE () (): I move the second reading amendment standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes: (i) more than 22,900 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are in out-of-home care, (ii) the child protection system, which was built to remove children from their families, continues to inflict harm on First Nations families, (iii) the Productivity Commission's inquiry report, A path to universal early childhood education and care, has found that governments continue to fail on their commitments to shared decision making and supporting the community-controlled sector, (iv) improving outcomes for First Nations communities starts with supporting children and allowing First Nations communities to self-determine their own solutions for caring for young people; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) commit to shared decision making and handing over control of services for First Nations young people and families to the community-controlled sector, (ii) ensure accountability in funding for early years by prioritising community-controlled organisations delivering services and outcomes for families, and (iii) provide additional supports for smaller early years organisations to develop their own enterprise agreements". The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [21:52]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 33 NOES Antic, A. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

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

 In Committee 106 21:55 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move my amendments on sheets 3147, 3112 and 3100 together: SHEET 3112 (1) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a grant under that subsection may be made by way of: (a) upfront payment; or (b) the reimbursement, or partial reimbursement, of costs or expenses. _____ SHEET 3147 revised (1) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit the definition of approved provider, substitute: approved provider means: (a) an approved provider within the meaning of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999; or (b) a body that: (i) provides an early childhood education program; and (ii) is a kind of body that is known as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Organisation. _____ SHEET 3100 (1) Clause 10, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add: Criteria by which applications are to be considered (5) The rules must prescribe the criteria by which applications for a grant under subsection (1) are to be considered. (6) A grant under subsection (1) must not be made unless the Secretary is satisfied that the application for the grant meets the criteria specified in the rules for the purposes of subsection (5). 21:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Thorpe, for moving these amendments together. Unfortunately, though, the government will not be agreeing to any of the three amendments. For sheet 3100, which is about guidelines, as Senator Thorpe is probably aware, it is common practice for grant eligibility criteria to be left to non-legislative guidance when establishing a special account to fund grants. The eligibility criteria for this payment are set out in the Early Childhood Education and Care Worker Retention Payment Grant Opportunity Guidelines, in accordance with the Commonwealth grants policy framework. The criteria have also been added as an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. This approach gives the government the necessary flexibility to adjust eligibility if required, as the grant guidelines can be rapidly amended to respond to changing conditions and sector feedback. For the amendment on sheet 3112 regarding upfront cash flow payments, again, the government will not be agreeing to this amendment. However, the senator raises an important matter, and steps have been taken to address cash flow concerns at the commencement of the grant period. In some circumstances, providers can receive an advanced payment in December. The government will also front-load funding in the first three-monthly grant payments to help centre based day care services that have viability concerns. These arrangements are reflected in the grant opportunity guidelines, along with all the other eligibility and payment details. The government will also not be agreeing to the amendment on sheet 3147 regarding approved providers. Providers have to meet certain criteria to be approved to operate an early childhood education and care service in Australia. The eligibility criteria to become an approved provider of ECEC are necessarily rigorous to ensure the integrity of the ECEC system. That's why those same requirements are also being applied to grants made under the wage justice bill. There are many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations that are approved providers of early childhood education and care, and, of course, the Albanese government is investing $3.6 billion in funding a 15 per cent wage increase for ECEC workers. Limiting grant eligibility to approved providers ensures the integrity of the program. 21:58 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, I'm just seeking some clarification in relation to this bill. What is the exact funding formula the government will be using to calculate how much each service will receive, and will you be providing that to the services? 21:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government, as you're aware, has committed to funding a wage increase of 10 per cent in the first year and an additional five per cent in the second year. The government will also make a 20 per cent contribution to eligible on-costs, and, in our view, this gives providers the certainty they need to apply the wage increase. 21:59 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Yes, I'm aware of those percentages. I was seeking the exact funding formula the government will be using to calculate how much services will receive, if you could provide that information please. 22:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Henderson. I suspect the reason you might be asking the question is that the government at this point in time is not releasing that formula. We are, however, investing around $3.6 billion to support the 15 per cent wage increase for ECEC workers over two years. We did hear the sector's call for more information about the wage funding, and in response we've announced that the fee constraint in the second year will be 4.2 per cent, which is based on the ABS's new childcare services cost index. As soon as we're in a position to provide more details of the funding formula, we will, obviously, do that by communicating with providers. 22:01 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, it is concerning that this information is not being made public. Can you please explain why this is being hidden, and, if you are going to be providing that information to service providers, when will it be provided? It is deeply concerning. This scheme is just weeks away from starting. You've obviously determined as a government the payment methodology—how the funding will be determined. Childcare centres need to know now. They need to know what is coming in the door. So I would ask you, Minister, to disclose this funding methodology now. This is what every childcare service provider deserves, and no less. And, if you're going to be conveying further information to childcare providers, could you please indicate the date by which that information will be provided? 22:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said earlier, Senator Henderson, the government has already made a public commitment to fund the wage rises plus the 20 per cent contribution to eligible on-costs. We will be updating providers as soon as possible with more details around the formulas. What I can say, and we've said this previously, is that it will be taking into account things like the cost of labour and CCS hours at a particular service. I met as recently as this afternoon with representatives of the sector, who didn't raise concerns about this with me, so you're obviously hearing from different providers about this. But, as soon as we're in a position to provide more information, we will do so. 22:03 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, there are thousands of providers around the country. I don't know how many of those providers you met with today. But this is a deep concern because, at the end of the day, these mainly small and medium businesses, and some large businesses, need to know what's coming in the door and need to know how that funding will be assessed, using the government's formula. It's clear you know what the formula is. What have you got to hide, Minister? If you are going to be providing it shortly, given the scheme is just about to start could you please provide a date by which this information will be provided? 22:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't really add to my previous answer. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 3147, amendment (1) on sheet 3112 and amendment (1) on sheet 3100 that have been moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; those against, say no. The noes have it? 22:04 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—In the interests of time, I'm happy to say that I support this. If anybody else wants to support it, they can say that and then we don't have to divide. 22:05 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria by leave—I record the Greens' support. 22:05 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania by leave—I record my support. 22:05 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia by leave—I record my support. 22:05 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3002: (1) Clause 11, page 6 (lines 20 to 23), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) include provisions to permit amounts paid to the recipient under the grant to be used in relation to the remuneration of workers, who are within a class specified in the agreement for this purpose, that is at least 25% above the worker's current remuneration; and With this bill, the government has the opportunity to give long overdue recognition to underpaid, overworked early childhood educators. Instead of delivering the 25 per cent pay increase the sector and unions called for—and which, let's be clear, this workforce deserves—this bill offers them 10 per cent less. Ninety-seven per cent of the early childhood education workforce are women who have fought long and hard for a well-deserved pay rise. For these workers, pay parity is critical to addressing the gender pay gap. Teachers are teachers no matter where they work, and they should not be paid differently. I urge the government to amend the wage increase to 25 per cent so that we can deliver genuine wage justice for our early childhood educators in this country. 22:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will not be agreeing to this amendment. Unlike the Greens party, it is a Labor government that is delivering the pay rise that early childhood educators and carers so very much deserve. This is something that many on the Labor side of the chamber, including Senator Walsh, have campaigned for for many years in collaboration with early childhood educators and carers. I've got multiple quotes I could read out from those workers talking about the difference that this pay rise, being delivered by a Labor government, will make to their lives. Early educators undoubtedly do one of the most important jobs in our community, and this Labor government is making sure they are fairly paid for the work that they do. We'll be investing around $3.6 billion to support a 15 per cent wage increase for these workers over two years. It's a responsible wage increase deliberately designed in a responsible way to take pressure off childcare fees. Unlike some members of the Greens party, Labor senators spend time in early childhood education and care services working and talking with those workers and campaigning alongside them, and that is what has resulted in this very-well-deserved pay rise. 22:07 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I didn't come here to engage in petty political attacks; I came here to represent the stakeholders in this sector that I have been engaging with throughout the course of this discussion and debate. They respectfully have continued to say that 25 per cent is what it will take to get pay parity with primary and secondary school educators. They continue to say that 25 per cent is what it will take to value the incredibly important work they do educating our kids. You can keep your political attacks to yourself and consider the 25 per cent increase they're demanding. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 The question is that the Greens amendment on sheet 3002 be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [22:13]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 22:14 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria by leave—I move: (1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 19), after the definition of approved provider, insert: Fair Work Commission has the same meaning as in the Fair Work Act 2009. (2) Clause 17, page 9 (lines 22 and 23), omit the clause, substitute: 17 Sunset provision This Act ceases to have effect at the later of the following times: (a) the end of 30 June 2028; (b) the end of the period of six months beginning on the day the Fair Work Commission makes a determination in relation to each of the following modern awards (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) as part of the review known as the Gender undervaluation—priority awards review: (i) AM 2024/19 (Pharmacy Industry Award 2020); (ii) AM 2024/20 (Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020); (iii) AM 2024/21 (Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010); (iv) AM 2024/22 (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020); (v) AM 2024/23 (Children's Services Award 2010); (vi) AM 2024/25 (Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010); (vii) AM 2024/27 (Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010). This government has an opportunity to put forward a bill to address one of the key issues facing our broken childcare system—that is, acute workforce shortages. Instead, the government has put in place a two-year grant, not a pay rise. We know that delivering high-quality universal early-years education and care requires investment in a sustainable workforce. That has been backed up by two government commission reports this year, from the ACCC and the Productivity Commission. We know that many in the early childhood education and care sector are deeply concerned about the sunset provision in this bill, which does not provide any certainty of an ongoing wage increase. That was backed up by evidence put forward at the wage justice inquiry in October. There, more than half of the witnesses stated that the sunset clause created uncertainty about who would fund an ongoing pay rise beyond the two-year period and that providers might be forced to pass the pay wage bump on to parents via fee hikes after the two-year period. We heard that this prevailing uncertainty will result in disincentivising providers from signing up for the grant and educators missing out on a much-needed pay rise. I urge the government to amend the sunset provision to extend the grant until the Fair Work Commission feminised-industry decision is operational. 22:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will not be agreeing to this amendment. Firstly, there's no need for this amendment. The Fair Work Commission has said that they intend for the gender-undervaluation-of-priority-awards review to be completed by the time of next year's annual wage review. The current sunset clause allows ample time for the review to conclude. Further, the Greens political party amendment could have the strange effect of causing the act to cease following a determination on awards that have absolutely no connection to the ECEC sector, such as the award that covers the community pharmacy industry. The government is committed to ensuring that the cost of fair wages for ECEC workers isn't passed on to families through higher fees and will align longer term funding arrangements with its response to the Productivity Commission and ACCC reports. 22:17 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Can the government explain whether they are committing to funding the Fair Work Commission decision after that date? 22:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government has already said that we are supporting the gender-undervaluation-of-priority-awards review. One of the reasons we're doing that is that it was a Labor government that amended the objectives of the Fair Work Act to ensure that gender equality is now an objective of the Fair Work Act. It was a Labor government that made that change in addition to the range of other changes we've undertaken to support gender equality, whether that be banning pay secrecy clauses, lifting pay for aged-care workers and now lifting pay for early childhood education and care workers. That is the reason that the gender pay gap in Australia is at the lowest level it has ever been—as a result of the actions of a Labor federal government. 22:18 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Is there money in the budget to fund that decision after this two-year pay bump? 22:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't add to my previous answer. 22:18 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria You didn't actually answer the question. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I just want to confirm that it's nearly 20 past 10. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Hodgins-May? Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 I'm happy for the minister to seek advice to respond to the question if he so wishes. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 The question is that Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3035 be agreed to.      

The committee divided. [22:23]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 110 22:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 111

Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024

Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024

Second Reading 111 22:26 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 and its two associated bills. The coalition supports the continuation of the OECD two-pillar process on multinational tax avoidance, a process the former government initiated and that Labor is continuing. Working with like-minded nations and international forums like the OECD is critical to ensuring that multinational corporations from all jurisdictions pay their fair share of tax and contribute to the countries in which they operate. The coalition took extensive action over our nine years in government to address multinational tax avoidance. As the host of the 2014 G20 summit, Australia played a leading role in the original OECD G20 base erosion and profit shifting project, the BEPS project, which was initiated in 2013 and delivered in 2015. Under the coalition's leadership, Australia adopted the OECD G20 BEPS recommendations, which established a multilateral approach to preventing tax avoidance and increasing tax transparency for administrators. At the time, the coalition government implemented several key measures, including the introduction of the diverted profits tax, the DPT, which limits a company's ability to shift profits out of Australia. We also introduced the multinational anti-avoidance law, the MAAL, ensuring that companies cannot avoid a taxable presence in Australia. We also strengthened the thin capitalisation rules, improved the transfer pricing rules and doubled the penalties for tax avoidance. We established the ATO Tax Avoidance Taskforce in 2016. The ATO taskforce was designed to enforce existing laws and to support new government measures aimed at preventing tax avoidance. Between 2016 and 2021, the ATO raised $24.2 billion in tax liabilities against large public groups, multinational corporations and privately owned and wealthy groups. This effort generated collections of $17.3 billion. It's critical that we continue to pursue fair and consistent tax rules not just within Australia but also with like-minded nations around the world. This is exactly what we were doing through initiatives like the OECD two-pillar solution, in collaboration with our international peers. We commend the Labor Party for following our lead and continuing this important work. However, while we support these efforts it's important to recognise that the current government has not fully delivered on its promises. At the last election, Labor made a clear commitment that its sole focus on taxation would be addressing multinational tax avoidance. Yet, despite this promise, they have failed to follow through on even that basic commitment. Labor's handling of country-by-country reporting and changes to thin capitalisation rules has been nothing short of shambolic. The policy impotence of the Assistant Treasurer has been so glaring that at least once he has needed his senior minister and the Treasurer to intervene and fix his harebrained schemes. Labor, led by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, assured Australians that there would be no tax increase beyond working with other countries to make multinational tax regimes fairer. But, as we've seen, this promise was not worth the paper it was written on. Labor's pledge to focus solely on multinational tax avoidance has been well and truly broken. Instead of keeping his word, Prime Minister Albanese has raised taxes in several key areas that will impact the lives of everyday Australians. Labor has increased taxes on superannuation, even though it vowed not to do specifically that, capturing one in 10 Australians over time. According to Treasury modelling, young Australians earning an average wage today will be subject to this tax. This is also a new tax on unrealised capital gains, which is unprecedented in our tax system. This is an assault on family owned businesses and self-managed super funds, undermining the financial security of hardworking Australians. In addition, Labor has targeted franking credits again, banking half a billion dollars in taxes from Australian companies, retirees, super funds and charities. This is a direct attack on the financial wellbeing of those who have worked hard and planned for their future. Labor has also ended small business tax concessions, dramatically reducing the instant asset write-off that so many Australian small businesses rely on to invest in their operations and to grow and failing to provide certainty due to their continued legislative mismanagement. Higher taxes will not help address the cost-of-living crisis that so many Australians are facing. Higher taxes will not solve the problem of anaemic economic growth. Higher taxes will not reverse the collapse in productivity that we are witnessing under this Labor government. Our economy is shuddering to a halt. Personal income taxes have risen by 20 per cent thanks to bracket creep. Prices are up 10 per cent, and, for working households, prices have increased by over 18 per cent. Real wages have collapsed by nearly nine per cent, and living standards have fallen by eight per cent. Household savings have dropped 10 percentage points. Australia is now trailing behind our peer nations. A family with a typical mortgage of $750,000 is approximately $35,000 a year worse off. This is not responsible economic management. Labor's high spending, high interest rates and higher taxes, coupled with an additional $315 billion of spending across three budgets, have left Australians worse off. Their broken promises on taxes, including superannuation, franking credits and small businesses, have only added to the pain. The changes to multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not make up for Labor's attacks on aspirational Australians. These changes do not compensate for Labor's inaction on inflation. They do not address the impact of rising interest rates on Australian households, nor do they undo the harm caused by Labor's tax policies. Australians deserve a government that's focused on the challenges they face today. While the coalition will not oppose this legislation, we will not apologise for holding the government to account for their broken promises on tax and their failure to take meaningful action on productivity and indeed potentially making the problem even worse. We will not apologise for holding the government to account for their lack of focus on fighting inflation. We need a government that prioritises the economic wellbeing of all Australians and takes real steps to address the cost-of-living crisis, to improve productivity and to restore confidence in our economy. In conclusion, while we support the continuation of efforts to tackle multinational tax avoidance, we cannot ignore the broader economic challenges facing our nation. Labor's broken promises and their misguided policies have left Australians worse off, and we must continue to hold them to account. Our focus must remain on creating a fair and prosperous Australia where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. 22:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Unlike Senator Hume, who thinks at this stage of the game, at 10.35 pm, Australians want more politics and more partisan negativity, this is a government that knows what Australians want. And I think what the Australians in this building want is for me to say: I thank senators for their contributions to the debate, and I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 There is a second reading amendment in the name of Senator David Pocock. Senator Pocock is not here, and my understanding is that he may have expressed views to the whips that he does not wish to proceed with it. If no-one is going to move it, then we'll move on. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. In Committee 112 22:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved to the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024, and I seek leave to leave to move government amendments on sheet ZA243 and sheet ZA244 together. Leave granted. Senator AYRES 16913 In respect of the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 I move the amendment on sheet ZA243, and in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 I move the amendments on sheet ZA244: SHEET ZA243 (1) Clause 34, page 31 (after line 29), after the definition of Rules, insert: Securitisation Entity has the meaning given by the Rules. _____ SHEET ZA244 (1) Schedule 1, item 27, page 13 (after line 18), after the definition of GloBE Rules in subsection 995-1(1), insert: GloBE Securitisation Entity means a Securitisation Entity (within the meaning of the *Minimum Tax Act). (2) Schedule 1, item 35, page 37 (lines 1 to 8), omit Subdivision 128-C, substitute: Subdivision 128-C — Miscellaneous Table of sections Operative provisions 128-30 Provisions do not apply to GloBE Excluded Entities 128-35 Joint and several liability does not extend to GloBE Securitisation Entities Operative provisions 128-30 Provisions do not apply to GloBE Excluded Entities A reference in this Division to a *Group Entity does not include a reference to a *GloBE Excluded Entity. 128-35 Joint and several liability does not extend to GloBE Securitisation Entities (1) For the purposes of paragraph 128-5(1)(b), treat a *Group Entity that is a *GloBE Securitisation Entity as being a Group Entity excluded by subsection 128-5(2). (2) For the purposes of subsection 128-10(2), treat a *Group Entity that is a *GloBE Securitisation Entity as being an Entity excluded by subsection 128-10(3). 22:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The opposition will be supporting these amendments, which address issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the bill's treatment of securitisation. This matter was raised during the committee hearing. At that time the Treasury indicated it was aware of the issue and considering the amendments. In considering amendments, this is yet another example of bills progressing into the Senate and being amended to fix issues that were in the drafting. While this certainly validates the critical work of Senate committees, it yet again calls into question the ability of this government to prepare and deliver legislation in the Treasury portfolio. Stakeholders continually raise the short or non-existent consultation periods for Treasury legislation, the failure to take on board feedback and an indifference to the realities of commercial arrangements impacted by legislation. I take this opportunity to once again encourage the Treasurer and his junior ministerial colleagues to take their jobs seriously and realise that new laws do not exist in a vacuum. However meritorious, these changes add an additional burden to businesses and we must respect business enough to at least listen to it as we prepare the legislation before it is introduced into parliament. 22:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales This government respects the Senate. We love the Senate—all of it. We love the Senate processes and we love the committee process. We listen intently and we listen to the business community and to stakeholders, and we're always looking for opportunities to improve legislation—and we don't get snarky about it when there are opportunities to do that—and that's what we've done. Question agreed to. Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024, as amended, agreed to; Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024 agreed to. Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 reported with amendments; Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024 reported without amendment or request; report adopted. Third Reading 113 22:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 113

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024

Second Reading 113 22:41 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to speak in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024. As an overview, the bill concerns an area of vacant Crown land near the Aboriginal community of Canteen Creek in the Barkly area of the Northern Territory. The effect of the bill would be to add this area of land to part 4 of schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. By being added to schedule 1, the land can then be granted to an Aboriginal land trust as inalienable Aboriginal freehold land. By way of background, this bill resolves the Wakaya Alyawarre land rights claim. This land rights claim was lodged in 1990 and replaced a previous claim which had been lodged in 1980. This bill is the outcome of a negotiated Indigenous land use agreement between the Northern Territory government and the Central Land Council. The 2019 agreement extinguishes all land rights and native title over areas within the township of Canteen Creek, in exchange for a grant of surrounding Crown land as Aboriginal freehold land. But, in order for this agreement to be completed, the Commonwealth parliament must directly amend the land rights act. The coalition is supportive of this bill. The initial agreement was between the Central Land Council and the Labor Northern Territory government. Following the recent election in the Northern Territory, we have consulted with the new government in relation to this proposal. They are supportive of this bill being passed. When I last rose to speak on this bill I noted the existence of exploration licences for petroleum and minerals which existed over this land. Since then, the Northern Territory government has advised that, if passed, the bill would not have any impact on pastoral interests. Further, it poses no issue for mining or energy interests. We note that if this bill is passed it will provide the Northern Territory government and the town with certainty and confidence that necessary infrastructure and services for the local community will be in place now and into the future. We note that housing or commercial development projects often require lease terms over the land that are significant in length, in order for the projects to proceed. In this regard, the certainty which would be provided by this bill is important for future development and investment in the region. Despite the necessity of ensuring confidence and certainty to the Northern Territory community, the coalition remains concerned about the process that has been adopted. We know that the Albanese government refused to refer this bill to a committee for examination. When the bill was introduced, the coalition requested that it be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for consideration. I made the point at the time that having the bill sent to the committee would be consistent with our democratic process. The coalition maintain that position, and we believe that the Albanese government's refusal to refer it to the committee was a wasted opportunity. It is important to recognise that the government's decision in this regard is symptomatic of a broader issue. The reality is that the land rights act, which would be amended by this bill, has been in operation for nearly 50 years. I have been saying for some time now that the land rights act is in need of review and revision. This bill would provide a timely opportunity to examine whether or not the land rights act is in fact still fit for purpose, whether it serves the interests of Indigenous Australians in the best way that it can or whether it needs to be revisited. The land rights act is actually a very unique piece of legislation. It creates an arrangement and an opportunity for Indigenous Australians which should be a springboard for wealth, health and improved quality of life, and that is what is so concerning about the current situation. Despite this unique opportunity provided by the land rights act, Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are not the most advantaged. In fact, some Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are actually the most disadvantaged and marginalised, and this is a point I have tried to make often in this place. Our focus needs to be where the gap is the greatest. From research I've been personally involved with, we know that three per cent of the population of Australia is Indigenous, but, of that, only 20 per cent are in fact marginalised. Usually they live in remote locations and have English as a second or third language. The situation in the Northern Territory is especially bad. The 2024 summary report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework is particularly telling. The report tells us that Indigenous Australians living in the Northern Territory experience the greatest level of disadvantage of any area. It showed that 68 per cent—that's nearly seven out of 10 Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory—live in the most disadvantaged quintile of Indigenous areas across Australia. In contrast, jurisdictions outside the Northern Territory have rates as low as 16 per cent or less. This level of disparity between the Northern Territory and places around Australia is very concerning, especially when we have the land rights act, which, in theory, provides an opportunity for this disparity not to exist. It goes to show that things are not working in the way that they should for our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. This is one of the reasons why we need to revisit the operation of the land rights act. Further, we see a trend in the Northern Territory that traditional owners are land rich but dirt poor. This is, I believe, in part due to the land councils, especially when it comes to larger land councils. We are seeing that the way in which they operate makes it functionally impossible for land to be utilised for economic purposes. Land councils in the Northern Territory are established under the land rights act, and yet their poor performance and outcomes for traditional owners are a clear indication that the legislation needs to be reviewed. When it comes to leases under section 19 of the act, time delays are a major cause for concern. The average processing time of the Northern Land Council for section 19 leases was, as of February 2024, 666 days. Add to that the fact that the Northern Land Council had over 500 open lease applications on their books—no wonder they have such a backlog of applications, when each one has an average processing of close to two years. These numbers stand in contrast to the two smaller Northern Territory land councils: Tiwi Land Council and the Anindilyakwa Land Council. The Tiwi Land Council takes an average of only three to six months to process section 19 leases, and Anindilyakwa takes approximately six to 12 months. In comparing these land councils we see that it is possible for things to be better, but the legislation needs to change so that efficiency can be improved. Again, this is why the reference of this bill to a committee would have been a beneficial step. In addition to the time and processing delays we are seeing in larger land councils, it is also apparent that land councils are hindering opportunity. Despite the Territory having comparable wealth due to its resources, the Northern Territory sees only a fraction of the mining and energy projects that a place like Western Australia does. I've always said that, despite being a territory and not a state, the Northern Territory should look more like Western Australia than the ACT, due to our similar environments and resources. Yet this simply isn't the case. If we want to empower Indigenous Australians to achieve economic independence and to stand on their own two feet, we need to be willing to examine existing structures like land councils. Examining the operation of the land rights act is to hold Indigenous Australians and organisations to the standard we would expect of any other person or organisation in Australia. But, unfortunately, the Albanese government doesn't want to do that. Maybe they don't want to do it because they don't want to take a fine-tooth comb and run it through their organisations. They don't want to have to come face to face with their failures. They would rather leave those things in the dark and just propose solutions that, for Indigenous affairs, centre on more funding and more bodies, departments or commissioners. They care more about saving their reputation than ensuring we have properly functioning organisations. The coalition, on the other hand, is not interested in creating more bureaucracy for the sake of it. We fully support the examination of the existing structures. These structures are worth examining; only then can we fix them to ensure they are effective and efficient. If the structures aren't able to be made effective and efficient, they shouldn't exist. The kneejerk type responses which we see time and time again from the Albanese Labor government that create more government just aren't going to cut it. As some of the most powerful, important decision-making bodies in the Northern Territory, this bill could have ensured the land councils were examined if it had gone to committee. Opportunity abounds in the Northern Territory. That opportunity could be being used to improve the situations of those marginalised Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory who live in highly disadvantaged areas at a greater rate than those in other parts of the country, but the Albanese government would rather shut down these opportunities. While the coalition supports this bill, it feels it is necessary to highlight these points about the need for the land rights act to be revisited as a matter of urgency for the sake of our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. 22:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank senators for their contributions to this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024. The bill adds an area of land to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the land rights act, enabling the grant of land to an Aboriginal land trust and finalisation of the Wakaya Alyawarre (Repeat) land rights claim. The land comprises approximately 484,000 hectares near the Canteen Creek community in the Barkly region of the Northern Territory, approximately 275 kilometres south-east of Tennant Creek. The government remains committed to progressing unresolved land claims in the Northern Territory. This is part of our determination to increase First Nations rights and interests in land and sea country in line with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This recognises the many social, economic and cultural benefits which can only be achieved from land ownership and continuing connection to country. I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and the people of the Wakaya and Alyawarre language groups. I acknowledge that, for the traditional owners, this land has significant Emu Dreaming associations and many other dreamings. So many of them have waited too long for this moment. I thank the traditional owners, the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory government for their work to finalise the Indigenous land use agreement which supports this bill. This bill paves the way for the finalisation of the longstanding Aboriginal land claim, and I proudly commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 115 22:53 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 22:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Senate adjourned at 22:53