2025-02-05 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 5 February 2025

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 09:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows: (a) Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024, today; and (b) Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) and Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024, on Thursday, 6 February 2025. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 1

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today in favour of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024, the Australian Greens' bill which will implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of online gambling advertising across television, radio, online and print media. This ban is an idea that is essentially needed and is endlessly popular with the community. It was agreed to by all sides of the political spectrum in the parliamentary inquiry led by the late Peta Murphy, yet the Albanese government seems to be crab walking away. This is an opportunity for the Albanese government to implement their promise made to the Australian people, to families, for a ban on gambling advertising that is harmful and damaging to our community. Almost two years have passed since the Murphy inquiry, and, despite many promises made, the government has nothing to show for it. A gambling ads ban is the unfinished business of this parliament. While the clock is ticking, we haven't run out of time to get it done quite yet, and I am hopeful that common sense will prevail. I am hopeful that, over the next week and a half, this parliament, this government, will show the strength and courage to do the right thing and ban gambling advertising before the election—as you promised. Last week, I wrote to Minister Rowland to offer a pragmatic pathway to take a sensible step forward and said we would support legislation this fortnight that will ban gambling ads online and implement broadcast restrictions before and after sport during the times when kids are watching. The offer we made is consistent, I might say, with what the Albanese government's promises have previously been. It is a step towards implementing the recommendations of the Murphy review and, most importantly, it is a step towards protecting our kids and our community from gambling harm. I hope that in the next week and a half, during what is seemingly the final sitting fortnight before the election, the Prime Minister and members of his government will prioritise the interests of the community over the interests of the gambling lobby and those making money off this parasitic and dangerous industry. On Monday this week, it was revealed that the Labor Party had received $188,000 and the Liberal Party $167,000 from the gambling lobby just in this last financial year alone. No wonder there isn't a will to ban gambling ads. You do wonder why Australian families and the community are being sold out for such a low price. For a few hundred thousand dollars, it seems all courage and all promises have been put aside for the sake of keeping the gambling industry happy. I hope I'm wrong. This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister and his government to show some strength. Last year, the Prime Minister cleared his schedule for a day to meet with the gambling lobby and the sports code CEOs back to back. We know that because it's been revealed via FOI. Since then, the government has been totally silent on any sort of plan to address gambling advertising—even a phase-out or a partial ban. They're being so secretive that they have even since refused to release the details of the Minister for Sport's meetings with relevant stakeholders. Yet we are told by the communications minister that they're still busy, two years on, consulting. 'Consulting', it seems, is code for 'cave-in'. This proves where the Labor government's true loyalties lie: with the cashed up gambling lobby, the big media companies and the big corporate sporting codes. We need leaders in this place. We need leaders in this place who are willing to show the strength of character needed to ban these gambling ads, because they are harming our families. They are harmful for our children. They are harmful for our economy. They are harmful for Australians. Australians are losing more than $32 billion per year, the highest per capita loss in the world, to gambling. That makes us the biggest gambling losers in the entire world, and someone's making a lot of money out of this. A lot of families are being ruined and a lot of small businesses are losing cash, but the big corporates in the gambling lobby are making a motza. Who do you stand with? Do you stand with the gambling lobby, or do you stand with Australian families? Advertising this insidious industry only fuels these losses. It normalises the practice of gambling across our screens and our devices. In just one year, one million gambling ads were aired on free-to-air television and radio—a million gambling ads bombarding Australians in their homes and in their workplaces. And that's not to mention the huge rise in targeted ads across social media and online platforms. Kids are being targeted directly. Young people are being targeted with gambling advertising on their social media feeds or while they are watching Bluey on YouTube. Children are being bombarded with ads for gambling when they're listening to their favourite pop stars on Spotify. Kids are being bombarded with gambling ads every time they log on to check out the scores of their favourite sports stars. Our kids are being fed straight into the hands of these gambling parasites. We have to put a stop to it. People are sick of having gambling ads rammed down their throats, and parents are sick of seeing them being portrayed directly in front of their kids' eyes. Australians love sport. We're a sporting nation, and yet it is not possible to follow these important cultural events any more without being assaulted by ads, odds or betting commentary. We teach our kids to back the family team and your favourite player because of the spirit of team sport, not because it may or may not be trading well on the betting market. These ads and inducements fuel addiction. They cause devastating social harm, not just a financial loss but health and mental health issues, family violence and break-ups. And, sadly, for far too many families, it has led to suicide. Young people are particularly vulnerable, and gambling companies prey on this vulnerability, reaching children through their social media and grooming them to be gamblers. Research has shown that up to one-third of young people may be gambling before the age of 18. Who in this place thinks that that is okay? I don't believe any of you on any side think that that is okay, but you've got to have the guts to do something about it. The harm that this causes the Australian community is a national social and health crisis, and it needs to be treated as such. This is what we did with tobacco advertising. We banned tobacco advertising because we knew it was the promotion of a dangerous and harmful product. Gambling is dangerous and harmful, so the promotion of it without regulation online, a free-for-all on our kids' and young people's social media feeds, on catch-up TV or on our free-to-air televisions should be banned. I want to say that this bill is not about banning gambling itself. No-one is actually suggesting that. The bed-wetters on the government benches suggest that we can't have reform because people just want to ban gambling. That is dishonest. It is not true, and they know it. This is about banning the promotion of a harmful product, protecting our kids from being bombarded by those within the industry who want to prey on their vulnerability. It is time to protect our kids from the gambling groomers. This bill is the full implementation of the Peta Murphy report. The experts back it; the health experts back it; the gambling advocates back it. In fact, two years ago, members of both the Labor and Liberal parties backed it. What happened then? The vested interests got in the ear of the leadership—of the Prime Minister and the ministers. The Deputy Prime Minister has succumbed to the pressure of the gambling lobby to go weak and to water over banning these ads. It's time to show some courage. It's time to show some real leadership. I've offered a compromise to the government. If you can't bring yourselves to do what you said you would do or what the late Peta Murphy pleaded for this parliament to do, at least do some of it. Look at the damage that is being done online to our kids and families and to the young men who are being overwhelmingly targeted by these groomers in the gambling industry. Take them on! We have a week and a half left of this session of parliament. Let's do something that goes, at least in some way, towards meeting the necessary needs in the community of limiting the harm that gambling is doing. Let's come some way towards meeting the promises that you made to the Australian people. We could leave this place at the end of next week knowing we've protected kids and young people from the harms of the gambling industry and their insidious ads online if you've got the political will to do it. If you don't, my question is: does Peter Dutton? 09:17 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise to also speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024. Just to be very clear, we do not support this legislation with or without suggested amendments. We do take this issue very, very seriously. The Albanese government takes seriously our responsibility to protect Australians, particularly young people, from harms of all forms of gambling. An alarming fact is that Australians lose more than $31 billion a year on gambling, which is, of course, a very strong motivator to take serious action. As we know, the late and wonderful Peta Murphy helmed a major review. The recommendations that she put forward are part of the ongoing consultation. It was a very valuable, important and informative piece of work. We have been consulting on a proposed model, and that model to reduce online gambling advertising has raised some issues. The consultations have brought forward more complexities for us to work through. Senator Hanson-Young noted in her opening that the ban she's proposing within this private senator's bill is popular, but popularity is not a great parameter for effective policy. So yes, the work that the government is undertaking is taking longer than we had hoped. It is taking longer to land the right balance. But it is critical that we get this right. It is critical that we ensure that future reforms are both effective and comprehensive and do not have unintended consequences. Those who remember the coalition's changes, when they were in government, in 2018, will recall that these changes resulted in a huge spike in online gambling ads. In fact, the coalition gambling ad restrictions in 2018 resulted in a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling advertising spots on television and radio and a whopping 76 per cent increase in spots on regional TV. I'm sure that was not their intention when they put that policy together—but well-formed policy is not exactly their strong suit, either. That aside, rushing complex legislation like this can result in terrible and unintended consequences, like what we saw with the 2018 policy from the coalition. Now we see that the coalition's current proposed policy of only restricting gambling ads around live sport is highly likely to see those ads increase elsewhere—maybe on family TV programs, or maybe just online. But the advertising ban they are putting forward is so limited and shallow as a policy that it is likely to cause more harm. It is also important when we are looking at this issue to consider the multiple channels over which advertising is delivered. It's not just television, radio and Spotify but also digital platforms and social media, where advertising can be targeted at vulnerable Australians. There has been a significant shift in advertising spend to online and digital channels, and we need to assess exactly where all the advertising is going and what the impact of any policy might be before we move ahead with it, or we could end up with the kind of shift in advertising that we saw from the dismal 2018 policy from the coalition. So, as I said, we've gathered a lot of evidence about the harms, and there's no doubt about the severity and seriousness of those harms. We've assessed the impact of various options, and we have been consulting with stakeholders, from the wagering industry to the harm reduction advocates, sporting codes and broadcasters. But let's be clear: it is complex reform, and getting it right is essential. And we are talking to everyone, not just some people, regardless of what's being said here. The proposed model we are working on is about breaking the nexus that exists between wagering and sport, minimising the exposure of children to online wagering ads and tackling the saturation and targeting of these ads, particularly where we're seeing them tick up towards young men. The government's consultation process in response to the Murphy parliamentary inquiry has been thorough. But, as I said, it has raised some significant and additional considerations that we are continuing to work through. We will progress legislation to implement any form of online gambling advertising reform only when we have concluded our consultation and we have a policy that we are confident in. But it's not as though nothing has happened. Let's be really clear. We've taken a range of actions since coming to government in 2022. We have delivered more gambling harm reduction initiatives in 2½ years than were delivered in the preceding decade. I'm not saying that's enough. I'm saying we have started this really important process. Let me take you through what we have done. We have banned the use of credit cards for online gambling, because we shouldn't be able to bet with money we don't have. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that gambling takes place within a robust legislative framework and with strong customer protections, and this ban on credit cards is helping us do just that. It is legislated and it delivers on that commitment. It is a significant part of the progress to minimising gambling harm, and the principle really is very simple: Australians should not be gambling with money they do not have. The second thing we did was establish mandatory customer ID verification for online wagering. This is to prevent children and people who have self-excluded from placing a bet online. Under the national consumer protection framework, Australian governments agreed to implement customer preverification for online gambling accounts. These are some of the things that aren't as straightforward. We need to get all the states on board and we've done that. To implement this measure, the AML and CTF rules have been amended to strengthen the applicable customer identification procedures that apply to online gambling service providers. This vital measure will help ensure that online gambling services are not exploited by criminals or used by individuals on the National Self-Exclusion Register. Strengthening the classification of gambling-like features in video games is the third item on the list of what we've done so far. This of course is to better protect our children. Children and young people are being exposed to gambling through interactive games like social casinos which stimulate real gambling or gambling features such as loot boxes. Appropriate classification guidance is essential, so that we can protect our children, because we know that a lot of the game developers are building these structures to encourage gambling. The fourth item on the list is implementing monthly activity statements so that Australians who gamble online can clearly see their wins and losses each month. The fifth on my list is introducing new evidence based taglines, with stronger messages about the risks and harms of online gambling. The sixth item on the list is the National Self-Exclusion Register, or BetStop. BetStop has been used by more than 30,000 Australians since it came in, in August 2023. Of the registrants, 79 per cent are aged 40 and under, 39 per cent have registered for a lifetime ban and 23,000 have an active exclusion. Actually preventing and reducing online gambling is one of several important measures that we have implemented under the National Consumer Protection Framework, and BetStop is valuable— Senator GROGAN 296331 Thanks for the interjections, Senator Hanson-Young. But it is a valuable tool and a valuable mechanism, because one popular, one-size-fits-all approach to this isn't going to get us the outcome we need. These are meaningful reforms that are making a difference, but it is critical that we develop further reforms to build on those we've already implemented, to continue our consultation, because we are only going to progress legislation to implement online gambling advertising reform when we have concluded our consultation and when the policy development process is concluded. We must ensure that the changes we make are robust, effective and appropriately address associated impacts for a range of stakeholders, and harm minimisation will be our guiding principle. We need to make sure that everyone is kept safe—that the scourge of gambling is minimised and ended and that people are kept safe. 09:29 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Well, it is somewhat ironic that we are here today in this chamber debating a bill put forward by the Australian Greens to ban gambling advertising. On 12 May 2023, in his budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, announced the coalition's policy. He was clear that a coalition government will ban gambling advertising during live sport, for one hour before and one hour after the game. We heard from Australians, and their message was clear: footy time is family time, and family time is precious—too precious to be swamped by a rising tide of gambling ads. Watching and listening to live sport is a great Australian tradition, and we on this side of the chamber want to preserve that. We backed it in and delivered a bill just six weeks later, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023. Our bill would have drawn a line in the sand and put an end to gambling advertisements during live sport. That was 20 months ago, more than 600 days ago. Guess what happened? When that bill went before the parliament, the Albanese government opposed it. Guess who else voted against our bill? Yes, it was the Greens. While crossbench senators overwhelmingly backed our bill, the Greens voted against it. The Senate vote was lost 30 to 33. The coalition won't be taking lectures from the Australian Greens. This bill represents gross hypocrisy. I say to Senator Hanson-Young, and I repeat her words that we've just heard in this chamber: you've got to have the guts to do something about it. There were no guts and no glory when the Australian Greens voted against a bill to ban gambling advertising during live sport. It would have made a big difference. I say to Senator Hanson-Young and to the Australian Greens that this is why Australians have had enough of the Greens. They are all talk, with no principle. Our coalition bill was a commitment from the Leader of the Opposition, who said in his budget reply speech last year: … the bombardment of betting ads takes the joy out of televised sports. Worse, they're changing the culture of our country in a bad way and normalising gambling at a young age. If the coalition bill to ban gambling advertising during live sport had been supported through parliament by Labor and the Greens then it would have been law by now. Since then, Australians have waited and waited for the Albanese government to make up its mind on what it's going to do about the issue. This government will continue to wait and wait, because that's all we get from this government. Where is this Prime Minister? Why has he failed to step up and make the hard calls? We just heard from Senator Grogan, who said after 2½ years, 'We are continuing to work through it.' Yes, these are difficult issues. Well, it's no wonder so many Australians have lost faith in Labor. It's tough being in government, but being in government means you need to make tough decisions, and this is an absolute shocker from this incompetent and weak Labor government. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister said in a podcast interview that Australians spend and lose more to gambling than people in any other country in the world. Yet he's failed to take any action to address the problem, and so have the Greens. It may not have been everything the Greens wanted, but why on earth would the Greens oppose our bill? It would have made a huge difference, particularly to young Australians. It would have made a massive difference. It would have driven a huge cultural difference in our country, and the Greens partnered with Labor to do absolutely nothing. The Prime Minister said his government is considering a range of measures, but there has never been legislation, which begs the question of what on earth the government has been doing for the last 18 months, since the report by the late Peta Murphy was tabled. There has been no government response to the report and no legislation. The Albanese government promised a comprehensive response to tackle gambling harms, yet we have seen literally nothing. What on earth does this Prime Minister stand for? It is clear: absolutely nothing, because we have seen no answers and no solutions. I'm sure even Senator Grogan is embarrassed to stand up and have to justify why her government has done nothing on this very important issue. This is a Prime Minister who doesn't have the ticker and doesn't have the backbone. He's scared of antigambling advocates like Tim Costello. He's scared of the AFL, the NRL and the media companies. So what does he do? He cowers in a corner and he does nothing. As I said, there are great lines: 'We're continuing to work through it.' We're just on the cusp of an election. It is clear that this government has no answers, and this government is lurching from one disaster to the next as it limps to the next federal election. Of course, in the Communications portfolio, I think the absolute standout failure is the waste of time and resources on bills and legislation which have amounted to nothing more than political posturing. The government's misinformation bill was a disaster of epic proportions, prosecuted by the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, who, frankly, has demonstrated that she is not up to the job, because the misinformation bill was so bad that not a single non-government senator would back it from across the aisle. The government was forced to dump the bill in one of the biggest humiliations we have seen this entire term. The bill united a wide cross-section of groups against it. Top lawyers, church groups and civil libertarian and human rights groups were all opposed. Had this bill been in place during the Voice referendum, for instance, Labor would have weaponised it to gag opinions it didn't like or agree with. Thankfully for all of us living in this great democracy we call Australia, freedom of speech won the day. Now, of course in this same portfolio, the Prime Minister and his Minister for Communications are wasting even more time, resources and taxpayers' money on another unnecessary bill branded as committing to public ownership of the National Broadband Network. The NBN is, in fact, already publicly owned. This is just more political posturing. This hapless government is seeking to amend its own legislation, which committed to the sale of the NBN. The Prime Minister himself, in his second reading speech to the parliament on 25 November 2010—when, of course, he was not the Prime Minister—said: The … bill … sets out arrangements for the eventual sale of the Commonwealth's stake in the company once the NBN rollout is complete, including provisions for independent and parliamentary reviews prior to any privatisation, and for the parliament to have the final say on the sale. The bill was even referred to a Senate inquiry, but there were only seven submissions made to the inquiry and not a single one from a government department or agency or even the NBN themselves. This whole thing is a stunt. It's a farce, and what the Albanese government is trying to do is run a deceptive and pathetic campaign along the lines of its notorious 'Mediscare' campaign. But Australians won't be fooled by this government, because it's proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted to act on the most important issues. It does not keep its word, and it will attempt to deceive Australians at every turn. Well, I say to the Prime Minister, to members opposite and to the government: Australians are onto you. They can see through you a million miles away. They've listened to your rhetoric, they've listened to your false promises, they've listened to your wrong priorities, and they do not believe you anymore. They do not trust you. As for the Greens, the Greens had the opportunity to support a bill that would have banned gambling advertising during live sport but they chose to get into bed with the government and vote against it. I'm sorry, but that is just a joke. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Well, do something about it now. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I will take that interjection. Senator Hansen-Young said, 'Well, do something about it.' I mean, give me a break, Senator Hanson-Young. Give me a break—all puff and no principle. The Greens had the opportunity to make a really big difference in this country but, rather than make a really big difference, the Greens— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order? Senator Hanson-Young I0U The point of order is misleading the chamber. Senator Henderson knows full well that the vote was never put on the coalition bill, so it is absolute rubbish, and she should withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 I don't believe that is a point of order. That is a debating point. Senator Henderson. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Were you not here that day, Sarah? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Sorry, Senator Henderson, before you continue, obviously I am acting in the chair. Often it is the case, when a senator asks another to withdraw, just for the benefit of the chamber continuing— Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I am sorry, there is no point of order, Acting Deputy President. That is a debating point. There is no point of order. I would put to you in my submission— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 I agree it is a debating point. It is more the case that Senator Hanson-Young has asked you to withdraw. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I'm sorry, it is not appropriate to ask me to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Henderson, you're not in a debate with me. I am happy to refer it to the President, if you wish me to. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 If you could refer it to the President, thank you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 That's fine. Senator Henderson, you have the call. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. So, as I say, Australians are onto the Greens as well as onto Labor. And just imagine if we had a minority Labor-Greens-Teals government after the next federal election. What a mess this country would be in. What chaos this country would be in—the deals, the underhand conduct. The risk to this country would absolutely accelerate rate if the Greens got their hands on any sort of power arrangement with the Labor government, because we have seen how bad the Albanese Labor government is. Imagine how bad it would be if the Greens had their hands on the tills of government. We cannot allow that risk to happen. This is nothing more than a stunt from the Greens. The Greens have tried to cut a deal with the government in relation to gambling advertising. It hasn't worked, so, as we heard, Senator Hanson-Young wrote to the Minister for Communications then dropped that letter to the papers in a desperate effort for publicity, knowing full well that the Albanese Labor government wouldn't support the bill. So, as I say, this is more posturing, this is more rubbish from the Greens, and it is a last-minute desperate attempt to cover up the fact that the Greens are so wrong. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Henderson, could you please resume your seat. There are a lot of interjections in the chamber. If we could just try and keep some order while we continue this debate. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 We are on the cusp of a federal election. The incompetence we've seen— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Henderson, please resume his seat. Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order? Senator Hanson-Young I0U On a point of order, I am wondering whether Senator Henderson— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 What is your point of order? Senator Hanson-Young I0U My point of order is relevance. I am wondering whether Senator Henderson should declare her interest in taking donations from the gambling lobby. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. That is a debating point; it is not a point of order. Senator Henderson, I'm about to give you the call again but can I ask that senators refrain from interjecting. Interjections are very disorderly. Senator Henderson, you have the call. Please do not engage in a debate with me either. You have the call to continue your remarks. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. I would like to raise a point of order—that is, reflecting on me as a senator. I would ask you to ask Senator Hansen-Young to withdraw that comment. It is a complete reflection and must be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young, for assisting the chamber with its business. Senator Henderson, you have the call. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 We are on the cusp of a federal election, and the incompetence that we've seen from the Albanese government on gambling advertising is the incompetence that Australians are seeing every single day, right across this government, because no-one believes the Prime Minister when he says that you'll be better off under Labor. You can fool people once but not twice. Under Labor's economic mismanagement, Australians are experiencing the longest sustained period of inflation since the 1990s. Again in the parliament this week Labor is in denial: 'There is nothing to see here.' There is nothing to see, of course, on gambling advertising. What a debacle that has been from the government! But there has been nothing to see from this government in terms of its economic management of this country, other than that interest rates have increased 12 times, energy bills have risen by up to a thousand dollars, living standards have collapsed, 27,000 businesses have gone insolvent and we are in a record-breaking household recession. The Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, has offered no comfort to Australians—including Australians who've lost a lot of money through gambling. He's done absolutely nothing. This is just another example of the incompetent and weak Albanese government. That's why a Dutton government must be installed at the next federal election. 09:45 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I want to thank Senator Hanson-Young for bringing forward this bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024. I also want to acknowledge members in the other place—Zoe Daniel, Kate Chaney, Andrew Wilkie, Rebekha Sharkie and others—for their work on this over many years. I think it's important that we remember exactly what we're debating here. We are talking about a public health issue, and we should have a response that is up to the challenge of meeting that. This is about protecting young people. We live in a country where there is so much gambling advertising that three out of four—75 per cent—of young people now think that gambling is just a normal part of watching sport, a normal part of being an Australian. This is about protecting the young people who come in here and watch us debate—though 'debate' is probably generous at times. That's what this is about. It seems like this debate is a pretty good ad for the crossbench when the best the major parties can do is to talk about who has the best bandaid solution—who's going to put a bigger bandaid on this massive wound. We can surely do better than that as a country. I'm standing today to acknowledge the work of the late Peta Murphy MP. She did something that the rest of us seldom do—something that few of us may even achieve in our time in the Senate—and that is to achieve multipartisan support for a contested set of recommendations. It's a landmark report. It is historic. And when she released the report she said: Gambling advertising … is grooming children and young people to gamble … That's why a phasing-out of and ban on gambling advertising was her flagship recommendation. It's a recommendation the Labor government seem keen to sweep under the rug. And the Liberals seem keen to come in with their partial ban, though all the experts gave evidence that a partial ban doesn't work. Here's just a bit of background for the people listening who may not be familiar with the Murphy inquiry. It has been nearly 18 months since Peta Murphy's report was released. The inquiry had 161 submissions and 13 days of public hearings—13 days of hearings! The report had 31 recommendations, from developing a national strategy on harm reduction to ensuring that 12-year-olds don't have to sit through sports-bet ads. This inquiry was exhaustive. It was thorough. It was in depth. And again, it had the backing of the entire parliament. Again, let's come back to what we're actually talking about here. We're talking about being the biggest losers in the world when it comes to gambling. There are people out there who are so inundated that they say that, if you're a problem gambler and you're trying to get help, it's incredibly hard because there's nowhere to hide. You turn on the telly—a gambling ad. You listen to a podcast on Spotify—there's a gambling ad. I want to read out some direct quotes from people who have been bravely speaking up, urging the parliament to act, and so far, 18 months later, their requests have fallen on deaf ears. This is from someone who has gone publicly by the name of Kate, who lost her brother to suicide: 'My brother was so well loved, empathetic, kind-hearted and a genuine person. My brother self-excluded, and he was targeted more. I remember walking into the kitchen one day and he said, "I've just got a text from Sportsbet." It sounds like not a big deal if you don't have a problem, but, if you know the gravity of that text, it is. It's always such a personalised message. They're only sent to people who are losing. I really believe those inducements made him feel the only way out was to end his life.' This is from Mark Kempster, a man recovering from gambling addiction: 'Not one person could read the submissions on how people had lost loved ones to gambling addictions and not see the need for change. However, here I am 18 months later, still having to avoid watching the sports I once loved, out of the fear of what it could do to me and my family. I have lost all faith in our current government to do the right thing. From what they are currently saying, they have chosen their self-interest and winning the next election over protecting the most vulnerable in our society.' This is from John, who presented and gave evidence to the Murphy inquiry: 'I love my footy, and I can remember that, at the time, sports gambling ads were being played in every ad break whilst I watched a game of footy on a Friday night. They even advertised during the news. Before long, and for reasons I can't explain, I opened an online sports betting account late one night with a well-known betting company. Within weeks I had managed to gamble away my full redundancy payment. I had made over $226,000 worth of deposits through my betting account. I lost $80,000 in one morning, between 12.30 am and 3 am, betting on races on the other side of the world. In one single 24-hour period I placed 92 separate bets. At no stage did anybody from the betting company try to contact me to determine how I was funding this excessive and erratic gambling or to suggest that a deposit limit might be a good idea.' The Prime Minister, at every turn, has taken up the lines of the gambling industry and the NRL. Contrary to what Senator Grogan has just said, it seems some views are given precedence over others. I want to quote the Prime Minister: We know, when we look at where the harmful gambling comes from, that almost 70 per cent of that harmful gambling is actually poker machines. More than or around 15 per cent, off the top of my head … comes from lotteries and lotto and those tickets as well. Peter V'landys was quoted in the SMH saying that independent statistics showed that, out of 100 people who sought help from a problem gambling hotline, 70 were due to poker machines, 15 were due to lotteries, eight were due to racing and four were due to sport. I've tried to find these independent studies and reports. I've asked at estimates. No-one in PMO knows anything about it. No-one in the Minister for Sport's office or department knows anything about it. No experts have ever heard of it. Yet the two people that seem to have this data that supports continuing the status quo are the Prime Minister of Australia and Peter V'landys. The CEO of Responsible Wagering Australia said the risk of blanket bans on advertising in the wagering space is that we run the risk of driving Australian consumers into the illegal offshore providers. The Prime Minister said: 'The internet means that people can gamble offshore. That means it is much more difficult to put restrictions on.' Who is writing the PM's talking points? There are so many smart people in there. Why are we hearing almost direct quotes from Peter V'landys and the CEO of 'Responsible Wagering Australia'? There was a fascinating interview—I'm pretty sure it was on RN—with Stewart Kenny, the co-founder of gambling giant Paddy Power. I am going to directly quote him here. The argument from the Prime Minister and Responsible Wagering Australia that if you do anything here people will just go offshore was put to him. His response: 'I used that argument all the time when I was lobbying. I was the main lobbyist in Ireland. I knew all the politicians. That was the first line I always used. As an industry, we've been using that argument for 20, 30, 40 years. But look at Spain. They put in a blanket ban and there was virtually no pick-up in the illegal offshore market. This is a load of baloney. I used it all the time.' I want to just end with the words of the courageous late Peta Murphy: 'What are you in politics for if it's not to make a difference and make a difference to other people's lives?' The Senate has the opportunity to do that. 09:56 Senator 301128 Victoria DARMANIN () (): Thank you, Acting Deputy President, for the opportunity to speak today about an issue that affects countless Australian families—online gambling and the need for meaningful reforms to protect our community, particularly young people, from its harms. The Albanese government does take very seriously our responsibility to protect Australians from the dangers of online gambling. We recognise that gambling addiction can devastate individuals, families and entire communities. We are committed to ensuring that Australians, especially young people, are not bombarded with harmful advertising and are better supported to make informed choices. The government has repeatedly made clear the status quo of online wagering advertising is untenable and that reform is needed. We are committed to reducing harms from online gambling, which is why we have already delivered numerous reforms in this term of government and will continue to work with a broad range of stakeholders to develop and implement further reforms. We want to get them right, to deliver harm prevention, harm reduction and cultural change. As a responsible government, we are taking the time to work through options carefully to ensure they will be effective, robust and not have detrimental unintended consequences. We know that Australia has the highest per capita gambling losses in the world, with Australians losing more than $31 billion to gambling every year. This is a staggering figure, one that highlights the deep entrenchment of gambling in our society and the need for reform. It is absolutely critical, though, that we get this right, because we know that poorly designed policies lead to poor outcomes that do not achieve the intended objectives. We only have to look back to 2018 to see an example of this. The coalition's so-called reforms from 2018 resulted in an explosion of online gambling advertising. Their current policy of only restricting online gambling ads around live sport would also see ads increase elsewhere, like family TV programs and online, and would likely repeat history by simply shifting ads away from live sport onto other platforms, increasing exposure to gambling promotions in family friendly spaces, such as TV programming and digital media. Gambling advertising has become ubiquitous and it is time for decisive action. I've seen firsthand just how pervasive gambling advertising has become. My own children are already more aware of these ads not just from watching sports on TV but through online games and other digital platforms. They can name betting companies, recall their slogans and even explain the odds, all without ever having placed a bet. This is not because we talk about gambling at home but because the industry has found ways to infiltrate the online spaces where kids spend some of their time. When gambling messages appear in games, on social media and in videos they watch, our children are being conditioned to see betting as normal and even inevitable. This is why we must take decisive action to protect young Australians from being targeted by an industry that thrives on addiction and loss. When children and young people are watching a sporting match, they should not be bombarded with messages that normalise betting as part of the game. When children and young people are playing Roblox or other games, they shouldn't be bombarded with messaging that normalising betting as part of the game. The influence of gambling companies has grown exponentially, and their targeted ads often reach those who are most vulnerable—young Australians, problem gamblers and individuals attempting to recover from addiction. This saturation of advertising not only contributes to gambling addiction but also shapes a culture where betting is seen as an essential part of sport and spectatorship. Australia has the highest gambling losses per adult, with a total of $25 billion in losses per annum. Online gambling is growing in Australia due to easier and faster access through mobile devices and a proliferation of online gambling applications. So, yes, action is required. That is why our government is focused on doing this properly—on designing reforms that genuinely reduce harm and create lasting cultural change. Since being elected less than three years ago, this government has delivered more harm reduction measures for online gambling than the previous government did in an entire decade, quite the opposite to what Senator Henderson would have you believe, suggesting earlier that this government has done nothing. As Senator Grogan outlined, some of the things this government has done include banning the use of credit cards for online gambling, because people should not be able to gamble with money that they don't have; establishing mandatory customer identification verification for online wagering to prevent children and individuals who have self-excluded from placing bets; strengthening classification of gambling-like features in video games to better protect children from being exposed to gambling behaviours from a young age; implementing monthly activity statements so Australians who gamble online can clearly see their wins and losses each month, helping them to make informed decisions; introducing new evidence based tag lines with stronger messages about the risk and harms of online gambling; and launching the national exclusion register, BetStop, which has been used more than 37,000 times by Australians in the past 18 months to voluntarily exclude themselves from online gambling services. This is not doing nothing, and these are significant steps forward, but we absolutely know that there is more work to do, and we want to do it properly. One of the most pressing concerns is the pervasiveness of online gambling advertising, particularly its saturation during live sports broadcasting. Sports is part of the Australian identity. Every Australian wants to enjoy sport, from grassroots competitions to the professional leagues, without being bombarded by gambling ads. Parents should be able to sit down with their children and watch their favourite team without the constant reminder of sports betting. To address this, our government is working through the 31 recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling, which include key recommendations on advertising. We have been consulting widely on a proposed model to reduce online gambling advertising, and through this process we have uncovered additional complexities that must be carefully considered. The proposed model aims to break the deep connection between wagering and sport, to minimise children's exposure to online wagering advertisements and to tackle the oversaturation and targeting of these ads. Importantly, we are looking beyond just traditional media. We must consider all the ways in which gambling advertising reaches Australians, through television and radio, yes, but also through digital platforms and social media, where ads can be microtargeted to vulnerable people, including those who have already struggled with gambling addiction. In today's digital landscape, gambling companies have more tools than ever before to target their advertisements with precision. Algorithms and big data allow companies to identify and reach individuals based on online activity, including previous gambling habits. We must ensure that any reforms we introduce address this growing concern. The ease of gambling platforms combined with the constant barrage of advertising has led to a situation where Australians are being increasingly encouraged to gamble, often without fully understanding the risks involved. Reforming gambling advertising is not a simple task. Our government has carefully weighed the impacts to ensure that our reforms are both effective and sustainable. The worst outcome would be a knee jerk policy that simply shifts gambling ads to new platforms without reducing overall exposure. The government's response to the Murphy report—by Labor's late champion of gambling reform, Peta Murphy—has been thorough, measured and evidence based. We have gathered the necessary data, assessed the likely impacts of different approaches and engaged in extensive consultation with key stakeholders. We know that public sentiment is firmly in favour of stronger restrictions on online gambling advertising, and we are determined to deliver reforms that reflect community expectations. It is also important to consider the multiple channels over which advertising is delivered. It's not just television and radio but also digital platforms and social media where advertising can be targeted at vulnerable Australians. We recognise that this work is taking longer than was hoped, but it is absolutely vital that we get this right. Rushed and poorly designed policies would only create new problems, and we owe it to Australians to ensure that any changes we implement will be effective, enforceable and long lasting. The need for meaningful action is clear. Australians are losing more to gambling than any other nation, and the harms of online gambling—from financial distress to mental health struggles—are being felt in households across the country. As I said, our government is already taking strong steps to address and reduce these harms, but we are not stopping here. We are committed to breaking the cycle of online gambling harm and protecting the next generation from being drawn into a culture that normalises gambling. That means well-designed, evidence based reforms that address advertising saturation, prevent children from being exposed to gambling messaging and ensure that those struggling with addiction have the support and tools they need to regain control. This is not just about policy. It is about the kind of society that we want to build, a society where sport is about community and passion—not betting. It is a society where families can enjoy a game without a barrage of gambling ads, a society where we take meaningful action that is effective to prevent harm rather than just manage its consequences. The time for action is now. As I have said, steps have been taken, and more needs to be done. If we fail to act decisively and carefully, we risk leaving future generations vulnerable to an industry that profits from addiction and loss. We will not allow this to happen. Our government is committed to getting this right, and we will not waver in our mission to protect Australians, especially young Australians, from the harms of online gambling. That is why we do not support this bill. Arising out of the extensive consultation on a model, it has raised additional complexities for the government to take on board. It is absolutely critical that we get this right. 10:08 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Thank you to my colleague, Senator Hanson-Young, for bringing this very important bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024, forward today. The late Peta Murphy tabled the House inquiry's report into gambling harm 18 months ago. This landmark report painted a stark picture of a nation in pain, of people whose marriages have fallen apart, who have lost their homes, jobs, families or life savings and who have spiralled into mental distress—all because of gambling. In response to this devastating reality, Murphy's report made a clear recommendation: ban gambling ads across all media within three years. People and communities right across Australia were hopeful that this Labor led inquiry and report would finally lead to real action to end gambling harm. Yet here we are, 18 months later, with a federal election just around the corner, and the Labor government has done nothing—well, that's not entirely true, as we know. This week it was revealed that they'd accepted close to $200,000 in donations from the gambling industry. What a stinker! We have seen no official response to the Murphy report and no legislation to ban ads—nothing. Instead we have just witnessed Albanese and his government dodge and delay responsibility to end gambling harm. This cowardice epitomises everything that is wrong with the Labor Party and why they are taking a hit in the polls. I have sympathy for the senators who had to stand up today and try to defend this reprehensible position of not supporting this bill. Come on. We are urging you: be decisive. Show some leadership. We're urging you. We do not want to see a Dutton prime ministership, so give us some backbone. This is an opportunity for the Labor government to take action on gambling before the election—fewer weasel words and fewer lists outlining what the problem is, and more decisive action. It's a chance for the Senate to protect Australians from the relentless harm of gambling ads and those parasitic corporations that are sucking Australians dry. Research shows gambling ads fuel betting and hit young people and those at risk of problem behaviour the hardest. We all know this. You know this, Labor. These ads plague our radio channels, sports games, television, music streaming, online gaming and now social media. They are even in Bluey streaming. It's disgusting. Everyone, including kids, cannot escape having gambling advertisements rammed down their throats. While it is devastating, it's no wonder that kids as young as 10 years old are addicted to gambling. The Greens understand the destruction that gambling harm causes and that gambling ads cause. We know that they destroy families, communities and people right across this nation. We know that a gambling ad ban needs to happen before the election, before we risk a coalition government. That is why, in the face of Labor's complete inaction, the Greens put forward this bill and why my colleague the Australian Greens spokesperson for gambling, Senator Hanson-Young, wrote to the Minister for Communications— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Order, Senator Hodgins-May. The time for this debate has expired. You will be in continuation. Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 11

Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 11 10:12 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. In short, this bill establishes a hydrogen production tax offset that is available at a rate of $2 per kilogram of eligible hydrogen for companies that satisfy certain eligibility criteria. The bill also establishes a critical minerals production tax incentive for expenditure incurred in carrying out registered processing activities. Let it be clear to all that the coalition will be opposing this bill, and with good and clear reason. Labor's Future Made in Australia policy is about building bureaucracies, not businesses. The coalition does not believe in permanently underwriting businesses with taxpayer funds. When faced with the COVID-19 emergency, a once-in-a-century crisis, the coalition rightly stepped in to ensure that Australian businesses could stay open, workers remained employed and families were supported. These measures were deliberately targeted, temporary and scalable, designed to address the unique economic and health challenges we faced. They allowed Australia to emerge from the pandemic in a world-leading position with record low unemployment, strong GDP growth and historically low interest rates. We made those decisions in the national interest, but we have been clear since the election that the time for these kinds of government interventions has passed. Since taking office, Labor has taken Australia from a world-leading position to the back of the pack on interest rates, inflation, productivity and economic growth. Australian households and businesses are paying the price for Labor's economic mismanagement. Instead of addressing the fundamental issues holding back our economy, this government is doubling down on bad policy. The coalition will not support a policy that subsidises businesses for the costs of Labor's bad policies. On workplace relations, environmental approvals, the safeguard mechanism and company tax, Labor is strangling our manufacturing and resources industries. Instead of fixing these problems, they are proposing a costly and bureaucratic subsidy scheme. This bill does not deliver widespread tax relief. It does not reduce energy prices. It does not cut red tape or remove Labor's punitive industrial relations measures so that businesses can reduce overheads, employ more staff and charge better prices. Instead, it establishes production tax credits that will not provide a cent of benefit to most businesses for years, while costing billions of dollars to the taxpayer into the 2040s. Australian small businesses have already been hit hard by Labor, and this policy does nothing to support them or the minerals and resources industry. Even businesses that do qualify will face enormous hurdles just to access these tax credits. According to Labor's own analysis, applying for these credits will cost businesses at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first year alone, and hundreds of thousands in annual compliance costs over the duration of their operation. Why? Because Labor is burying business in more red tape and regulation. To receive these tax credits, businesses must navigate multiple layers of bureaucracy, engaging with the Clean Energy Regulator, the department of industry, and ARENA—all before even reaching the tax office. Worse still, businesses that are seeking access to these credits will be hostage to Labor's undefined community benefits principles, which the Treasurer will determine via regulation. This is a back door for social procurement and ultimately for the CFMEU. Under this scheme, if there is no union agreement there is no tax credit. There hasn't been a policy space invented yet that Labor cannot somehow wrangle into a sweetheart deal and opportunity for the Australian trade union movement—a union movement so increasingly irrelevant to the lives of ordinary working Australians that Labor is forced to legislate its continued existence through policies such as this. Such is the apathy and, frankly, disdain that ordinary Australians now have for the trade union movement. The coalition opposes the bill because, first, it ties businesses up in red tape instead of providing them with widespread tax relief. Second, it locks in subsidies for decades, until the 2040s, and we do not support ongoing taxpayer funded handouts for businesses, believing instead that government intervention must be temporary, targeted and scalable. Third, the community benefit principles are unclear and politicised, leaving companies to comply with vaguely defined criteria in order to receive a tax credit, giving the Treasurer sole discretion over community benefit principle requirements, and there are concerns about potentially forcing businesses into union agreements to qualify. Fourth, the bill does not apply equally across all businesses. It excludes major sectors, such as gas and nuclear power, despite their strategic importance to Australia's energy future. The coalition thinks the instant asset write-off is a fairer and more effective industry initiative. Fifth, there is a concerning lack of transparency, with key decisions bypassing the National Interest Framework. And, again, the Treasurer, not industry experts, decide which sectors will receive funding. And sixth, the bill's economic viability is questionable. Treasury and the Productivity Commission have not endorsed elements of the plan and warn that it could divert resources from more-productive sectors. Much of this was raised in greater detail by coalition senators in their dissenting report in the recent inquiry into the bill. We noted some additional critical failings that went undisputed by Treasury and witnesses, both supportive and hostile to the policy. These included the fact that tax credits did not come into effect for more than two years, that a failure to comply with the community benefits principles will lead to a reduction in the tax credits available, and that in addition to union agreements the community benefits principles could range from duplicative environmental or Indigenous consultation practices to onerous tax disclosures. It's important at this point to share some perspective from stakeholders. The Minerals Council of Australia noted concerns over duplication and regulatory burden in its submission to the inquiry: The Australian minerals industry produces critical minerals utilising world leading sustainability standards, including best practice environmental management and community engagement… We understand that the requirement to comply with 'community benefit principles' is an overarching requirement of the Future Made in Australia Act. However, there are already extensive and rigorous approvals process that mining and mineral processing projects must adhere to makes this an unnecessary and duplicative feature of the CMPTI. That was the view of the peak mining industry association of our country. This was also the view of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who submitted to the inquiry: The additional engagement processes required by the community benefit principles parallel existing requirements of the planning and approval process. This is simply adding a further layer of administration and compliance, without any clear benefit. In contrast to the government, the coalition has a better plan for Australia's economy. We will extend the instant asset write-off and make it permanent, providing an investment allowance for tens of thousands of Australian businesses. This policy rewards businesses that invest in themselves and in Australia by lowering their tax burden. Unlike Labor's scheme, which won't take effect for years and will only benefit select industries, our policy applies to all industries immediately. It supports new investment, boosts productivity and helps businesses to grow. It does not subsidise businesses just to keep their doors open. Labor has the chance to vote for this policy. We'll be moving an amendment to an upcoming bill over the next parliamentary sitting week and we invite Labor's endorsement. But, of course, we know that they will vote against it, like they have with previous bills, because for Labor it isn't about growing the economy or growing the economic pie so that more Australians can benefit and so that we can have more productive businesses, hire more staff and increase wages; unfortunately, for Labor, it's about backing big businesses and big business cartels. It is about picking winners for Labor, because Labor know that they know best—increasing government control over the expertise of private enterprise. However, that is simply the path to economic stagnation, rather than economic progress, because we've seen it for 2½ years under this Anthony Albanese-Dr Chalmers led administration. Labor's second-term economic plan is already unravelling. Their first-term economic policies led to higher inflation, rising interest rates and declining productivity. Their second-term agenda is more of the same. The Productivity Commission has raised serious concerns about Labor's Future Made in Australia plan. A $1 billion commitment to manufacturing solar panels in Australia should have been subjected to a tougher national interest test, but of course it was not. By allowing sectors to bypass the national interest framework, Labor is undermining its own rules and processes. Key investments critical to Australia's energy future—carbon capture and storage, gas, blue hydrogen, uranium and nuclear—have been explicitly excluded from Labor's Future Made in Australia policy. The Business Council of Australia has warned that these procurement rules risk subsidising industries that Australia will never have a competitive advantage in. That is not how to build a productive and resilient economy in a fast and ever-changing world. Indeed, Danielle Wood, the Treasurer's hand-picked productivity commissioner, stated that supporting industries without long-term competitive advantage creates an ongoing cost and diverts resources from more productive parts of the economy. Indeed, former Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks described Labor's plan as a 'fool's errand' that risks repeating past mistakes by propping up politically favoured industries. Of course, this particular legislation has raised important concerns for Western Australia. In their dissenting report, coalition senators paid special attention to Western Australia and the threat posed to its international competitiveness. I echo those remarks again here this morning. Western Australia, of course, faces unique challenges in competing for critical minerals investment. Renewed commitment and technological advancement overseas, including in the United States, Canada, South Africa, Indonesia and China, present serious challenges to the prosperity of this sector in Western Australia. The inquiry evidence was that Western Australia is already losing out to global competitors, who are already implementing production tax incentives. Critically, the tax credit in this bill is not available until 2027. So, in fact, this characteristic of the bill actually creates a competitive disadvantage for Western Australia. Those familiar with the west will know that projects there already face significant regulatory delays. The bill fails to address these significant regulatory delays that already exist in the system, missing an opportunity to make WA more attractive for investments. AMEC noted: Australia has long approval timeframes, land access issues and high construction costs. The PTI must be paired with serious regulatory reform to reduce the regulatory burden faced by companies developing projects. WA's resource sector clearly needs more than tax credits; it requires streamlined approvals and infrastructure support. Of course, all of that is absent from Labor's plan. Absent from Labor's plan are any steps to reduce already long approval times. Absent from Labor's plan are any steps to improve land access issues, and absent from Labor's plans are any efforts to reduce high construction costs. Finally, there was ample evidence to confirm that Western Australia already has a high level of existing regulatory standards which make the community benefit principles an unnecessary regulatory burden for Western Australia in particular. To mining firms that already adhere to strict regulations, the principles represent red tape and cost to Western Australian projects, which, again, jeopardise WA's future competitiveness. This bill is a folly. Unfortunately, some have advocated for this initiative, even in my home state of Western Australia, and they should be careful what they wish for. This is, indeed, an attempt to re-regulate, reimpose consultation process and reduplicate already significant costs to Western Australian projects. I suspect it will end in tears for many Western Australian industries and, indeed, future projects. Thank you. 10:26 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Well, there's nothing surprising here, is there? The opposition are opposed to a future made in Australia. Why doesn't that surprise anyone? The opening comments from their frontrunner on this debate say, 'We don't want transparency, and we don't want opportunity for Australian business.' They also go further, to say: 'Not only do we not want transparency and opportunity but we don't want business and community to take advantage of a future made in Australia. We don't want everybody in the entire community to take the advantage of having a future made in Australia and the national opportunity that that gives.' This legislation complements existing marketplace operations, and it also establishes a hydrogen production tax incentive worth $2 per kilogram of renewable hydrogen produced and a critical minerals production tax incentive worth 10 per cent of relevant processing and refining costs for 31 critical minerals—a measure which also doubles as a national security initiative. We all remember COVID and all the problems we had then. We know the challenges we have in the modern world. This is a national security and national interest initiative. But really this bill is an investment in Australian jobs, Australian businesses and Australian communities. We aren't taking the Liberal approach of showering businesses with money and just hoping it trickles down to Aussie families and communities. We aren't spraying out cash to people like Gina Rinehart to have taxpayer funded long lunches. Get this: the opposition leader Mr Dutton's idea of national interest is a $20,000 Gina Rinehart fun pack for a party, because nothing says support for small businesses like tax breaks for billionaire lunches. Unlike Mr Dutton, we are making sure that every cent spent is supporting Aussie families, Aussie communities and Australian businesses that help with that initiative. We're doing that by requiring businesses receiving this funding to comply with community benefit principles so we all share the benefit—everybody in the community shares the benefit. Those principles are straightforward. They are things that ensure that money does what it's intended to do. The first one is promoting safe and secure jobs that are well paid and have good conditions. Heaven forbid! Those opposite don't want that. They've just criticised it in their opening arguments about why a future shouldn't be made in Australia. The second one is to develop more skilled and inclusive workforces. Those opposite spoke just now against the whole concept of having a more skilled and inclusive workforce. That skilled and inclusive workforce means equipping regional communities and young people with the skills they need to take full advantage of the net zero transition. The third principle is to engage collaboratively with and achieve positive outcomes for local communities. That means more economic opportunities and ensuring communities have an active say over their regions. Those opposite don't want the regions to have a say. They don't want the communities to get the economic benefit. We can do this collectively together as a community and benefit the market, the business communities and those doing those jobs. The fourth is to support First Nations communities to participate and share the benefits of the net zero transition. That means real tangible economic opportunities for First Nations peoples. The fifth principle is to strengthen domestic industrial capabilities through local supply chains. As I said before, we all remember COVID-19 showing how vulnerable international supply chains are and how important it is to strengthen sovereign capability. Those opposite are opposed to it. The final principle is to demonstrate transparency and compliance in relation to tax. Every cent in this program will go towards better national security outcomes, well-paid secure jobs, upskilling and strengthening domestic manufacturing, improving tax compliance and working with local and First Nations communities. It's similar to schemes that already exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Canada. Who would have a problem with that? Those opposite. Businesses love it. The bill is supported by a long list of employer groups like the Minerals Council, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Business Council. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ACCI, said that these measures make it easier for new industries to establish and become competitive. Working people love it, and, yes, unions love it too. Everybody is together, except those opposite. The Australian Workers Union told the Senate inquiry that it would support the pipeline of proposed hydrogen and critical minerals projects creating 160,000 jobs in the construction phase and 41,000 ongoing jobs. That's 200,000 well-paid jobs, with most of them in regional Australia. The National Party and the Liberal Party—particularly the National Party sometimes—pretend to support the regions, except when it comes to jobs and well-paid jobs, except when it comes to working with local communities, except when it builds Australian businesses, and except when it makes a future made in Australia. They stand for nothing and support nothing in their communities. The two different visions for Australia that voters have to choose from at the next election are very clear. The Albanese Labor government supports a future made in Australia. We support Australian jobs, Australian industry, and investing in Australian communities. Or you've got the Dutton opposition who abandoned the car industry, who opposed every cost of living measure this government has introduced, whether it was tax cuts for every Australian, energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, free TAFE, record pay rises or reducing student debt. Mr Dutton has opposed every single one, because his vision result is a poorer, weaker Australia. That's the result. It's one where you work longer for less and the only thing the government is good for is a taxpayer funded lunch for bosses. That's their proposal. No matter which way you look at it, you'll be worse off under Dutton. 10:34 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Australian Greens are supportive of the intent of the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. We're currently working through some of the details associated with this legislation with the government. The intent of this bill is to encourage investment in renewable hydrogen and critical minerals and expand the remit of Indigenous Business Australia. Decisive action to tackle climate change and a rapid transition to renewables are critical. They're critical not just in the fight against climate breakdown but also in terms of the opportunities they provide for this country. We welcome in-principle government support for truly sustainable and green energy industries, and we acknowledge that such government support is an important part of achieving the rapid decarbonisation that we need to achieve in Australia and indeed around the world. The urgent need for a clean energy transition presents a unique opportunity for this country. We've got an opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower, a global leader in renewable energy and a global leader in decarbonisation. Schemes like the tax credits proposed in this legislation are really important to create market confidence and to encourage the investment that we need to see in Australia in order for us to become a true renewable energy superpower at a global level. We're very well positioned to achieve that aim, but we need to make sure the right settings are put in place. We need to make sure that those settings unblock global bottlenecks on the resources that are needed for national and global decarbonisation. Inputs like renewable hydrogen and critical minerals will undoubtedly be a key part of that. They have great potential to contribute significantly to Australia's economy and to contribute significantly to new jobs that can be created in the transition out of fossil fuels and into renewable energies and electrification. Doing this properly would mean that we can transform our economy from an overreliance on old methods of generating power, old energy grids and old industry sectors. As we go through that transition, we can support workers and their communities at the same time as we take strong action on climate change and to protect our environment. So, for those reasons, the Greens welcome government support for realising Australia's global renewable potential. We hope that the government will continue to engage constructively with us to ensure better outcomes for the climate. I do want to be clear though that, while investment in, and more certainty around, renewables is important, it is only one part of the puzzle. Polluting projects have to be phased out. Polluting technologies have to be phased out. But we see time after time that Labor is in thrall to the fossil fuel corporations. Make no mistake—just like the LNP, the Labor Party is at the beck and call of giant fossil fuel corporations. These corporations donate millions of dollars every year into the coffers of not just the Liberal and National parties but also the Labor Party in Australia. The Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties join together to deliver the outcomes that those giant fossil fuel corporations demand of them. At times, this chamber seems more like the board room of a coal or gas corporation than it does the upper house of the Australian parliament. Under Labor, emissions are up in Australia. Let's be clear about that. Since Labor came to power nearly three years ago, with a much vaunted set of policies—according to them—to address climate change, emissions have gone up in Australia. Not only have emissions gone up; Labor has approved 32 new coal and gas projects since coming into power. This is at a time when the science is clear, at a time when the head of the United Nations is clear, at a time when we see climate-driven disaster after disaster around the world, at a time when millions of people are being displaced from their homes, at a time when many thousands are dying—we have seen the bushfires in North America—and at a time when, if you can't understand that our climate is breaking down and ecologies are collapsing around us, you are simply not paying attention. At these times, Labor has approved 32 new coal and gas projects in less than three years. Hand over fist, they are bowing down to their corporate masters in the fossil fuel sector. Since Labor came to power, emissions have gone up, and 32 new coal and gas projects have been approved. Labor has committed to a future for gas beyond 2050 in their Future Gas Strategy, which was written for them by their corporate masters in the gas sector and faithfully delivered by the supplicant Labor government in this place. Billions of taxpayer dollars continue to be poured into sustaining coal and gas—including, for example, funding for the Middle Arm project. All this has gone on while the climate breaks down and the planet continues to heat. As a result, our economy, our environment and our people are at risk. We've already shot past 1.5 degrees of warming in Australia, and the world is on track for a catastrophic three degrees of warming. Extreme weather continues to devastate communities, from the floods in northern Queensland that are still posing problems to many people to the fires currently burning in my home state of Tasmania. We saw the winter wildfires just recently in California in the United States. I want to say a little bit about the fires currently burning in my home state of Tasmania. There is a grove of huon pines that the Meredith Range fire has burned right up to within the last 24 to 48 hours. That grove of huon pines contains the largest known and recorded huon pine in Tasmania. Some senators will recall that we had a Senate inquiry subsequent to the catastrophic 2016 fires which destroyed so much of the globally significant ecological communities in Tasmania, including pencil pines and other fragile alpine ecosystems. Some of the recommendations of that inquiry included more work being done to understand the behaviour of fire in certain ecosystem types and significantly more resources being allocated by both the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian government to things like remote-area firefighting capacity and aerial bombing. I want to place on the record that those recommendations have not in their entirety been complied with by the Tasmanian and Australian governments. As a result, precious ecosystems are currently being threatened by fires in many Tasmanian wilderness areas. I want to place on the record the Greens' thanks to people who are fighting a number of fires currently burning in Tasmania. We acknowledge the risk and the danger that are posed to people who fight fires, particularly in remote areas which obviously often entail very difficult terrain, either for access or for on-the-ground operations. In some terrain, we acknowledge that getting boots on the ground is somewhere between very difficult and impossible to achieve. But we need to make sure that the Tasmanian government is providing our firefighters with adequate resources and that the Tasmanian government is ensuring that the protection of natural and ecological values is considered as fire management decisions and decisions around how to respond to fires, which fires to respond to and how many assets to commit to any particular fire are being made. Some of the ecological community is at risk now. I acknowledge the cold change that went through last night, which provides us with an opportunity now to ensure that we do the work necessary to protect ecologically critical areas as well as, obviously, built infrastructure and human life. There is now an opportunity to do that work that can protect them for when the weather inevitably changes and fire risk, and the risk of fires spreading, increases. So we now have a scenario where we are seeing the impacts of climate change and we have a government that is in thrall to the fossil fuel industry. Let me make a very confident prediction to Labor, Liberal and National senators sitting in this place: history is not going to regard what you're doing now well. You are on the wrong side of history by being in thrall to fossil fuel corporations, by continuing to devastate our native forests and by continuing to approve coal and gas projects. The two major parties are in absolute lockstep. There's not a wafer of difference between them on support for fossil fuel corporations and on approvals for new coal and gas projects and for destroying our native forests. There is not a shred of difference between the two major parties, and you will be recorded by history as abrogating your responsibilities not just to the climate and nature but to the Australian people and, in fact, people all around the world. The verdict of history will be savage on you, and you will be found to be comprehensively on the wrong side of history. You cannot keep approving new coal and gas projects while our climate is breaking down around us. You cannot sit idly by and watch emissions continue to go up. You cannot continue to destroy our precious and beautiful globally significant, carbon-rich, biodiversity-rich native forests in the middle of a climate crisis and expect history to view you kindly. That is not going to happen. You will be viewed savagely and harshly when the history of these times is written. You will be viewed savagely and harshly because you destroy our native forests, because you are in thrall to big coal and gas corporations and because you continue to approve new coal and gas projects—32 new coal and gas projects in less than three years since Labor came into government. History will judge you for what you are: climate criminals and destroyers of nature at a time in global history when we need people to protect nature and to actually go in and deliver strong, urgent climate action. That's what we need, not supplicant behaviour to the giant fossil fuel corporations and the native forest loggers. 10:49 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Well, if it was unclear before, it is certainly made even less clear now. The Albanese Labor government is completely confused. Where they name a bill 'nature positive', they risk significant increase to carbon emissions, and, where they name a bill 'future made in Australia', they suffocate one of the fastest growing sectors that we have. This bill promises a 10 per cent production tax credit to Australian companies in the critical minerals sector, but it's not without the typical add-ones of a Labor government bill, a definite hindrance to economic and industry growth. Described by Mr Gary Banks as a 'fool's errand', this bill is the Albanese government's latest attempt at dampening our vibrant resources. Australia's economic decline has been happening at pace under this government. Australia's economy has gone from leading the world under the coalition to trailing the world under Labor. By any economic measurement, Australians are now worse off than they were three years ago. We trail the rest of the world on interest rates, on inflation, on productivity and on economic growth. Australians with a typical mortgage have spent more than $50,000 in additional interest since Labor was elected. Every Australian knows what this is about. Those on that side seem to avoid the pain, because their lack of action in ways that actually have a material impact, a positive impact, demonstrates that they don't really understand it. But everyone else out there who is feeling the cost-of-living pressure knows exactly what it means. It's impacting upon their wellbeing. It's impacting upon their ability to make ends meet. More and more Australians are living pay cheque to pay cheque. And, in fact, even more now are living beyond what their pay is able to deliver for them. The cost-of-living crisis is impacting Australians. It costs 45 per cent more to build a house than before the COVID pandemic. Underlying electricity prices are now 30 per cent higher than they were before the last election. And Labor have done nothing to address the issues in our energy system. In fact, what they've done and the measures they've put in place have actually made things worse. Under Labor, Australia is experiencing the longest household recession on record. GDP per capita has gone backwards for the past seven consecutive quarters, and Australia has returned to the weak economic growth of the 1970s. That's how far you've got to go back! Yet, the Treasurer parades around like he has presided over an economic renaissance. It's like he has put up a big banner saying, 'Mission accomplished!' It's unbelievable. Australians don't feel that. Yes, the inflation curve might have moderated, but the prices that Australians have seen increase are now baked in. Their wages have not kept up with those increased prices and are not likely to without causing even greater inflationary pressure. The small and medium sized business sector continues to suffer under Labor's watch. According to the January 2025 NAB SME Business Insights report, three in four small to medium sized businesses believe their costs will increase over the next 12 month. That's a 76 per cent increase. This means prices will continue to rise for Australians. Forty-one per cent of SMEs expect the level of red tape experienced by their business to increase in 2025, a key cost impost on business, which, of course, increases consumer prices. Yet again, this Albanese Labor government has shown nothing but contempt for the Western Australian mining industry, an industry that I'm very proud of, particularly coming from Western Australia myself. I'm very proud of it. Time and time again this government is wrapping our industries in red tape and creating an array of hoops for businesses to jump through. The prosperity of this nation right now is contingent on a thriving mining industry, particularly in Western Australia—and, of course, I'm sure Senator Roberts will speak about the virtues of the mining industry in Queensland. This Labor government is hell-bent on repealing investment in the sector. Their decisions are having a chilling effect on investment into this important sector. The Minerals Council of Australia has already stated that the community benefit principles outlined in this bill will likely drive up costs and slow down projects. The Business Council of Australia's submission to the committee also noted that 'the model for administration of the schemes is appropriate but will be inherently complex and costly to administer and comply with'. Only a Labor government, and certainly only an Albanese Labor government, could have a bill named Future Made in Australia and actually make that future even harder for Australians and for Australian businesses. There is no surprise here. The Labor government specialty, which is to provide unnecessary complex red tape and economically destructive policies, is writ large here with this government, and that is the case here with this bill that we are debating here today. Western Australian people must be thinking that this Albanese Labor government has a bone to pick with them. Whether it is their on-again off-again nature positive legislation or this deceitfully named Future Made in Australia Bill, it seems that the only requirements for bills to be tabled here in this place are that those bills that are going to constrain Western Australians, their businesses and the jobs they are employed in. The Albanese government's very own 2024 report showed that 81 major resource projects in the resources sector are now stalled or at risk. Eighty-one major projects valued at over $119 billion are currently stalled. This is the cost that Australians bear because of this government. Maybe if you are in the inner city here on the east coast, you might not think much about the mining industry as you go about your daily lives. But let me tell you, it is feeding the nation. These projects are providing the prosperity of this nation. They are actually enabling our roads to be funded. They are enabling our hospitals to be funded. They are enabling our important safety net of the social services system to be funded, the NDIS to be funded, Medicare to be funded. If you take those projects out, if you destroy the resources industry, you can't achieve any of those things. We cannot see the prosperity of this nation continue in the way that it has over many decades when it is declining, sadly, at this point because of the poor judgement of this government. I recently heard from companies based in Western Australia that want to produce hydrogen, who pointed out to me that this legislation does not even include provisions for clean hydrogen production that utilises carbon as part of the process—that is to say, a hybrid model of production of hydrogen, where you would use carbon sequestration. It doesn't allow for that. It doesn't allow for blue hydrogen, as it is commonly called. They only want the green type of hydrogen. But if we are going to create a market, there is debate as to whether this can even be done, whether green hydrogen is even viable. There are many projects across the world that are actually falling over. Queensland has just didn't announced that the project up in Gladstone is not going to be able to go ahead. We have not seen any progress on any large-scale production of hydrogen. There are a few pilot projects around the place using fully renewables to supply an electrolyser, but we are not seeing anything at a large scale that is going to meet the objectives of this bill. It is in the pipeline—maybe. But one way, if you do believe that that is even possible, that you could ensure a future market would be to establish the supply chains from production all the way through to delivering the product to the markets and actually utilise existing production capacity through steam reformation to create hydrogen, and sequester the carbon that is pulled out as part of processing the natural gas—use carbon capture and storage—as a way to hold the carbon and store it securely. You would then, as part of that, develop the market that would actually take that product for, one day, maybe, a green product to be able to follow through. But that's many, many years away, and meanwhile pink hydrogen—plugging an electrolyser into a nuclear power plant where the demand actually is—might be the easier way for Korea, Japan and other places to go ahead and have their hydrogen delivered to them. This bill does not even meet those objectives. It doesn't even allow for those hybrid projects to be able to occur. Favouring only one production pathway, rather than aligning with the least carbon-intensive product, this bill again keeps Australia on the back foot in the race against international competitors in the industry. This means that green hydrogen projects which utilise, as I said, steam formation and reformation technology, for example, would be exempt from the incentives of this bill. Unnecessarily disadvantaging projects like these, which have the capacity to contribute greatly to our emissions reductions target in the near future, is nothing short of counterproductive. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia's submission to the committee on this bill reaffirmed this, stating that support for a range of hydrogen production technologies is essential for global market expansion. Another submission, from the Business Council of Australia, reaffirms that this bill risks 'increasing costs, duplicating other policies already in place, and offsetting competitive gains,' leaving Australia 'now less attractive as a destination for investment' than it could be. Project delays, increased costs and shallow policies are what have characterised the legislation that we have seen produced by this government. While this bill might seem to some to be a step in the right direction, it fails to position our nation as a key frontrunner on the international stage, despite our abundance of natural resources. This so-called Future Made in Australia bill does little to create economic growth. Australia needs an economic plan and strong stewardship of the economy, not slogans. Simply slapping on top of a bill a title that misdirects as to the actual intention or effect of the bill is not the way to lead the economy. It needs to be more flexible. We need an economy that's more flexible and adaptable. We need an adaptable industrial relations framework, not one that benefits the trade union movement, as has occurred under this government's watch. Australia has experienced its slowest economic growth in 32 years under this government, which has presided over elevated interest rates and a cost-of-living crisis. As I said, contrary to the name of the bill, this piece of legislation acts as a ball and chain to the Australian resources sector, an industry that continues to be plagued by this government's regulatory impositions and microwavable money-grab policies. Despite numerous submissions from leading voices in the industry, the government presents this half-baked policy in this place on the eve of an election. When will this government deliver legislation that can provide anything more than a headline with a dollar sign? WA, unfortunately, is going to lose yet again under this policy from this government. 11:04 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia What a load of tosh from Senator O'Sullivan! This bill, the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, is a bill that delivers benefits to Western Australia and Queensland; it is a bill that is supported by the resources industry in Western Australia; and it's a bill that is well designed to improve investment in processing and refining in Australia, adding value to the Australian economy. Our opponents on this bill have talked around the detail of it and they've talked around the benefits that it brings to Australia, but particularly to Western Australia and particularly to Queensland—and that's understandable, because the details of this bill reveal its merits. The details of the bill reveal its benefits to not only the industry but also the broader community and Australian workers. That's why it is supported by the industry. That's why this government has put this bill forward. Let me take you through the details very briefly, because it's not as amorphous as they would suggest. The critical minerals production tax incentive in this bill offers a 10 per cent refundable tax credit. It is for specific processing and refining costs. It's for up to 10 years per project for designated critical minerals between the financial years 2027-28 and 2039-40. It supports economic growth and prosperity. It encourages the future of Australian industry. It advances our strategic goals by bringing aspects of our supply chain onshore. It takes advantage of the expertise in the Western Australian and Queensland resources industries. And I do agree with Senator O'Sullivan: those industries are world-class and they are very important to the future of Australia. That is why the government is supporting them. Processing and refining our critical minerals onshore, rather than just exporting raw materials, offers a chance to create more Australian jobs, drive economic growth and support the energy transition. What are the economic advantages? By incentivising local processing, we're encouraging not only investment in the processing and refining steps of the supply chain but also the competitiveness of Australian mining operations and investment in innovation and technology in this space. The estimate of the value of this incentive to drive critical minerals processing is that it will add up to $17 billion to the Australian economy up to financial year 2039-40. That is to say, these are processes that we're bringing onshore and that Australians will get the direct economic benefit from. Building sovereign capability in critical minerals processing and refining will create secure, well-paying jobs in the resources sector—and that's something this government is entirely committed to. People in Western Australia and in Queensland should understand that this bill is about driving jobs in our great states. Critical minerals are vital components in solar panels, storage batteries and wind turbines, and the world can't transition to net zero without them. They also play a vital role in defence technology. So this helps our export industry. By building and securing domestic capacity in critical minerals and by value-adding in the supply chain, we can mitigate risks associated with supply chain disruptions while providing the Australian economy—and, most importantly, the Australian people—with economic benefits. These tax credits have widespread industry support. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia and Wesfarmers, among others, have all supported these tax credits. I'll say just briefly, though, because it was referred to, that Ross Lyons, the General Manager of Taxation at the Minerals Council of Australia, has said: The MCA supports the critical minerals production tax incentive because it is a positive step towards attracting investment in the critical minerals industry. …   …   … We support the bill because the bill is going to help to reduce the cost of production for people that develop facilities downstream— develop processing and refining capacity in Australia. This is a bill that is supported by industry. It brings real community benefits. The only people who seem to be opposed to it are those opposite. But that's probably to be expected. Short-sighted, negative, unreliable—that's the Liberals under Peter Dutton. 11:09 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation. The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren't. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn't happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It's called the profit motive. Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years, using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone's container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity. Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It's marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it's using it's shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they're legislated. There's nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it's a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation. Let's move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries, used to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it, but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We're tossing money at these people, and it's wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. 'What's a billion here or there?' says the government. The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there's no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people's money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation's proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs. Let's move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It's even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don't, and yet you're going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either. In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won't touch. Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as 'Minister for Blackouts', Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let's see what the government does intend. The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It's costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It's now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering. I'm now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum's net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living. Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you're going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people's pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order: The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution … That's exactly what we've been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that's exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero. I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It's almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn't tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia. Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum's net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians' pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money. 11:23 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I look forward to making some comments in relation to the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. In doing so, I think it would be remiss not to reflect on the fact that the government has had three years in power and they have no policies for growth, other than policies which propose to enact a centralised system of government handouts to businesses that are already doing the business themselves. When you think about the best way for us to manage this economy going forward, of course it is going to be for the market itself to fund and develop its own ideas. The last time I looked, we weren't living in soviet Russia and we weren't living in an autocracy. In fact, up until recently, we had had almost three decades worth of growth because of fidelity to economic and market principles. But now we have a government which has done nothing other than run the country in favour of vested interests for three years. They have gummed up the works of small business with their endless ideological crusade created by the unions and foisted on the Australian people and small business by the Labor Party, which has led to it being harder than ever to run a small business in this country. The regulatory burden, the lack of imagination on the tax front and then the skyrocketing energy prices all mean that the country has anaemic growth and still has comparatively high inflation. Then we come to this monster of a $22 billion handout to big business called Future Made in Australia. It is to the country's credit that we have institutions which are independent of the government of the day, where the people who are running those are able to give their own frank and fearless advice to ministers and to the public at large. The Chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, appointed by Mr Chalmers, said in relation to Future Made in Australia: We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies and that can be very effective in coming back for more. In other words, the government is creating a cavalcade of lobbyists coming to Canberra with their hand out to take taxpayer funds to pump into businesses which may be uncompetitive or to prop up something that they were going to do anyway. That is Future Made in Australia. I don't think I can do any better a job than quoting the Chair of the Productivity Commission, the government's own adviser on economic and productivity matters. Then, of course, we look at the former head of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, who said that Future Made in Australia was a 'fool's errand.' Mr Banks went on to say that it risks repeating that the mistakes of the past are propping up political favourites. I think it is extraordinary, when you think about the history of this issue and, frankly, the great work that was done by the Hawke government in tearing down the tariff wall and ending the subsidisation of Australian industry, which was very hard to do. All the insiders and all the political dorks will give their opinions about who supported what in the eighties and nineties and how much bipartisanship there was, but there was bipartisanship in the eighties on the idea of reducing the tariff wall and ending subsidisation because it was recognised by people with brains that there were some things that Australia wasn't good at doing. There were some things that we were never going to be able to compete on, and, therefore, the government should not step into the shoes of industry and try to run these businesses for them and prop them up with taxpayers' hard earned money. That debate was won. What was the dividend? It was 30 years of growth. So here we are seeing the government engaging in trampling upon the Hawke legacy. Maybe it is amnesia. My understanding was that the Treasurer had done a doctorate on Paul Keating. If he can still remember that doctorate, he will know that the Treasurer in the Hawke government was Paul Keating. Keating was, of course, an advocate for this approach because he understood the danger of maintaining the settlement which sustained, through government subsidy, uncompetitive businesses. That risked our prosperity then, and this risks our prosperity now by creating a class of businesses which are totally reliant on Canberra's teat. That is the risk with this scheme. I think that is why productivity commissioners past, present and maybe in the future—I don't know—have all taken the view that this is very bad. I commend Ms Wood for being brave enough to exercise her independence in that role and to criticise the Future Made in Australia policy. There are a few examples in the current marketplace. Programs like Solar Sunshot, which apparently has not been supported by the Treasury secretary, has not proven its worth. Furthermore, Fortescue, which is proposing to engage in some green hydrogen initiatives, has decided that it will cut back what it was proposing to do even though this policy has been announced. That is the overall charge against this policy. In Labor's agenda here, one thing that is never far from the surface is a desire to lock in some dollars for their good friends in the trade union movement. They have done this, on this occasion, through the community benefit principles. These were the subject of the Senate economics committee's review of not just the principal legislation but also the legislation that the Senate is now considering in relation to tax credits. The AMWU provided evidence to the initial Senate inquiry, and in relation to the community benefit principles they said: We at the AMWU want well-paid, safe, secure jobs, and that's why the jobs from this should have union agreements; they should be unionised. That was their opinion, and that is exactly what this government is delivering in the form of the community benefit principles. They are proposing that, if there are to be contracts issued under the Future Made in Australia arrangements, they must have union agreements. This is going to be a very ugly moment for the country because, if this is passed by this parliament and a future made in Australia becomes law, then the agreements to give away taxpayer funds to uncompetitive businesses will have, as a condition, a requirement to have a union agreement which saps productivity and ultimately sees what we've been able to have exposed by the Nine newspapers through their building inquiries. The construction industry has a 20 or 30 per cent tax on it imposed by the CFMEU. The productivity drain is there because the union is doing business for itself, not the public interest, and that has certainly had a massive effect on the cost of apartment construction around Australia. What you will see is the CFMEU tax effect applied wherever you see 'Future Made in Australia' appear. It could be anywhere, in any business. Then you'll start to see the Argentinian disease. You'll start to see vested interests infect and entrap the country's economy through this locking in of largesse and vested interests, where they have their grubby mitts in every single transaction. Who's paying? It's the taxpayer. The taxpayer would have to pay for this. In the end, the taxpayer would end up paying for the largesse locked into the legislation. I thought the Minerals Council made a very interesting comment when they came to the secondary inquiry. They made the point that, at the end of the day, they're already meeting a lot of the standards that you see in the legislation and that there'd be duplication through the community benefit principles. I thought there was also some interesting testimony from the Clean Energy Council. Ms Anna Freeman made the following point: We also remain concerned about the potential duplication of process created by the community benefit principles. This is the Clean Energy Council; they have the same view as the Minerals Council and the Business Council. All the business groups have a concern about these community benefit principles. Some of them, fairly, have a concern that they are woolly; others share my concern, which is that you're going to see a CFMEU-isation of the broader economy and the locking in of this largesse. As I said at the opening, none of this should be surprising. The major problem the Australian people have is that they have had a government for three years which has spent its time lining the pockets of its blood-sucking mates in the unions, the super funds and the class-action law firms. They haven't had time to solve the real economic problems facing the Australian people, which is why they've failed on inflation and housing. They are a government for vested interests. When they get out of bed every day, they think about the 10 things they can do for the people who run their preselections, fund their campaigns, talk to them every day and write their policies. That is the problem the Australian people have. That is why we're not on track in this country, because when you run the country for the favour of a few bloodsuckers, you actually do run the show into the ground. That is where we are right now in this country. The Future Made in Australia bill is wonderfully consistent with the past three years of this government's agenda. If you look at anything to do with industrial relations, superannuation or the broader economy, Future Made in Australia is more largesse for unions. But, as I said before, I would encourage Mr Chalmers or Dr Chalmers—whatever he calls himself—to have a read of his doctoral thesis on Mr Keating. In that, he will find that Mr Keating was the Treasurer in the Hawke government which pulled down the tariff wall and ended the subsidisation of Australian industry for the better. I would encourage him to read that. If he's able to rediscover the old dusty thesis, or whatever it was, he will learn a valuable lesson. This is the road to ruin. Not only will it pave the Barton and Federal highways with gold from all the lobbyists and bloodsuckers; it will also establish a massive sovereign risk here. Future ministers and bureaucrats are going to have to work out how to dish all this cash out—billions and millions of dollars every single year. I think this is a bad idea, and I think if the government can set aside all the politics and reflect on what it has learnt in the past couple of years, it may have learnt that it's not a good idea to establish these big funds. Firstly, with the reconstruction fund, no-one knows what we're reconstructing from. That is sitting on tens of billions of dollars and hasn't done anything. Then we've got the housing fund, which spends more money on executive salaries than it does on housing. The government is building vastly fewer houses than were achieved under the past government. Bureaucracies do not build houses. Bureaucracies do not reconstruct from wars, or whatever we've had. I'm not sure why we're having a reconstruction. This will be the same thing. I think that in the end they will regret this plan, because it is fraught with risk, and it fails to learn the lessons of Australia's recent history. Australia will grow if there is a fair dinkum approach to supporting businesses that can stand on their own two feet. Small business, medium business, big business—who cares?—will prosper with clearer taxes, lower taxes and fewer regulations. That is going to be the path to prosperity. The idea of subsidising bad ideas and bad businesses with taxpayer funds and simultaneously allowing them to be funnelled away to the unions, the CFMEU and all the other old mates, is the road to ruin. It is a road to turning Australia into Argentina. That is why we are voting against these bills. I say, for the record, that I think Argentinians are wonderful people. 11:38 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the government's bill to provide Future Made in Australia production tax credits. Only the Liberals could oppose this bill. Production tax credits will be a critical enabler for Australia's renewable hydrogen future and our critical minerals processing sectors. The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will directly support the government's work to accelerate investment in the net zero transition, and it will build economic resilience and security in our country. Renewable hydrogen will be absolutely critical for the production of green metals and the future of manufacturing in this country. While Australia does do a great job of digging and shipping our significant minerals reserves, there are a lot of value-adding and downstream processing opportunities to take advantage of. That's what we want to do, and that's what we will do with this bill. Importantly, these production tax credits will reward production. There are no blank cheques in this bill. There are no complicated guidelines or risks to investment certainty. This bill is simple and it's efficient, and the production tax credits will be applied at tax time. This government is focused on a future made in Australia, a future of making more things in our own backyard right here, on our own shores. It's hard to think why anybody in this chamber wouldn't support that. But the Liberal Party don't. Those opposite have decided to stand against Australian jobs once again. They have decided to stand alone and oppose this bill. They oppose this critical support for Australian industries. They oppose the jobs and the industry across regional Australia that will be supported by this bill. They are saying no to more jobs in Western Australia, no to more jobs in Queensland, and no to jobs in areas like Gippsland in my home state of Victoria. The Liberals, right here today, are choosing to oppose new industries and new job opportunities for Australians, just as they always have. We all remember when they drove Australia's car industry off a cliff. We remember when they cost working class suburbs across our country tens of thousands of jobs in production and in the supply chain. Labor, on the other hand, believe in good, secure jobs. We believe in our manufacturing industry in this country. We believe we can do more than dig and ship. We believe in a future made in Australia. We believe in onshoring jobs that we've lost to overseas. And the Liberals oppose jobs, oppose Australian manufacturing and oppose a future made in Australia. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which I chair, was overwhelmed with support for these production tax credits. Indeed, the Minerals Council of Australia told us, 'We support this bill,' because the bill is going to help to reduce the cost of production for people that develop facilities downstream. And witnesses to the hearing wanted the bill to pass ASAP. The Australian Hydrogen Council told us how keen their members are for this bill to pass, saying: From our perspective and based on the things I've personally heard from members, the most important thing here is to get this bill passed and to get it done in a timely fashion. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia said—and I'm sure my Western Australian colleagues across the chamber will be interested in this: The CME support the swift passage of the bill to implement the CMPTI and HPTI in order to support Australia's investment attractiveness in these strategic industries. The Clean Energy Council labelled the production tax credits 'a no-regrets measure' and urged swift passage. Michele O'Neil, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, endorsed the bill, saying: If we fail to pass this bill, we'll be foregoing to the opportunity to create, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions in domestic economic activity. It really could not be any clearer. Everyone wants this bill to pass, except the Liberals. What this government wants is a future made in Australia. What those opposite, the Liberals, want is a future made overseas. That is what they are coming into the chamber and voting for today. We are getting on with the job of delivering a future made in Australia, of building the jobs and opportunities of the future. As part of that future, it is important that the benefits are shared with the community. Ensuring that our communities feel the real benefits is what the community benefit principles in this bill are about. The community benefit principles are six principles that recipients of Future Made in Australia support must have, including safe and secure jobs, positive outcomes for local communities, support of First Nations communities and traditional owners, strengthening of domestic industrial capabilities, and transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs. Who could oppose that? Who could oppose all of those community benefits? You guessed it—the Liberals. They are the ones in this chamber today opposing a future made in Australia and opposing safe and secure jobs and benefits to local communities. It is these community benefit principles that will ensure our Future Made in Australia agenda has a wider impact and delivers real opportunities for Australian industry, workers, First Nations and our community. This bill is industry building, it is job creating and it's proudly building a future made in Australia, and it must pass. 11:45 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Anyone who is paying attention knows that we are in the midst of a climate emergency. Floods, fires and heatwaves are intensifying, and the window for action is closing fast. Right now in my home state of Victoria, huge fire fronts are being fought in the Grampians and in Little Desert. Firefighters, farmers and emergency services have been working around the clock in hot, unpredictable conditions. We also had a hot December. People might remember that it got to a whopping 47 degrees in the Mallee. Rapid decarbonisation isn't a choice; it's a necessity. The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a step towards this essential transition. This bill encourages investment in renewable hydrogen and critical minerals and expands the remit of Indigenous Business Australia. The Greens welcome government support for clean energy industries and support this bill's intent. Australia has the potential to become a renewable energy superpower. Schemes like the tax credits proposed in this bill are important for creating market confidence and encouraging the investment needed for us to live up to this potential. By supporting renewable hydrogen and the growth of critical minerals, this bill has the potential to boost our economy and create sustainable jobs. The Greens welcome steps towards the renewable transition and support efforts to help workers and communities on the way. But let's be very clear: we cannot fight the fire while continuing to pour fuel on it. Every new coal and gas project that Labor approves takes us further away from a safe climate future. The biggest cause of global warming is the mining, transporting and burning of fossil fuels—that is, coal, oil and gas, as I'm sure everyone in here knows. Scientists agree that the phasing out of fossil fuels is the No. 1 task to halt our planet from cooking and that there can be no new coal or gas projects if we are to avoid climate collapse. But, instead of acting, Labor has green-lit over 30 new coal and gas projects since being elected in 2022. The Albanese government has also committed to a future for gas beyond 2050 in their future gas strategy—2050!—and continues to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into sustaining these polluting industries, including the widely condemned and dangerous Middle Arm precinct. Rather than embracing a truly renewable future, Labor is locking in decades of pollution and accelerating the climate crisis. While Labor have their heads in the sand, the world is reeling from the climate emergency. Last year marked the hottest year on record and the first time ever that the earth's temperature topped 1.5 degrees of global warming, pushing the world further and further into climate catastrophe and away from our international agreements. Meanwhile, in my home state of Victoria, fires ravaged homes, communities and wildlife in the west, destroying precious flora and fauna in the Grampians and shutting down local tourism. At the same time, homes are being destroyed in Melbourne and Geelong by extreme winds and storms. All the while, people across the state are dealing with crippling heatwaves without proper insulation or air-conditioning in their rentals and homes. And, when disaster strikes, Australians aren't just left to pick up the pieces; they're paying the price for Labor's inaction. Instead of protecting people from the worsening impacts of climate change, the Albanese government is fuelling the crisis, approving new coal and gas projects while leaving communities to face rising insurance costs, lost homes and financial ruin. Meanwhile, insurance premiums are skyrocketing, up to 400 per cent in some areas. In Halls Gap, business are finding themselves uninsurable due to risk. Insurance companies are raking in profits and making it impossible for people to insure their homes. Climate risk, fuelled by coal and gas corporations, has broken our insurance system, and it's people in disaster-prone regions who are paying the price. Families already crushed by rising costs face an impossible choice: protect their homes or put food on the table. This is not just a crisis of affordability; it's a crisis of climate failure, and it is entirely preventable. This crisis is personal for me. Growing up in regional Victoria and now living on the shores of Port Phillip Bay, the climate crisis directly threatens my communities, my family and my home. Each year the Labor and Liberals approve and support the expansion of new coal, the risk of rising sea levels, storm surges and fire grows. Meanwhile, fossil fuel giants rake in billions, fuelling disasters that break our insurance system. And what do our governments do? They reward polluters. In the 2022-23 financial year alone, Australian federal and state governments handed out $14½ billion in fossil fuel subsidies, a 31 per cent increase from the previous year—$14½ billion in fossil fuel subsidies, $14½ billion in fuelling the climate crisis. This is money that could have gone to disaster relief, affordable insurance and climate adaptation. Instead, it's going straight to the pockets of coal and gas executives, who knowingly worsen the climate crisis. Let's be clear. This isn't just a Labor problem; the Liberals spent nearly a decade in power dismantling climate policy and making Australia more vulnerable to climate disasters. They gutted funding for our climate resilience programs, ignored repeated warnings from experts and tried to block real action at every single turn. When Scott Morrison waved around a lump of coal in parliament, he was sending a message: the Liberals will always side with fossil fuel companies over the interests of Australian people. The cost of this failure is real. In 2022, Australians claimed over $7 billion in home insurance, almost double the previous record, after floods devastated communities across the east coast. In response, insurance premiums jumped by 14 per cent nationwide, the biggest rise in a decade. In high risk areas, some families are being priced out of coverage altogether. What happens when their homes are destroyed? The government will come and say, 'We can't afford to help,' but they can afford to hand billions of dollars into big coal and gas corporations in the form of subsidies, and it is a disgrace. Australians shouldn't have to bear the cost of a climate crisis they didn't create. It's time to make polluters pay. A levy on coal and gas companies could fund affordable insurance, disaster recovery and resilience projects that actually protect our communities. Because here's the reality: ending new coal and gas projects isn't just about cutting emissions; it's about our survival. It's about ensuring that, when disasters strike, people aren't left homeless, drowning in debt or forced to rebuild from nothing. Australia's future is in clean energy, not in fossil fuels. And a future made in Australia agenda done right is an opportunity to replace our coal and gas exports with green energy and products manufactured right here in Australia. As I said, the Greens support the intent of this bill. It's an important measure to reduce barriers for green industries and set Australia up as a renewable energy superpower. But the Labor government needs to stop sending mixed signals. If the government really wants the critical minerals sector to succeed, it will stop backing new coal and gas projects, because they're going to be competing for the same workers and competing for investment as well as fast tracking climate collapse. Australians deserve better. With more Greens in parliament, they can get better. Unlike Labor and the coalition, the Greens do not take dirty donations from industries like coal and gas. And we are not beholden to the vested interest of billionaires and corporations, and I think this is a theme that's going to run through many speeches this week as we see the massive donations that have been given by the coal and gas lobby, from the gambling industry and from a multitude of other multinational corporations that are funding the major parties, demonstrating to the Australian community their willingness to protect those vested interests over representing everyday Australians. That is why the Greens is the only political party to have a clear plan to phase out of coal and gas and stop fossil fuel subsidies. We know that any effort to reduce the burden of the climate crisis on people and communities is futile without real action to stop fossil fuel corporations. The Greens are proud to have secured significant amendments to the Future Made in Australia bills last year to ensure that no support will be provided to coal, oil and gas under the regime, and commercial investments and programs for Export Finance Australia. Just imagine what we can do with more Greens elected to parliament. We could keep the coalition out of government and hold Labor to account for their broken promises, and for the nature positive laws that completely abandoned the environment in this term of parliament, once again, due to their vested interests. We could push them to actually take real action on climate change, or deliver on nature reforms they promised last election but today have gutlessly scrubbed from the legislative agenda. More Greens in parliament would mean more representatives who listen and vote based on the needs of the people, not profits. So Australia, if you are sick of voting for the same two parties and getting the same result, vote Greens at the next election, and help us to deliver meaningful action to protect our precious climate and precious biodiversity in this country. 11:55 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Well, there you have it from the Greens: the statement of their principles—keep the coalition out of government so they can prop up the Labor Party and have the tail wagging the dog to enact the Greens' economy destroying policies. That is what we will see after the next election unless the Australian people understand the impact of this kind of approach on our economy and actually reflect on what this Labor-Greens alliance has done over the last 2½ years and the damage that it will wreak on the rest of the Australian economy if given the chance to govern in alliance once again. I am going to start today, as I usually have to in these debates, sadly, not talking directly about the bill but by addressing some of the misinformation that comes out of the other side in their contributions, because there is some egregious rewriting of history going on over the other side. The first one I want to address is the idea that we hear over and over again—this insulting idea that Western Australian mining industry is just digging and shipping. 'Digging and shipping' is the phrase they use—you just get a shovel, put something on a boat and that's it. Port Hedland is one of the top-10 largest ports in the world. I would encourage all my colleagues to go and visit it. It is a logistical exercise that is an absolutely extraordinary achievement of people who had vision, people who were able to organise an extraordinary physical undertaking of moving that quantity of material in a 10-metre tidal zone, where you have less than a metre between the bottom of those boats and the channel through which they pass, less than two metres on either side. I have seen those boats because I've been to Port Hedland now a number of times. I would encourage all my colleagues to go and look to understand the extraordinary logistical exercise that encompasses Port Hedland port. If you drive through the Pilbara, down the highway from Broome, through Newman and past Mount Magnet, you will see the extraordinary undertakings of the mining industry right along that road in what is one of the most remote places on this planet. If you go to Perth and you go to some of the control facilities where remote mining equipment is being controlled from Perth with remotely operated machinery, robotic trucks, you will see high-paid, high-skilled jobs in the mining industry of Western Australia. So to characterise it as 'digging and shipping' is an insult to every single one of those West Australians involved in our great visionary and technologically sophisticated mining industry. We are world leaders. We are the best in the world at this industry, and that shouldn't be something that we take for granted. It shouldn't be something we dismiss with a glib three-word phrase. This is the engine room of the Western Australian and the Australian economy. There is no doubt about that. The other piece of misinformation from the other side that I am going to correct, because I think it is important and does reflect on why we oppose this bill, is this nonsense that the coalition were responsible for the demise of the Australian car industry. The Button car plan was responsible for the demise of the Australian car industry. The Button car plan, the Labor Party car plan, of the 1980s entrenched in that industry the union inefficiency that eventually killed it. The Button car plan forced manufacturers to work together to share their technology. So, when you went out and bought a Holden Apollo, you were actually buying a Toyota Camry. They were exactly the same; they just had different badges on them. When you went out to buy a Holden Nova, it was a Toyota Corolla with a different badge on it. This was the Labor Party's car plan. If you went out and bought a Holden Commodore, it was a Toyota Lexcen. This was the Labor Party's car plan. They forced the companies to collude. They forced the companies to share bodies. They forced the companies to share engines. They forced the companies to share drive trains. They entrenched union presence in those plants, and that is what drove the Australian car industry into massive inefficiency, which meant that, in the end, it could not compete globally. It had no chance of competing globally and had no chance of procuring the financial resources needed to invest the capital needed to maintain its place in the world's supply chains. The Labor Party was the death knell of the Australian car industry through overregulation, through overreliance on their mates in the union movement and through forcing companies to try and collude to share engines, to share drive trains and to share bodies. It was a centralised attempt at controlling the Australian economy that failed, because picking winners always fails. Control from the centre always fails over time. It might work for a little while, but, in the end, it fails, because governments cannot make the same judgements over time that markets do. They will make bad decisions. They will find an industry that happens to be in a marginal seat that they start supporting with the best of intentions, perhaps, but, in the end, they cannot withdraw support for that industry, because it will hurt them politically, and that's what you're setting up here. You're picking one particular part of the Australian economy to give this largesse to and to give these taxpayer funded tax breaks to—just one part of the economy. You're not saying to the whole economy: 'Come out. Come and get it. Here's your opportunity; show us the best and the brightest, and we will support that.' No. They're picking winners in the economy, and that is what has always failed throughout the economy history of the last two or three hundred years. One thing that you can bank on is that governments stepping in like this will create failures. It's sad that we see this continual return and continual retreading of this same ground, over and over again. One of the things that was talked about when this idea was being ventilated, was being talked about, in this place, was how important it was because of what was happening in other countries—particularly in the United States, with the Inflation Reduction Act. Well, the new administration in the US has paused funding to, paused spending on, the Inflation Reduction Act. So, if that was one of the chief justifications, that's just been blown out of the water. That should never have been a justification anyway, because you are never going to make Australia's economy strong by chasing other economies down their rabbit holes. It's never going to work. If we want the Australian economy to be strong, we've got to do those things that we know support businesses to invest and be the most productive they can be. And how do we do that? We do that through mechanisms to support broad-scale investment where the companies, the businesses—the small businesses, the medium businesses, the large businesses—have to make an investment decision in their own best interests, such as the instant asset write-off. That's a very important policy, and one that I certainly have championed from this side because it really does give support to those businesses who see an opportunity, no matter what they are—whether they're in an industry that this government decides it wants to pick as a winner, or whether they're a small cafe who wants to invest in a new, more efficient washing machine or cooking apparatus or billing system, or whether they're a small business who sees an opportunity in buying an extra ute to do deliveries with because maybe it's slightly larger, so it can take a little more, or it's slightly more fuel efficient. Things like this, and decisions made by individual businesses, will fuel the productivity improvements we'll need into the future. Under this government, we have seen not just the extraordinary damage done to business by the ratcheting up of inflation, the ratcheting up of interest rates, the massive spike in the cost of living and the massive spike in the cost of doing business in this country. We have seen also a plummeting, a falling off the cliff, of Australian productivity. And that does need to be addressed. I absolutely admit that productivity is one of the key challenges for any government. But this bill isn't going to do it. In fact, through the mechanisms in this bill, we are actually going to see, quite frankly, potentially, things going in the opposite direction. I have spoken before in this place about how this bill has its own Orwellian name, 'Future Made in Australia'. It's a name that sounds to me very much like it was developed by a focus group—and it will be very interesting if that ever comes to light! I suspect it was. But then, within that, we have these 'community benefits principles'—again, a very Orwellian phrase because it really means: What is Labor going to impose on those businesses? What boxes are those businesses going to have to tick to satisfy their Labor government masters to get this money? What does that mean in terms of this government satisfying the wishes of the union movement? It has done that from day one. From the day this government was elected, its main, driving, intellectual rationale has been: 'What does the union movement want, and how can we get it done?' So, once again, we are going to see those sorts of principles embedded in these Orwellianly-titled 'community benefit principles'. We don't know what they're going to look like, because they're going to be made up in regulation after the event. So we don't know what they're going to look like. The companies don't know what they're going to look like. And, quite frankly, it's just another layer of red tape that's being imposed on these businesses. So, on the one hand, you've got this government putting in place new workplace relations laws, new environmental approvals, the safeguard mechanism, changes to company tax, and making things harder on business, and then, on the other, they're trying to give a handout to a very small part of the economy. But the fact is that what we should be doing is trying to help the whole economy. We should be trying to help all parts of business, particularly the small and medium businesses that are under so much pressure at the moment. 12:10 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia A Future Made in Australia is about maximising the opportunities of our goal of net zero for workers and businesses, and, very importantly, securing Australia's position in what is a changing global and strategic landscape. Our journey to net zero is the biggest opportunity in decades. However, a failure to act now—as many commentators important to these industries recognise—would jeopardise our economy and our livelihoods, and the lack of support from the coalition for this bill represents a real risk to our future. The global path to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector and is indeed paved with Western Australia's critical minerals, because these resources are needed by the world—resources produced sustainably. We want to see smart, sensible approaches to cutting emissions. We want to create thousands of secure jobs in my home state of Western Australia. These minerals are needed for solar panels, storage batteries, wind turbines. The world cannot transition to net zero without them. However, critical minerals are also needed for so many other industries. Perhaps it is the opposition's ideological crusade against renewables and net zero that is seeing them not support this legislation. However, even if that was your frame, these critical minerals are needed by Australia and the world. They're vital components in communications, advanced technology and defence applications. They are also directly relevant for the national security of Australia and its allies. A lack of diversity in existing supply chains currently represents a very real risk to our security. Currently, we ship critical minerals overseas to be refined before they can be manufactured into solar panels, storage batteries, phones, computers, wind turbines and defence equipment. We have highly concentrated supply chains in the world. These undercut our sovereign capability and lead to jobs and investment leaving Australia. We are missing out on all the jobs that can and should be created by building processing facilities in Australia and operating these facilities here. Building a booming critical minerals industry will boost Western Australia's economy and create secure jobs in the very important resources sector. We have an absolute abundance of projects ready to go in Western Australia that could get off the ground with the right support. There are more than 38 listed projects already in Western Australia. Coalition senators opposite are failing to represent these projects and Western Australia's ambitions to move up the supply chain with our exports. Western Australians know—although much of the rest of the country doesn't always recognise it—that we are the engine room of the Australian economy, but the nation cannot take this for granted. We must innovate and invest in the future of these industries in our state. If we do, we will turbocharge the resources sector and create jobs. The Albanese government's last budget delivered the most significant initiatives for the future of Australia's resources in a generation, an agenda that is visionary. But those opposite have their heads in the sand. You offer a policy vacuum—a long list of noes. Peter Dutton said no to cost of living relief, no to higher wages, no to cheaper medicines and, in this case, no to an investment in more jobs in Western Australia. So let's be clear. Having production tax credits for critical minerals is a zero-risk approach for Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Pratt, unfortunately—I apologise—I must interrupt you. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Road Safety, Workplace Relations, Taxation 28 12:15 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, is coming after truck drivers this election. Last year, 57 truck drivers tragically lost their lives on our roads. Year after year, road transport is the deadliest industry in this country. For almost a decade, the Liberal-National government did nothing to try and stop the carnage and bloodshed on our roads, but, one year ago, the Albanese government passed life-saving transport reform with the support of the largest small-business organisation in Australia, the Transport Workers Union; major road transport employer groups like the Australian Road Transport Industry Organisation and NatRoad; the National Road Freighters Association; and even retailers like Coles and Woolworths. That's how the legislation was passed. The only groups who were opposed to life-saving road transport reforms were those who profit from that bloodshed: dodgy operators like Aldi and BHP and billionaires like Gina Rinehart. These dodgy outfits don't want to pay truck drivers enough to feed their families or keep their trucks safely maintained. They want to force them to work themselves literally to death. These are the sorts of shonks who bankroll the Liberal and National parties, so, of course, Mr Dutton and all his mates voted against it. Rob Ireland, a truck driver for 20 years, told the Senate last year: To stay awake on the road, I turned to methamphetamines … eight hours of sleep a week is what I lived on … Once I was awake for 13 days straight … Another time I thought I had run off the highway because I had fallen asleep. I sat bolt upright and grabbed for the gearstick and the steering wheel. My wife grabbed my face and let me know I was in my bed. I dreamt I had fallen asleep … That's the system that Dutton's opposition voted to maintain. It's not just truck drivers that he wants to throw under the bus. Nineteen gig workers have died on our roads since 2017 because of the exorbitant demands of their work. Labor reforms are helping them get a safety net for the very first time. The TWU and employer representatives are working through implementing these reforms at the Fair Work Commission. But, if Mr Dutton wins the next election, he will tear it all down and throw truckies and gig workers to the wolves. Hardworking Aussies in mining, transport, warehousing, meat processing, manufacturing and so many other industries have fought for years to achieve same job, same pay for labour hire. For years, dodgy outfits like Qantas and BHP used labour hire to dodge their workforce agreements and pay people less. We saw hardworking miners, flight attendants and many others being moved to labour hire. They were working alongside direct employees, doing exactly the same job, but getting just half the pay. One year ago, because of the years of campaigning, Labor passed same job, same pay. Over the last 12 months, we have seen massive pay rises thanks to that rort being closed. Thousands of mine workers in New South Wales, Queensland and elsewhere have seen pay rises of up to $35,000 a year. Meat-processing workers in Queenslanders have had a 42 per cent pay rise. Warehouse workers at Kmart have won pay rises of almost $12 an hour. As we speak, the Mining and Energy Union is fighting BHP in the Fair Work Commission for the right to have the application of same job, same pay. Brodie Allen, a BHP mine worker in Queensland, told the Senate last year: I've been … in the industry for seven years. I've been labour hire the entire time, so I go in and do the same job as everybody else, but I'm paid $40,000 less a year to do the exact same thing. That's a blatant rip-off by the richest company in Australia. The Albanese government has put a stop to that. But Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, and the rest of his Liberals and Nationals, voted against same job, same pay because his multibillion-dollar paymasters like BHP and Gina Rinehart didn't want their rort to end. We know, if Mr Dutton wins the next election, he's coming after same job, same pay, and he's coming after your wages, just like he's coming after Labor's right to disconnect, which means you'll be working more overtime without pay. And he's coming after dozens of other reforms that Labor has made to grow wages and make jobs more secure. His plan for working families is to have you working longer hours for less wages. Under Mr Dutton, you'll be worse off. I want to also talk about the Labor landmark reforms to grow wages and make jobs more secure. Those are our reforms for multi-employer bargaining. Fast-food workers, as we speak, are constantly some of the lowest paid employees in Australia, and Macca's employees are the lowest paid of them all. Most of them only receive the minimum award wage because for years McDonald's management has refused to come to the table with the SDA, the shop assistants' union, and Macca's workers and bargain in good faith. That's about to change. The union for retail and fast-food workers, the SDA, has made a landmark application to allow Macca's employees across 14 different franchisees in South Australia to bargain together. If that application is successful, thousands of Macca's workers across South Australia will finally be able to have a say over their pay and conditions and get a well-deserved pay rise. Macca's are opposing the application, of course. They have an awful track record of attacking their employees' rights. In fact, at the same time Macca's are fighting to stop their workers from bargaining; they are being sued by the SDA in the Federal Court in one of the biggest wage theft cases in Australia's history. As everyone knows, if you're working a shift of four hours or more, you're entitled to a 10-minute break. For years Macca's around the country deliberately denied their employees their legal right to have a break. It's an outrageous rip-off worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Then, on top of that, Macca's supervisors come in 30 minutes early and stay 30 minutes later after their shifts without pay. That's an hour of wage theft on every shift. As one former Macca's supervisor said, 'If I didn't get to work 30 minutes early, I would be called in for a meeting and receive a warning from my manager.' The world's richest fast-food company thinks it can exploit young Aussies, and guess who wants to help them. Just guess who it is. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, has committed to repealing the multi-employer bargaining reforms. That will mean every Macca's worker in Australia will be locked into the minimum wage and not a cent more. The only way to stop Mr Dutton, the Hamburgler of Macca's, stopping Macca's workers in Australia getting an increase is to make sure he's not voted in at the next election. Australians will be worse off under Mr Dutton. While Mr Dutton's recipe for workers in Australia is a pay cut, he's cooking up something much more palatable for billionaire paymasters. He's going to spend as much as $10 billion per year on $20,000 taxpayer subsidised corporate long lunches, golf days—I don't know whether strip clubs are included as well, but it's entertainment, heaven forbid! Remember, the next time you're having a meal with your boss, if Mr Dutton wins the next election, you'll be paying for it. Your taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for your boss's lunch. It goes to show where Dutton's priorities really are—tax breaks for Gina Rinehart's lunches and pay cuts to Aussie workers. You'll be worse off under a Dutton government, and you'll see Gina Rinehart's fun packed party coming to every billionaire through the pay packets of every worker paying for it—$20,000 to turn around and have a fun party at all your expense! That's the future under him—lower wages and fewer rights for the working people, for Australians and for supervisors. Macca's will be happy, because they'll have one more party, all at your expense. Bureau of Meteorology 29 12:25 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On 19 September 2023, the Bureau of Meteorology—who we all lovingly refer to as the BOM, despite their failed attempt at changing their brand during desperate floods—announced that an El Nino event was pending. By January 2024, the headline on the ABC read 'Farmers frustrated after destocking following BOM's incorrect El Nino forecast'. Sky News had 'BOM's El Nino predictions "cost a lot of farmers a lot of money"'. This one from Beef Central asked the crucial question 'Did BOM's El Nino forecast bomb the 2023 cattle market?' The BOM's forecasts are crucial to regional Australia, not just for farmers and agricultural businesses but also for our communities. At the time, despite people saying that the bureau's predictions were horrifically inaccurate, people were cutting the BOM some slack. One Victorian farmer quoted by the ABC at the time said he did not hold the BOM solely responsible as it provides, after all, a forecast, not gospel. But I wonder how those people feel now, after reading a report by the Australian National Audit Office. It turns out that the BOM has been scrimping on its asset management and maintenance program. The BOM is responsible for providing weather, water, climate and ocean services across Australia and also to overseas clients. They currently have an operating budget of $440 million a year from the federal government, plus about $100 million annually from external sources through commercial enterprises. It should be managing $1.3 billion in non-financial assets, and the observing network assets make up approximately 28 per cent of the bureau's total asset base. The bureau conducted a body of work between 2018 and 2020 to model the cost of their asset management and maintenance program. They made a pitch for extra funding for this, which was duly granted in the 2021-22 budget by the former Liberal and Nationals government to the tune of $225.6 million in additional funding over three years, converting to $143 million each year after that, over 10 years, to maintain a proactive asset maintenance schedule consistent with industry best practice. Four years on, we read the ANAO report, which has found that the BOM has not monitored or reported on whether the money for maintenance is actually being spent on keeping its asset base in order. The enterprise asset management plan approved in 2020 has not been reviewed since. The enterprise asset management system, known as EAMS and used for observing network assets and related IT equipment, was rolled out in 2021, with data transfer completed by 2022. Yet the ANAO report says: In May 2024, the Bureau advised the ANAO that it is not yet able to rely on information from EAMS to report accurately on the performance of assets in its observing network. The draft inventory management plan for replacement parts, which was drafted in 2022, remained in draft form for the next two years. Planned maintenance targets have not been met, instruments are failing to return data and assets have reached or are beyond the end of their useful life. Meanwhile, the bureau is overseeing cost overruns on key projects, including the ROBUST computer data and security program. In estimates hearings, the bureau has repeatedly obfuscated about the cost overruns of the ROBUST program. I must commend Greens senator Barbara Pocock for her investigation and interrogation of the BOM on this issue. The final cost for ROBUST—well, is it final? The bureau's chief, Dr Andrew Johnson, has admitted there's still probably 10 per cent more work to be done. But we do know from costings that were released in September last year that the final cost was $866 million, which is almost $100 million over the original budget. Yet successive governments continue to trust the bureau to deliver. From 2007 to 2017, according to a piece of work by the Weekly Times,which calculated every time we've given the bureau money to develop a go-to water data hub build, time and time again, as a single source of truth, the total is $450 million. That is an incredible amount of money, yet people working in the water industry say they never look at the bureau for water market data information. In 2022, yet again, in the Water market reform: final roadmap report it was recommended that the bureau be given responsibility to develop and implement a data systems framework to include a single national water data hub. So they've been funded from 2007 through to 2017 to develop a single-source-of-truth water data hub, yet we've got recommendations from other agencies that we need a single water data hub, and they're suggesting BOM should do it. I question whether BOM are the right people, given they've already received $450 million and what they've produced is a webpage that no-one looks at, is out of date, reports behind other agencies' websites and is failing on every level. Credit to Dr Johnson, he must be the best salesman out there. He is still going to the government and saying, 'Let us be the experts in the room.' Following the incredible flood events in 2022-23, I asked the BOM who owns all the flood gauge networks in Australia. The answer is multiple agencies. Some are local government, some are private enterprise, some are state government, some are bureau, but they've managed to put the pinch to government, which was accepted, for $236 million for a national ten-year program to enable the bureau to acquire and upgrade flood infrastructure, including high-priority rain and river gauges and supporting communications equipment. On the surface, a single owner of the flood gauge network would be sensible, but, after reading the ANAO report, how can I have confidence that the bureau are the right people to do that job? We've seen their performance from the Lismore floods—appalling. People were reading the BOM's forecast and went to bed one night being told they had two days before the flood peak would reach and it still would still not exceed historic records, and then, at 5 am the next morning, the police knocking on their door telling them to get out and the flood peaking within 24 hours of those people going to bed. The trauma is still palpable. We've seen similar failures in Victoria, in Rochester, Seymour and Echuca. In January 2023, the township of Menindee flooded despite the bureau not picking it up, because they say the Talyawalka Creek, whose swollen flows were coming into the system, is ungauged, yet this same agency has access to satellite systems that can actually monitor when a farmer is illegally diverting water from the system. So do we trust the BOM to get it right? I accept and acknowledge that the minister has now asked the BOM for an urgent briefing to get to the bottom of what's gone wrong. But the ANAO report is absolutely enlightening reading, and I hope Dr Johnson comes to the next estimates prepared to answer questions. Federal Election 31 12:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Soon, people around the country will be going to the polls to vote in our federal election. The Greens think that in a wealthy country like ours everyone should have a liveable climate and be able to afford the basics: a home, food, and world-class health and education. We think that parliament should be helping renters and stressed-out mortgage holders, funding universal health care and education, and taking real action on the climate and environment crisis, not backing more coal and gas. Right now, hardworking people are paying way too much for the basics, while one in three big corporations pays no tax at all. The major parties are tinkering around the edges of the problems that people face. In the middle of a housing crisis, both big political parties agree on giving $176 billion in taxpayer funded handouts, negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to wealthy property investors. Renters and first home buyers don't stand a chance. In the middle of a climate crisis, the Labor government has approved 32 coal and gas projects, and the opposition leader is proposing expensive, dangerous nuclear that will just prop up coal and gas for decades longer. We can't keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. There is another choice. The Greens will keep Dutton's Liberals out and push Labor to act to make the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share to fund the things that we all need: dental care and mental health care into Medicare; a cap on rent increases; offering low-rate mortgages; seeing the GP for free; and real climate action, not more coal and gas. More Greens in parliament will deliver better outcomes for the planet and for ordinary people. In this parliament, the Greens have achieved $3 billion for social housing; $1.7 billion for household electrification; and energy upgrades for 50,000 social homes around the country, saving residents $1,800 a year in power bills. We've achieved the legal right to disconnect from work; the adding of superannuation to paid parental leave, significant changes to the climate safeguard mechanism to stop many of the new coal and gas projects that were in the pipeline; and the freezing of low-integrity offsets projects, and the putting in place of a declining hard cap on the scheme to make sure that Australia's actual pollution goes down. We excluded fossil fuels from the manufacturing package Future Made in Australia. We inserted a water trigger into our federal environmental laws to force gas fracking projects to actually assess their impact on water. We got protection for the Murray-Darling Basin. Our sustained pressure forced the government to modify Scott Morrison's deeply unfair stage 3 tax cuts. And we pushed for better access to reproductive health care and better federal policy on perimenopause and menopause for women—and we're just getting started. With more Greens MPs and senators than ever before, we've helped people get better outcomes on housing, domestic violence, immigration and disability services. Just recently, intervention by my staff team escalated a social housing application for a single mum of three young kids who had been waiting over eight months for any progress at all. They were living in mould riddled emergency hotel accommodation, and they were getting sicker by the day. Just one day after we intervened on her behalf the mother was contacted with a social housing offer. We regularly support survivors of domestic and family violence by successfully advocating to have their family tax benefit debts wiped. We secure them social housing and we link them to support services. To quote a survivor of violence that my office helped secure housing for: I was in a dire situation and didn't know where to go for help, until a friend suggested I contact your office. Everything your office has done to support me is beyond what I thought was possible. I am so grateful to have a politician like you representing me. It's my absolute pleasure. Australia's immigration system keeps families unnecessarily separated for years, sometimes decades, causing immeasurable heartbreak for families whose overseas relatives end up missing significant events like weddings, funerals or the birth of their first grandchild. My office has escalated countless delayed visa applications and successfully reunited families in time for those milestone moments. Every week, we hear from NDIS participants struggling to access crucial services that they cannot live without. Without the Greens escalating their cases, these participants could lose access to essential support workers or the mobility equipment they need to be safe. Each one of these stories 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. The Greens are fighting for solutions to genuinely solve the big issues—the climate and environment crisis, the housing crisis and the cost-of-living crisis—not just tinker around the edges. We're working to bring down the cost of groceries and to make sure that everyone has a place to call home. We're working to stop new coal and gas projects and to reduce energy bills and create jobs by transitioning to 100 per cent renewable energy. As always, we're working to protect the environment and wildlife, to end native forest logging and to protect critical habitat. We want to prioritise our public health services, bringing dental and mental health into Medicare and making sure that everyone can see the GP for free. We're working to wipe all student debt and make education genuinely free, from child care right through to TAFE and university—like it used to be. We're fighting for better rights and for higher and equal pay for workers. We want to restore the billions that Labor has cut from the NDIS and lift income support to make sure that no-one in this wealthy country is living below the poverty line. We're fighting for truth, treaty and justice in allyship with First Nations communities, for a country free from discrimination and for a genuinely antiracist Australia. We're deeply committed to peace and global justice and will continue to call for an end to Israel's illegal occupation in Gaza and for freedom for Palestine. We know these solutions work and would make life better for millions of people. Change doesn't happen overnight, but the first step is to vote for someone who is working for it. The Greens will always fight to deliver better outcomes for ordinary people because we don't take donations from big corporations. Instead of working for the public, Labor and the Liberals have taken over $260 million in corporate donations from those big corporates over the last 10 years, including from coal and gas companies and property developers. That's what the annual donations data, released this week, confirmed. It's those same big corporations that are making donations that are buying influence for their own private profits. They donate because it gets them results. Fossil fuel donations to both big parties continue, and it's no surprise that, in return, the government of the day continues to approve new coal and gas projects and continues to give $11 billion of public money, every year, in subsidies to fossil fuel companies, turbocharging climate destruction. The Greens will continue to push for a ban on donations from dirty industries seeking to influence government policy, like coal and gas, the banks, big pharma, the pokies and alcohol lobbies, tobacco and property developers. Democracy should not be for sale. We need to get big corporations and billionaires out of politics. Housing is a human right, but the big parties don't seem to think so. Property developers make huge donations to political parties, and, in return, Labor and the Liberals are giving $176 billion in taxpayer handouts, including negative gearing, to wealthy property investors. Renters and first home buyers do not stand a chance. The Greens are fighting for renters and for people trying to buy a home. Our plan will actually tackle the housing crisis, not just tinker around the edges. We would make unlimited rent increases illegal. We would require the banks to deliver low-rate mortgages. We would scrap the tax handouts, negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts for property investors with more than one property, and we would fund a government build of good-quality homes, sold and rented at a price that people can actually afford. Thanks to the Greens' negotiations, people in 50,000 public and community homes will receive life-changing energy upgrades, which will save them approximately $1,800 a year on their power bills. We secured $500 million to electrify Australian homes, starting with those most in need, cutting power bills and pollution at the same time. Now, if you're worried about the climate and environment crisis, you're not alone. North Queensland has just faced yet another devastating flood, and it's a scary indication of the extreme weather events that will become more frequent and more dangerous as the climate crisis is turbocharged by the big parties' addiction to coal and gas. Coal and gas are the major causes of the crisis, but both big parties are backing more. We've had 32 more coal and gas projects approved, and the opposition is proposing expensive nuclear, which would just prop up fossil fuels longer. We can't keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. If you want strong climate action and protection for nature, vote Green. Queensland: Floods, Cost of Living 32 12:45 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the outset I'll say that my thoughts and prayers are with those people in my home state of Queensland who are suffering with the devastating floods hitting the Townsville region and hitting towns like Ingham. We're thinking of you. Your Queensland representatives are thinking of you. You're in our hearts and minds. I thank all of the emergency services workers, volunteers and community leaders, who are doing the best they can in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The people of Ipswich and the Somerset region are suffering. Under the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis, the people of Ipswich and the Somerset region are suffering the highest financial stress in the whole of Queensland. Under the Albanese Labor government, across 151 regions in this country, the people of Ipswich and the Somerset region—and my office is located in the great Ipswich region—are ranked No. 12 out of 151 across the whole country for financial stress. It's not just me saying it; this is the result of analysis undertaken for Four Corners on the ABC and which was broadcast on Monday night. The analysis was undertaken by the University of New South Wales and consulting firm Digital Finance Analytics. This is not my analysis; this is independent analysis by independent experts. It is saying that the people of Ipswich and the people of the Somerset region are suffering the highest financial stress of any region across the whole of my home state of Queensland. What does this analysis show? In 2021, under the coalition government, only eight per cent of federal electorates had a majority of households under financial stress, fewer than one in 10. Now, today, as we are in this chamber, the figure has risen from eight per cent of electorates to 82 per cent. Over eight in 10 electorates across this country have a majority of households suffering under financial stress due to the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis. In the Ipswich and Somerset region, 77.8 per cent of households are under financial stress. That means they are barely covering the necessities of life—housing, clothing and food—and have hardly anything else left over. That's 77.8 per cent of households in the Ipswich region and the Somerset region that are under financial stress. That's more than three in four households. If you walk down a street in Ripley, up the road from my office, or in Booval or Leichhardt, the people living in three out of four homes are under financial stress. Under the coalition government, it was fewer than three in 30. That's what we've got now in my region of Ipswich. If you walk down a street in Ripley, Booval or Leichhardt, the people living in three out of four homes are under financial stress. Let's not forget the people in the Somerset region. It is the same if you walk down a street in Lowood, Fernvale, Esk or Kilcoy: the people living in three out of four homes are under financial stress. These are absolutely devastating figures, and they're due to the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis—high interest rates, skyrocketing rent and appalling economic management. The figures speak for themselves. Ipswich and the Somerset region have the 12th-worst figures across the whole country and the worst in Queensland. Let's go through those figures. Seventy-seven point eight per cent of households are suffering financial stress. Sixty-six per cent with mortgages are suffering financial stress—that's two-thirds of households with a mortgage under financial stress to meet the basic necessities of life in my region. Listen to this figure. This is devastating: 91.1 per cent of households who are renting in the greater Ipswich region or Somerset region are suffering financial stress. Over nine out of ten households renting in my region, the greater Ipswich region, where my office is based, can barely cover the necessities of life—shelter, food and clothing. That is an appalling state of affairs. These are the worst figures in the whole of Queensland. Out of the 30 seats in this parliament representing the state of Queensland, the financial stress in Ipswich and Somerset are the worst, in my home state of Queensland. Across the whole of Australia there are 151 seats in the Australian parliament, and that region, where my office is based, ranks 12th for financial stress. The people of the Ipswich and Somerset regions are good people. They're great people. They love their community, they're hardworking and they're generous of spirit, but they're suffering terribly under the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis. I have spoken about these issues in this place before the Four Corners documentary aired Monday night. I want to quote some of the figures which I discovered through the Parliamentary Library in relation to mortgage repayments. For an average house in Ripley, where there are many first home buyers, the average increase in mortgage repayments has been $1,440 a month, or $17,280 a year. That's a 76.4 per cent increase compared to when the coalition was in government. For an average house in Raceview, the increase is $1,300, or $15,600 a year, a 79 per cent increase. But the impact is across the whole Ipswich region. Some of the biggest percentage increases are at the most affordable end of the market. For example, monthly mortgage repayments on an average unit in Brassall have increased by $1,078 a month, a staggering increase of 98.5 per cent, under the Labor government. They've nearly doubled. The Somerset region is just as bad in terms of financial stress. For an average house in Esk, the cost of a monthly mortgage repayment has increased by $1,431. That's a 122.2 per cent increase in mortgage repayments in Esk, which is within the Somerset region. These are devastating figures. When you look at the soaring rents in the Ipswich region, it's just as bad. You can see why the documentary referred to the 91.1 per cent—over nine in 10 households—that are renting in the Ipswich and Somerset region that are under financial stress. For a one-bedroom flat in Ipswich, the most basic accommodation for a person in my community, the cost of renting in June 2022 was $265 a week. That has increased in the space of two years to $350 a week, an increase of $85 a week, 14.9 per cent, or $4,420 a year, extra in rent. That's why more than nine out of ten households in the greater Ipswich region who are renting are under financial stress. They can barely afford or not even afford the basic necessities of life—housing, clothing and food. If you have a large family in Ipswich and you're renting a three-bedroom house, the average rent has gone up by $5,720 a year. It's just as bad in the Somerset region. If you go to places like Lowood, Esk or Fernvale, more than nine out of ten households renting are under financial stress. The cost to rent a four-bedroom house in the Somerset region has gone up by $6,760 a year. That's devastating for those families in my region. The people of Ipswich and the people of Somerset are suffering under this Albanese Labor government cost-of-living crisis. They're suffering. At the next federal election, the people of Ipswich have a choice. The LNP candidate for Blair is Carl Mutzelburg. Carl has lived and raised a family in Ipswich. His family are part of the Ipswich community. He knows the financial stress that the people of Ipswich are suffering because he sees it on the ground every day, and he has worked to help people in need in Ipswich his whole life. The people of Ipswich have suffered enough; the people of Somerset have suffered enough. Let's get Australia back on track. Queensland: Floods 34 12:55 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise today with a heavy heart to speak about the devastating floods currently impacting communities across north and Far North Queensland. In a matter of days, relentless monsoonal rainfall has caused rivers to swell beyond their banks, submerging homes, businesses and vital infrastructure. Thousands of residents from Townsville to Tully have been impacted by this weather event. Tragically, this disaster has already claimed the lives of two women in Ingham. It's a heartbreaking reminder of the danger that these floods pose to our communities. I extend my deepest sympathies to their families and loved ones and to everyone affected by this catastrophe. I also want to extend my gratitude to all of the first responders, SES volunteers, emergency services personnel and the Australian Defence Force members, who have worked around the clock to save lives and provide assistance. We know that you are the backbone of our communities. We owe you an enormous amount of gratitude. The scale of this disaster requires a swift and coordinated response from all levels of government. The Albanese Labor government has already activated emergency assistant payments, ensuring that affected families can access immediate financial support. Today, we've made two very important announcements to assist in the recovery of this disaster. Our government is providing financial support through the Disaster Recovery Allowance. The DRA offers up to 13 weeks of income support for eligible workers and sole traders who have suffered a loss of income as a direct result of flooding in the local government areas of Burdekin, Cassowary Coast, Hinchinbrook, Palm Island and Townsville. I urge residents in those areas to check their eligibility through the Services Australia website. We've also made a significant announcement in the last hour. The Albanese Labor government is providing assistance to ensure there is a temporary structure to reconnect flood impacted communities to the Bruce Highway. Part of the Ollera Creek Bridge connecting Townsville and Ingham fled into floodwater on Sunday afternoon after more than 1,400 millilitres of rain fell in the area over the weekend. This particularly impacted communities between Townsville and Ingham because the highway provides direct connectivity and emergency services, and it ensures supply to those communities. Today, it's really pleasing to see that the Australian Defence Force will be working with the Queensland government and QRA authorities to work out how to safely deliver a temporary bridge structure in what continue to be challenging conditions. If feasible, the temporary bridge will be a single-lane structure to allow vehicle access. I know that this is really welcome news for people in north Queensland. On top of that, our government has five national helicopters supporting state and emergency services in north Queensland, providing support as needed such as the delivery of food, supplies and animal feed to isolated communities. We will continue to work closely with the state and local governments to ensure that aid reaches those who need it most. I want to thank Minister McAllister for the work she's doing to support our communities on the ground. I thank the Queensland government for the work they have done. North Queenslanders are resilient. I'm so proud of the communities that are rallying together and looking out for one another, but, as the rain starts to slow down, the water starts to recede and the repairs begin, I want those communities in north Queensland to know this: our government stands with you. We will be with you every step of the way as you recover, rebuild and strengthen our communities for the future. North Queenslanders are very tough, and we are used to tough conditions, but this has been a very difficult time, and I thank the Senate for recognising this difficult time for our community in north Queensland. We will get through it, stick together and rebuild. Federal Election 34 12:59 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria This could be one of the last speeches I deliver before being up for re-election in my home state of Victoria. I grew up in regional Victoria, and I've seen firsthand how policies affect regional lives. I have seen community coming together in drought, extreme weather and economic downturn. One of my biggest frustrations about politics in this country is that it's from places where the Greens are needed most that some of the most conservative climate criminal MPs sitting in this place come. I've sat in the Senate for less than a year, and over that time I've seen a Labor government tick off new fossil fuel projects—three coal expansions in one day, which I thought was a pretty significant effort—I've seen a PM purchase a luxury coastal property while state Labor bulldozes public housing developments in my state of Victoria, and I've seen the Labor Party laugh at the idea of a rent cap when many families across this country are one rental payment away from sleeping in their car. What scares me most, though, is the prospect of a Dutton government. Let's be clear. If Dutton sneaks into government, it won't be because of any nation-building agenda; it'll be because of a campaign designed to attack those most vulnerable in our society, such as refugees, the queer community and casual workers. Forget about that right to disconnect that the Greens fought so strongly for if Peter Dutton gets elected. Things are bad, but we know they would be worse under Peter Dutton. That's why we are running a huge campaign all across Victoria and the country to put the Greens in the balance of power and to keep Dutton's hatred out of government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Hodgins-May, could you just refer to people in the other place by their proper title, please. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 To keep Mr Dutton's hatred out of government. In seats including Macnamara, Cooper, Wills, Fraser and Casey in Victoria, we are running huge-scale campaigns where people have the chance to elect a Greens representative. This election is closer than you think. For those watching on from home, a handful of votes could decide whether the Liberals win power or whether the Greens hold the balance of power to push for the change that we need. When the Greens are in the balance of power, we use it to deliver results that actually help people. Together, we can hold the next government accountable and ensure they tackle the climate crisis, make housing affordable and get dental care into Medicare. But we are up against it. While the major parties have their hands out to Coles and Woolies, taking millions in dodgy corporate donations, including from the fossil fuel industry and the gambling sector, we're supercharging a people powered campaign right across Victoria and this country, talking to voters one conversation at a time. The major parties, though, rely on our complacency. They're trying to drown out any hope that exists for change. They know they're on the way out, and you can feel it on the ground. People are sick of the two-party system. When people ask why voting Greens makes a difference, I like to point to what we have already achieved. Without the Greens, we wouldn't have marriage equality. We wouldn't have the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or kids' dental in Medicare. We led the push for royal commissions into banking and the disability sector, and we've fought for climate action at every level of government. In the balance of power, we'll deliver even more, like ending coal and gas, freezing rent increases and making mental health care accessible to everyone who needs it. How will we do this? We will do it by taxing the billionaires and the corporates, who are paying less tax than teachers and nurses in this country—what a great shame! This election is our chance to change the system and to fight for a future where no-one is left behind and the needs of people and the planet come first. Every door knocked on, every conversation and every vote for the Greens brings us all closer to that vision. Before the election in 2022, Labor dangled the carrot of environmental reform. They promised Australia that with a Labor government we would see stronger nature laws—laws that would work for our wildlife, our forests and the places we love. They promised a national environmental watchdog to hold corporations to account for their environmental degradation. The Greens were ready and willing to work with Labor. We were ready to achieve these critical nature reforms and to ensure that our climate and forests were protected. Yet here we are, nearly three years later, and, in the final weeks of parliament before the federal election, Prime Minister Albanese has recklessly abandoned these promises and scrubbed nature laws from the Senate agenda. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry vetoed them. This is an insult to every single Australian who trusted Labor to deliver change. It is a betrayal of our environment, traditional owners and future generations. What has become increasingly clear is that at the next election, if we want change and if we want to protect our environment and fight for people, we need to vote for it. Albanese Government 35 13:04 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania In the last almost three years, the Albanese government have faced a global inflation challenge and yet, as a government, we have delivered two budget surpluses, reduced inflation from six per cent, which is what we inherited from the former Liberal government, to two per cent, while also implementing historic reforms. Since coming to government, we haven't wasted a single day, helping Australians to build a more secure future for themselves and their families with tax cuts that were double that offered by Mr Dutton. The government legislated permanent tax cuts for all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers from 1 July last year, with the average annual tax cut being $1,888. I listened to the Greens senator there, taking credit for everything that they believe that they have achieved. There are 76 senators in here. I can assure you that the Greens' contribution hasn't been as stellar as what was painted this morning. The Greens teamed up with the Liberal opposition to stop the Future Fund and the $10 billion going into housing for months. In fact, for a whole Senate week, they joined together to stop us from having a vote. They didn't want to vote against the bill, but they stopped us from having the vote. The reality is that this government has been addressing the cost of living. When those opposite argue that we are against aspiration, I just don't understand that argument from them because there's been $300 in energy bill relief and cheaper child care to support families so that women can return to the workforce, saving families $2,000 a year. There's been cheaper medicines, saving Tasmanians in my home state $9 million already, 60-day dispensing, five Medicare urgent care clinics, diverting patients away from emergency departments, tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, expanding paid parental leave to 26 weeks by July 2026 and paying superannuation on paid parental leave by 2025. There's fee-free TAFE, supporting local manufacturing with the Future Made in Australia plan and our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will build 20,000 new social and affordable houses. And yet Mr Dutton has said no. Those opposite voted against every single one of those measures. They're not interested in nation-building policies like we have had ever since we came into government. We're about building for the future instead of joining forces with the Greens, as the Liberals have done, to stop building those houses for Australians who desperately need them. That's the record of the Liberals and the Greens. So don't buy them saying, 'We would do more for renters.' It's about getting people into homes so that mums and dads and their kids are safe and secure, with a roof over their heads. At a time of energy transition and insecurity globally, we have started to implement the largest change to Australia's energy market since the industrial revolution. This is nation-building reform which will set Australia up with renewable energy. We'll become a superpower and generate cheaper energy. But the alternative from Mr Dutton is nuclear power, not until—what?—2040. Then it's actually going to increase the cost of power. We know two things about Mr Dutton. There are only two policies that he's outlined that you can take for granted. One is that he wants to go ahead with nuclear power. Don't worry about what the experts say! Don't worry about the cost of building that or what it's going to cost you as a mum and dad at home for power! But also what he's going to do is give free long lunches back to bosses. Who's going to pay for that? Taxpayers are going to pay for that. I'm proud of the government and what we have done in terms of making sure that Tasmanians have access to urgent care clinics. All they need when they go there is their Medicare card. They don't need a credit card. We're strengthening Medicare. We know Mr Dutton's record when it comes to health. He cut $20 billion out of health when he was Minister for Health. He was voted the worst health minister in Australia's history. There's one thing you can be sure of: you will be worse off if Mr Dutton wins the election. (Time expired) Universities, Public Sector Governance 36 13:09 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania We need to put an end to the culture of obscene entitlement at the top of our universities and federal bureaucracy. This is what my bills will do. A big shout-out to the former senator Rex Patrick for working with me over the summer on this. In 2023, the Group of Eight vice-chancellors, the self-proclaimed elite of our tertiary education sector, averaged close to $1.3 million a year in salaries and generous entitlements, often including luxurious housing. More than a dozen vice-chancellors are on $1 million packages. With few exceptions, other vice-chancellors are pulling in between 800,000 and 950,000 bucks a year. Those salaries are much more than is paid to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or the federal Treasurer. Over the past 40 years, our universities have gone from nation-building places of learning to greedy corporate entities. Recent research by the Australia Institute has shown there's no correlation between vice-chancellors' pay and student satisfaction. I'm sure you vice-chancellors know that. Universities with higher paid vice-chancellors are more likely to have lower student satisfaction—how about that? The four unis with the highest student satisfaction ratings pay their vice-chancellors less than average. The government says it wants a governance inquiry into universities. That's just spending more taxpayer money to justify setting up a committee to talk about the issue. Vice-chancellors are largely funded by the federal government, and the spend is overseen by its state counterparts. Maybe that's part of your problem. Our states don't care because it's not their money; it's the Commonwealth's money. To add insult to injury, these huge salaries are being paid at the top of an industry that engages in massive wage theft from the poorly paid staff who actually teach our kids—shameful! Students are doing it tough. HECS debts have doubled, they can't find housing, and uni fees have gone through the roof. While we're at it, we also need to deal with the overly bloated, ready-to-explode salaries of the departmental secretaries. I'm not talking about the public servants who do the hard work; I'm talking about the fat cats at the top. Most departmental secretaries are on close to $1 million a year, with some getting seven-figure pay packages. They earn much more than the Prime Minister does. How shameful is that? It's an absolute disgrace. They're shamelessly feathering their own nests while most Australians are having to deal with the cost of living, completely disconnected. We've got to pull these people back down to earth and knock them off their pedestals. It's about time and it's way overdue. The head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet gets over $1 million a year. The secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs are not far behind on their fat cat salaries of close to $1 million. Meanwhile, other department heads get nearly $1 million anyway, and that's just their pay. That does not include their entitlements on top. The Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet shouldn't be earning more than the Prime Minister, and other department secretaries and agency heads should not earn more than the federal Treasurer. In America, the Secretary of Defense is looking after a budget that is bigger than the whole of the Australian federal budget, and he's paid $430,000 a year—work it out! Our defence secretary gets more than double that. The defenders of these massive pay packets say, 'We need the best people.' That's rubbish. How is Kathryn 'Robodebt' Campbell a decent person? How was she the best person? How can any of them appreciate the struggles of the average Aussie family when they're rolling in taxpayer funded cash? I feel there is a massive disconnect here. Vice-chancellors are supposed to be there to put the education of Australians first. Department secretaries are supposed to put their country first. But—what do you know?—they put self before service. That's what they've been doing. It's self before service. They don't put you first, they don't put our kids first, and they don't care about you normal people out there in Australia. Otherwise they'd be up here, standing with me and saying, 'Yes, we don't deserve this money.' But do you think you'll see any of them standing near me? No, you won't. With their overinflated egos and their overpayments, you won't see them standing with Jacqui Lambie, fighting this. I can tell you they have no conscience, and I am hoping that, over the next few months—no doubt this won't get done through the election—I will get the support of all the senators in this chamber, because it's about time they were told. This overpayment of our vice-chancellors and our top bureaucrats has to stop. It is completely and utterly out of control. Both you major parties have put us in this situation, and it's about time you told the people what your policy is going to be to reduce their payments after the next election. Australians are out there waiting. They are frothing at the mouth, waiting for you to say how you're going to fix your mistakes from the past. This is the first one they want done. Australia's Voice 37 13:14 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia When I announced Australia's Voice in October last year I was criticised for not releasing a policy platform along with the announcement. I still don't see why. Last Sunday, on Insiders, the Leader of the Opposition announced that his policy on cutting the Public Service would be released after the election. Unlike 'Mr Detail'—sorry; Mr Dutton—Australia's Voice has announced its policy platform before the election, after carefully considering the issues affecting Australians and the solutions they deserve. I've spoken many times in this place about big-picture reforms to negative gearing, the capital gains discount and the AUKUS agreement. Today I want to focus on precise yet significant measures Australia's Voice will push for when given the balance of power. The first of these reforms will be to the remote area allowance. This is a payment made to Australians, including some of our most vulnerable, who live in regional areas. It hasn't been increased since the year 2000. How is this fair? For context, the United States has recently raised their minimum wage more than that, despite some Americans still earning as little as A$12 an hour. Life in the regions is difficult. Without proper support, services will decline and regional Australians will fall further behind. We must increase and index the remote area allowance to bolster our regions. Then we come to the issue of domestic violence. The number of women being killed by their partners in Australia is a national shame. The systems in place are riddled with bureaucratic hoops that force victims-survivors to repeatedly recount their trauma to different agencies just to access support. How is this fair? We will push for a national family violence database to streamline services, with proper safeguards around data security. This will reduce red tape and ensure faster access to support, giving victims-survivors help when they need it most. There is nothing more reflective of the character of a country than how we treat those who have spent their lives building it. Age pensioners and self-funded retirees alike have contributed to the prosperity we enjoy today, yet housing remains one of their biggest and most pressing concerns. Many are struggling with soaring rents, insecure tenancy arrangements and a lack of affordable housing. How is this fair? A simple yet effective solution would be to expand access to affordable, secure housing through government backed rental schemes and incentives for developments designed with older Australians in mind. Retirement should not mean trading dignity for a roof over someone's head. Another shared concern is inflation. Bracket creep pushes self-funded retirees into higher tax brackets, not because they're earning more but because the tax thresholds haven't kept pace with inflation. We owe our retirees more than platitudes. We owe them policies that uphold fairness, foresight and respect. The mental health of Australians can not be put at too high a price. Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 2022 found that 43 per cent of people aged 16 to 85 had experienced a mental disorder at some point. On average, more than eight Australians die by suicide every day. The cost of living only adds to this burden. It not only increases stress and anxiety but also prevents Australians from seeking professional help, because psychology sessions are simply unaffordable. How is this fair? Australia's Voice will fight to restore access to 20 Medicare funded psychology sessions, a policy that actually had majority support in this chamber. That access has been cut from 20 to 10 sessions. Additionally, we will push for a higher Medicare rebate on psychology sessions so that more Australians can access them. These are not populist thought bubbles like nuclear power or social media bans. These are real, targeted measures backed by experts like the Australian Council of Social Service, Domestic Violence Advocacy Australia and the Australian Association of Psychologists. These policies will make a genuine difference for everyday Aussies, and this is just the beginning. If you like what you hear and want to learn more, visit australiasvoice.com.au to see our full policy platform. It's time to push the next government, whether it's the red team or the blue team, to do better. Energy 38 13:19 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Our energy system is incredibly complex, not just from a technical point of view but also geographically, jurisdictionally and politically—and I say 'politically' not just because each of the major parties at both the state and the federal level disagree on policy but also because many of the players, public and some private, have their own patch that they want to protect or grow. This complexity is magnitudes greater as we transition to a low-carbon future. This complexity is too dense for most voters to penetrate, even if they're willing to try—and I don't suggest they do. But policymakers and the implementers of those policies do little to explain it because of this complexity; complexity does not make for good sound bites in the media. Instead, it is easier to simply say, 'Let's trust the experts; they know what they're doing.' That approach may be fine if voters can be assured that someone is providing oversight on what the experts are proposing: review those plans and assess them on the basis of economic efficiency and contribution to the national interest. This should then be reported to governments and further tested through public fora, as we have said at estimates here, so that that advice as well as the agency giving it and the parliamentarians testing it are publicly held to account by the voting public. This is what is known as good governance. This is what the Senate energy committee that reported just before Christmas inquired into, and found that there is little that can be counted as good governance in our energy system. This is allowing huge bets to be made that put our energy reliability and affordability at risk, with huge potential implications for our economy and the transition to a net zero future. We are in a transformative period driven by decarbonisation. Rapidly emerging technologies increasingly engage consumers as well. Yet the framework we rely on is outdated and fundamentally ill equipped to handle these modern realities, as demonstrated in the energy inquiry. Australia's energy governance structures are no longer fit for purpose. An independent sector-wide review is urgently needed to bring transparency, accountability and economic sustainability to a system that serves every Australian. The ISP, which is the plan that we follow, is there to guide Australia's energy transition. Yet, after four ISPs since 2018, there is little to show for the effort and expense invested by the Australian Energy Market Operator in those plans. While some of the mega projects might have started out under different names, few are finished and others have not even started. Questioning of these projects has got louder and louder as capital costs and timelines continue to grow exponentially. The danger is that delay risks our energy transition and stifles investment in other opportunities. For example—and this is just one—the huge pumped hydro project, Snowy 2.0, is massively delayed and over budget. Now, I'm not arguing against Snowy 2.0. But if it had undergone proper economic assessment it would likely have been delayed, and now we would have already built other smaller pumped hydro storage facilities that would be providing the storage for firm renewables and probably more in quantity and capacity than Snowy ever will. The upshot is that one of the great weaknesses of the NEM is that we have woefully inadequate storage because opportunity cost was ignored—and still is. Without proper planning and rigorous oversight, the ISP is driving us down a path that is neither the most effective nor the most sustainable for Australia. The time has come for a comprehensive re-examination of the sector, and the Productivity Commission is the best body to lead that review, as it is well placed to assess every facet, from regulation to planning to governance— (Time expired) Banking and Financial Services 39 13:24 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak about the banking and financial sector in this country. Events in the last week have shown why we need systemic structural reform in our banking and insurance sectors. Earlier this week, we saw the great town of Ingham in North Queensland suffer from extensive flooding, as did Townsville. There will be many people there who don't have insurance, and those that do have insurance, in the rest state and the rest of the country, will end up paying much higher insurance premiums as a result of the insurance payouts that I expect to see happen. Yesterday we found out that the Heritage Bank, a small regional bank in Queensland, which has just merged with South Australia's People's Choice—funnily enough, to become the People First Bank—has shut down about 13 branches in regional and metropolitan Queensland. Heritage Bank was founded in the great town of Toowoomba and was originally known as the Toowoomba Permanent Building Society. Our banking and insurance sectors are suffering because of privatisation a number of decades ago. Insurance in this country is made up of about 50 per cent reinsurance costs purchased from overseas when insurance companies have to actually reinsure their insurance. If we had a proper government insurance office in this country that was run federally, we could reinsure ourselves. What that would do is to stop all Australians, when they take out insurance, from paying half their insurance costs overseas in order to get reinsurance. There was a proposal for a $10 billion reinsurance fund; I'm sure the foreign reinsurance companies would have just clipped the ticket on that anyway. I believe we also have a $4 billion emergency management fund. Much of that money is actually paid out to people who don't have insurance and have suffered from a natural disaster. I believe that privatisation, despite everyone saying it was going to lead to greater competition, has actually led to less competition. I think we need ethical competition in banking and insurance. Had we not privatised our SGIOs, or our government insurance offices, at the state level, and had we not privatised CBA at the federal level, I think you'd have found that we wouldn't have had to have the royal commission into misconduct in the financial services sector. The same applies to banking as well. I think we need a public bank. We've seen too many branches being closed across regional and metropolitan Australia over the last two decades. Yet again, increased competition has actually led to reduced competition—we've had reduced services on offer. Regional towns need their banks. Small businesses need their banks. They need to be able to access cash. Older people need to be able to get face-to-face services. We need somewhere to go to if we've been scammed out of money. But there's another benefit of having a government owned bank—and many people would not be aware of this. Once upon a time in Australia, you could actually get fixed home loans for up to 25 years. The reason was that, through your government bank, the Australian government would issue bonds to the bank for an extended period of time. When Paul Keating decided to deregulate the financial market in 1985 and allow the private banks to access offshore capital, that meant that we had the extra risk of FX or foreign currency risk. As a result of that, banks had to take out cross-currency swaps, the longest duration of which is five years. As a result of that, banks can't offer home loans for more than five years. A contract can go for 30 years, but they won't offer home loans for more than five years because they have to roll over their FX currency swaps every five years, as well as the interest rate swaps, which generally go for about five years as well. If the Australian government, through a publicly owned bank, could issue an Australian-denominated bond that was already fixed, these risks could be removed and it could go for much longer. One of the pushbacks I get on having a public bank is that people will say, 'What about the Victorian State Bank?' The State Bank of Victoria went broke in the late eighties because it was allowed to buy the Tricontinental investment bank. In other words, it went broke, as did the South Australian public bank, because the state banks were allowed to engage in reckless financial behaviour in the late eighties, and, if the financial deregulation had not been allowed to occur under Paul Keating, the State Bank would not have gone broke. We desperately need to reform financial services in this country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 We shall now proceed to two-minute statements. Western Australia: Roads 39 13:29 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia For years motorists in Perth's northern suburbs have been calling for action on one of the state's most dangerous and congested intersections: the junction of Erindale Road and Reid Highway in Balcatta. Yet, despite repeated warnings, petitions and even a $2½ million business case with funding from the previous coalition government, Labor has done what it does best: delay and deliver only when an election is in sight. Main Roads Western Australia has identified this intersection as the worst in the state for crashes, with 263 incidents over the past five years. That's more than 50 accidents per year—one every single week. It's also one of the most congested roads in WA, with delays costing the economy an estimated $21.3 million in lost productivity. But Labor has ignored these glaring issues for eight years, only announcing funding in a last-minute attempt to secure votes. For me, as a northern suburbs local and as patron senator for Perth's northern suburbs, this is personal. I know these roads and the frustration sitting in gridlocked traffic is causing local residents. I see firsthand the concerns of local businesses and the risks families face every day when navigating this dangerous intersection. It's also personal for our local Liberal candidates—for Scott Edwardes in Kingsley, for Felicia Adeniyi in Cowan and, in particular, for those who are fighting for this vital upgrade, such as Liam Staltari in Carine and Vince Connelly in Moore. A couple of weeks ago the WA Liberals announced a Liberal government would invest $225 million in the project. People know—voters know—that the Liberals will not play politics with road safety and will not wait until the next election to get this matter fixed. Federal Election 40 13:31 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Labor is building Australia's future. But when it comes to Peter Dutton and the Liberals' plan for Australia—they really do have no idea. They've got one very costly but widely discredited idea, which is building nuclear. The other appears to be the fact that they want you to work longer hours for less—and on top of that they want you to pay for your boss's lunch. That is their brain bubble. They've had three years to come up with cost-of-living relief to support Australians, and that's their idea for Australians. On top of that, they've got over $300 billion worth of cuts that they want to make. The question that is on every Australian's minds is: where are those cuts going to come from? Make no mistake. He is coming after the public services that every Australian relies on: Medicare—shutting down Medicare offices; NDIS services and specialist advice they offer; making you wait longer for passports or stay on hold for hours to Centrelink. That's what those cuts will mean for everyday Australians. These aren't just Public Service jobs that exist in Canberra, like those opposite might have you believe. These are Public Service jobs that exist all over the country—in cities all over the country and in regional towns all over the country—providing services to communities everywhere. If Peter Dutton wins the next election he will take the country backwards, and you will be worse off—have no doubt about it. If Peter Dutton had gotten his way, every single Australian would have been $7,200 worse off. Grocery Prices 40 13:34 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I went to Coles in Perth to get some stuff for my lunch last week: $10.90 for a block of cheese, $4.23 for a couple of tomatoes, $3.70 for a cheap lettuce, $3.60 for literally the supermarket brand's cheapest wholemeal bread and $6 for a plain packet of butter. That is $28.43 just to make a plain sandwich—no meat, just cheese, tomatoes and lettuce. Our community is doing it tough every day at the check-out. What is this government doing about it? Apparently, not a thing. They know what the problems are, and still they've done nothing. The government needs to break up Coles and Woolworths. These massive corporations are making millions in profits while people have to make the choice between eating and paying their exorbitant rent. One of the reasons Coles and Woolworths get away with ripping us off is that, either directly or through third parties, they have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Liberal and Labor parties in the last decade alone. Look where that has got us: $28 just to make a sandwich. The Greens introduced two bills last year to address these issues. The first was to give the ACCC the power to break up big supermarkets, and the second was to make price gouging illegal. These bills would rein in corporate greed and reduce the cost of food at the check-out so that making a sandwich for a kid's lunchbox is a little bit more affordable, yet the two parties, bought by Coles and Woolworths, voted them down. (Time expired) Australia 40 13:36 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland ():  When I returned to Canberra earlier in the week, I thought I was coming back to the Australian parliament, but, after reviewing a lot of the contributions this week, particularly from my friends over in the Greens, it would appear that we are now the 51st state of America. All that they can talk about is Donald Trump. I'm a bit sick of that, because I want to be an Australian parliamentarian. Whatever your views about the results of the US election, we are here to serve the people of Australia, and we have nothing to be worried about as Australians. We are people of the lucky country. We have the most abundant natural resources in the world, almost, especially per person. Yes, the world is a volatile place right now—there's a lot of uncertainty—but we do not have to, nor should we, panic about what is going on. We have all the potential to make Australia a prosperous country, a wealthy country and a harmonious country if we concentrate on doing things right ourselves. Maybe, if we took this opportunity, the best outcome of the US election would be for countries like Australia to look after themselves once again. We could stop trying to outsource all of our policy settings to bankrupt and, often, corrupt global organisations and instead concentrate on putting Australians first. We could develop our own natural resources for our own benefit, support our manufacturing industries, support cheaper energy for Australians and deal with the relevant issues, such as competition in supermarkets and high prices for everybody, as Senator Steele-John just raised. We have no need to worry. We are very, very lucky in this country, but it's about time we had a government and political leaders who put the interests of Australians first and stopped trying to worry about every little problem in the world. South Australia: Infrastructure 41 13:38 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia ():  Thank you, Acting Deputy President Marielle Smith. I think you'll particularly like this contribution because I will be talking about our shared home state of South Australia. Labor governments are infrastructure governments, and that was as clear as day last week when Minister Catherine King came to the Upper Spencer Gulf to announce the latest round of Growing Regions Program funding for South Australia. I've said it before in this chamber and I'll say it again: regional South Australia is quite unique, and it requires quite unique solutions. Putting local communities in the driver's seat is how we get those solutions, and that's exactly what we've done. I was delighted to see the Albanese Labor government just announce $11.5 million towards that exact goal in South Australia. In Whyalla, we're investing to bring the Whyalla Beach Splash and Play Plaza vision to life. The Whyalla foreshore is a really beautiful place, and this investment will make it an even better place to be. The project will include adventure play, water play, more seating, more shelter, great places to take the family and great places for tourists and visitors to come and have a look at. It will also provide 42 jobs during construction and 12 ongoing jobs after construction. That's all great news. In addition, we're also delivering funding to build more arts spaces as well as maintain art spaces in four already established Indigenous art centres in the APY Lands and Coober Pedy. We have funding to develop the Penola football club, and we're also investing in an upgrade to the Orroroo main street, which will breath new life into that beautiful town. And then we're developing an entirely new early childhood care and education centre in Kingston South East. These are all great projects that will strengthen the regions. (Time expired) Banking and Financial Services 41 13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Australians are being scammed out of billions of dollars every year, and the big banks hardly seem to care. When criminals raid our bank accounts and we ask for help, the banks turn their back. No-one is safe from these increasingly sophisticated scammers, especially when it's virtually impossible to live and work without a bank account. Small businesses, pensioners, families, teenagers have all fallen victim. From 2022 to 2023, Australians lost about $6 billion to scams. At the same time, the big banks made a combined $30 billion in profits. They've got the resources to protect their customers. They just don't want to. In the next parliament, One Nation will introduce a bill for a scam victim protection law. Except in cases of gross negligence by account holders, banks will be required to refund scam victims up to $165,000 within five days. The bill will include heavy penalties for banks which fail to act, incentivising them to invest more resources in fraud protection. The United Kingdom has recently introduced a similar law. Why hasn't Australia? It is because Labor and the coalition are too weak to stand up to the big, big banks. They will always side with the big end of town. One Nation stands for the people, the Australians, who are sick of being ripped off. Australian voters have some stark choices ahead of them at the election. If they want someone to take on the banks and stop the scammers, they need to back One Nation. Bureau of Meteorology 41 13:42 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It has been reported last weekend by the Saturday Paper that the Bureau of Meteorology has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on technological upgrades that should have been spent on recording the weather. This is absolutely breathtaking, and it just confirms everything that I've been saying for almost six years—that the Bureau of Meteorology is out of control. This squandering of hundreds of millions of dollars isn't my opinion; this is the opinion of the National Audit Office. The question has to be asked: why is it that the bureau cannot account for the money? The Auditor-General has actually recorded that they haven't been able to account for the hundreds of millions of dollars. The question is: why wasn't it used to record or report actual raw data observations? Of course, the answer for that is that the bureau has created an entirely new way of recording the weather called homogenisation, which requires the use of a $40 million supercomputer that cannot be audited. It requires transactions, or 'iterations' as Peter Stone called it in Senate estimates, of up to 400 million iterations at one weather station, Marble Bar, for the maximum temperature and 250 million iterations for the minimum temperature at Marble Bar, to give just one example. This sort of behaviour and complex record keeping is completely fraudulent in my view, not just the financial side but the actual recording of the temperature. This homogenisation has actually increased the temperature by about half a degree in the last century, which is used to justify the billions of dollars being wasted on climate change. Economy 42 13:44 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia () (): At the start of the year, the price of a passport increased upwards of $400. We already had the world's most expensive passport, but the government wanted to make sure no-one catches up to us. We've got some other fine records under our belt as well. We've suffered the worst fall in disposable income in the world. Our universities last year reported some of their worst positions in the history of the world's university rankings. Don't worry! Five of our cities are in the world's top 20 most expensive cities to live in. While other countries begin to lower interest rates, Australia continues to struggle with inflation. A survey in December found that 48 per cent of respondents felt their expenses had gotten out of control, while almost a third had borrowed money from family and friends to meet their mortgage repayments. While all this is going on, the government's attention is focused on banning kids from social media and on giving themselves millions of dollars in election funding. When they do act on important issues like the housing crisis, it is through unambitious programs of subsidised demand, rather than through addressing the root causes of these problems through reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount to incentivise new supply. The legislative restraint the government have exercised has earned them no kudos in the electorate. A poll in July found that 73 per cent of voters could not name a single government policy that had benefited them financially—not one. While the government loses billions of dollars in revenue by not reforming negative gearing or the capital gains tax discount, it throws billions more into the AUKUS money pit for the submarines we will never see. To use a now retired phrase of the Treasurer's, this is a government of 'wasted opportunities and warped priorities'. (Time expired) International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 42 13:46 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Albanese government has been complicit in genocide and timid as a mouse when it comes to calling out Israel's atrocities in Gaza, but even they must denounce and oppose the outrageous Trump comments today that the US should take over Gaza. I mean, this is nothing short of a call for ethnic cleansing. Will the Albanese government and the PM let this slide, or will they actually come out and condemn this? Trump has also stopped UNWRA funding, frozen US aid and withdrawn the US from the UN Human Rights Council. These decisions are unprecedented attacks on global human rights and on the Palestinian people in their time of greatest need. The Albanese government must take the strongest stand and forcibly condemn this shameful move instead of sitting idly by, while President Trump makes one disastrous decision after another. Minister Wong should be on the phone to her US counterparts, right now, putting pressure on them to reverse these catastrophic decisions. Labor cannot just wring their hands. Australia must step up where the US is failing by increasing aid to UNWRA and reaffirming our commitment to international law. Silence or inaction in the face of these horrific decisions from the US, which the government calls one of its closest allies, would make Australia party to the suffering that would inevitably follow. Like many around the world, I had tears when the ceasefire was announced. But a ceasefire is not justice. Justice means self-determination and freedom for the Palestinian people so they never have to live under the yoke of Israel or imperial oppression ever again. Economy 42 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The Australian public should be wary when the government boasts about low unemployment. The reality is a large percentage of new jobs that have been created over the past two years have been created in the government funded sector, by some accounts around 87 per cent. To put it bluntly, the Australian economy is on public sector life support. This is typical of Labor governments unfortunately. They imagine that the public sector creates wealth, when we all know that the public sector only takes away wealth. To claim you are building Australia's future when you are adding jobs to the public sector is like you live in la-la land. Wealth is multiplied by limiting the size of government, not by making it bigger. A country is built by cutting red tape, not by employing more regulators. Prosperity is created by helping business, not by expanding the number of taxpayer funded jobs. To support this ever-growing public sector, the government must of course continually ramp up taxes. So, of course, now we have a private sector struggling under the weight of never-ending regulations, taxes, levies, fees et cetera, propping up an expanding public sector. This government claim to be building Australia when it is in fact smothering Australia. You build Australia by empowering businesses, entrepreneurs, manufacturers et cetera. Government should be focused on doing whatever it takes to free up the private sector to dream, to create and to build. So we must reduce the size and the power of government at all levels. It's too big. It is too unwieldy. That is how you build Australia's future. Victoria: Werribee By-Election, Victoria: Prahran By-Election 43 13:50 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria From the Prime Minister to the Premier, Labor has failed Victorians and overseen the decay of the once great state of Victoria. That is why it is critical to vote for Steve Murphy in Werribee and Rachel Westerway in Prahran at this weekend's by-elections. Victorians have had enough. We need to get Victoria back on track. Families are suffering. Small businesses are shutting their doors like never before. Victoria is being run off the cliff by economic mismanagement and incompetence at both a federal and a state level. Labor's rotten Big Build sees bikies and organised criminals continue to operate on work sites. Only a Dutton government can turn around our fortunes in Victoria—of course, then followed by a Brad Battin government in a couple of years time. Just consider the work of Victorian federal Labor MPs. The member for Corio spending millions of dollars in VIP flights while local residents struggle to put food on the table, and prevailing over the axing of $2 billion for the Geelong Fast Rail project. The member for Corangamite failing to deliver her election promise, with more than two kilometres of duplicated road being cut from stage 2 of the Barwon Heads Road Upgrade. The member for Ballarat, who has been missing in action, delivering nothing for regional communities in three successive budgets. The member for Lalor, who has failed Melbourne's west, treating locals as second-class citizens. The member for Hawke, who has barely been seen on the streets of Sunbury, Melton or Baccus Marsh. The member for Bendigo, who has given unbridled support to John Setka and the CFMEU rather than her constituents. On Saturday, Victorians will get an opportunity to send a very strong message to this incompetent, destructive, weak Labor Party. Vote Liberal and help get Victoria back on track. Macquarie Point Stadium 43 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I stand for housing, schools and cheaper power bills. I don't stand for a stadium. That's why I got the federal funding for the Hobart stadium GST free. It puts $220 million back in the state piggy bank to spend on essential services. I didn't want Tasmanians to be worse off, because the Tassie Liberals are determined to build a stadium no-one asked for in the first place. It's bonkers that they're still pushing forward with this billion-dollar idea when the budget is struggling to afford the basics. It's a billion-dollar idea when we already have two stadiums in Tasmania. Last week the Hobart Hurricanes, God forbid, finally won the Big Bash League—and guess what? It was at Hobart's Bellerive Oval, and it looked incredible decked out in purple. Bellerive is good enough to host a Big Bash League final, an Ashes test and a regular AFL game, but apparently it's not good enough for the Tassie AFL team. What good is a stadium when Tasmanians can't afford to rent and are sleeping in their cars? They're not going to sleep in the stadium, I'm telling you now. For half the price of the stadium, we could build 1,000 homes. Imagine what that would mean to people who are sleeping rough right now; the people who are couch surfing but never sure where they'll sleep the next night. I've spent time wondering about that myself—'Is this the last night that I'm sleeping in a bed under a roof?' It's an awful feeling that buries itself in your stomach and doesn't go away. Building a stadium won't take away that feeling for people. I fully support Tasmania having its own AFL team—I'm even a member—but we can't pretend that building a stadium is even half as important as building more homes. The Tassie Liberals said they could do both. The state budget says they can't. By prioritising a stadium over housing we are missing a wide open goal. Kerr, Ms Samantha, OAM 43 13:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I stand with Sam Kerr. What Sam experienced that night is what so many black and brown women experience every single day. She had been locked in a taxi for 20 minutes, unsure of where she was going or whether she was being kidnapped. Her simple request to that police officer was that he put himself in her shoes. But, instead of interviewing the taxi driver to investigate Sam's concerns, the police officer decided to belittle and ignore her. This is racism. For those who need a reminder, here is a quick definition. Racism is a system of power and oppression based on race—a system in which social standards, institutions, laws and political decisions establish and reinforce norms that uphold inequalities between racial groups. Racism is about how power works to oppress people already copping it. It is a system that upholds white supremacy, like this place. A white cop who is a part of a system that upholds white supremacy and who benefits from white supremacy cannot be a victim of white supremacy. Come on! A lot of people are still blind to this, obviously, and we have a long way to go to understand what racism really is in this country and how it functions in our everyday society. To all those people making uninformed, sensationalised comments about this story: I urge you to do the work and get educated—educate yourselves—about what racism really is before— (Time expired) Lyons Electorate: Federal Election 44 13:56 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania In coming weeks, Australians will have a choice—a choice between the distracted Albanese Labor government, whose reckless spending has left Australians stuck in a cost-of-living crisis, and a Peter Dutton led coalition government that will get Australia back on track. In Tasmania, in the seat of Lyons, the choice is even more stark. Late last year, Labor member for Lyons Brian Mitchell was sensationally dumped by his party in a captain's call by Prime Minister Albanese, with Labor announcing former Tasmanian Labor leader and current state MP Rebecca White as their candidate. But the truth is that Tasmanians have had their say on Ms White and her policies three times, and she's been emphatically rejected each time. In contrast, the Lyons Liberal candidate, Susie Bower, is a leader in her region and has extensive experience in business and community development. While Ms White is a career politician with limited employment experience, Susie Bower has held high-level positions in local government, in community development, as a local councillor, in small business and, most recently, in her current role as the chief executive of the Bell Bay Advanced Manufacturing Zone. In clear testament to her character, Susie was the first coalition candidate to be preselected for the 2025 federal election nationally, and, for the nearly two years since her preselection, she's been travelling throughout the Lyons community listening to local concerns. But this has never been a fair race. Rebecca White has been using her electorate allowances and taxpayer funded vehicle, which are provided with the position that she obviously does not wish to remain in, while campaigning for the federal seat. I can't see that this passes the pub test, especially for Ms White, the Tasmanian Labor Party shadow minister for integrity. Meanwhile, Susie Bower has juggled the demands of her full-time job with those of her election campaign since she was preselected. Tasmanians deserve hardworking representatives to fight for them in Canberra, and in Lyons Susie Bower is clearly the best choice. Calare Electorate: Federal Election 44 13:58 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's a privilege to rise in this chamber to speak in support of Dr Julie Cunningham PhD, who has been endorsed as the Australian Labor candidate for the mighty seat of Calare in the upcoming federal election. Julie is an Orange local, and she's called the town her home for more than 10 years. As a researcher and a social worker for the Western NSW Local Health District, she has seen firsthand the challenges being faced in her community, and she knows that families across Calare are doing it tough right now. Julie is running for parliament because she knows that Labor is the only party that will deliver for the regions, and she wants to build on the Albanese government's legacy to support her community. Labor tax cuts alone have put more money in the pocket of every single taxpayer, and 60,000 taxpayers in Calare have received a bigger cut than they would have under a coalition government. That's 85 per cent of the people of Calare who are keeping more of what they earn in their pockets because of Labor. Dr Julie Cunningham got a great education, clearly, but she grew up in a single-parent household where her family relied on welfare just to make it through. Julie understands the importance of ensuring that every Aussie has a fair go, a helping hand when they need it, and access to a great health service and education to give them a fair chance. That's all Aussies want, and Labor is delivering. Labor's changes meant that taxpayers in Calare got an average tax cut of more than $1,500, but Mr Dutton didn't want them to have that, and he wants to take a whole lot more away. Vote for Dr Julie Cunningham. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 44 14:00 Senator MCGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In yet another hit to Australians' hip pockets, working household living costs have increased by a shocking 19.4 per cent under the Albanese Labor government. The damage done so far by the Albanese government to hardworking families and households is: food costs up by 14 per cent, housing costs up by 14 per cent, healthcare costs up by 12 per cent, education costs up by 11 per cent and insurance and financial services costs up by 96 per cent, in less than three years of an Albanese Labor government. Why are Australians, despite all your rhetoric, paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator McGrath for the question. It gives me the opportunity to again reaffirm that when we came to government we saw that inflation was high, and it was rising. Under the government he was a part of, real wages were falling, living standards were declining and people were going backwards. Now inflation is a third of what it was at the election and is falling. Real wages are growing again. Living standards are rising again. And we have had the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in 50 years. I know those opposite might like to think that the creation of more than 1.1 million jobs—the most jobs created on record in a parliamentary term—is a bad thing. I know those opposite have a view that rising wages is not a good thing. We know their position has been that low wages are a design feature of the Australian economy. This is the position they want. I'm also asked about the cost of living for Australians, and I want to make it very clear: we are absolutely clear that a lot of Australians are finding it really tough, with rising costs of living. That is why we have made it such a priority to provide support and assistance with cost of living. What is amazing to me is that those opposite ask about cost of living as if they care about the cost of living of Australians, when they voted against assistance to Australians to help them with the rising costs of living. Everybody should understand, whenever those opposite ask about cost of living, that they are the party that has voted against cost-of-living relief to working Australians time and time again. That is the truth of what the Liberal Party believes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, a first supplementary? 14:02 Senator MCGRATH 217241 Queensland Australians' living standards—that is, real disposable incomes—have collapsed by 8.7 per cent since May 2022. This is the biggest collapse on record and worse than in any other OECD economy. Why are Australians, despite all the rhetoric, paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I would say to those opposite that it is the case that cost-of-living pressures remain. They certainly remain. They certainly are challenging for Australians. But I would say that we are in a far better place than we were some time ago. In fact, the cost-of-living index released today is another reminder of the substantial and sustained progress we have made in the fight against inflation, with lower growth in living costs across every household type compared with what it was at the time of the last election. I'll say that again: lower growth in living costs across every household type compared with what it was at the time of the election, when you were in government. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, actually, they're the words of a Liberal Prime Minister; they're not the words of a Labor politician, so let's be clear. We understand that people are doing it tough. What we don't understand is why you keep voting against assistance. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator MCGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, confirm that Australia has been in household recession for 766 days? Why is it that Australians are paying the price for Labor's economic incompetence? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I can confirm is that inflation is at a third of what it was at the election and is falling. What I can confirm is that real wages are growing again and living standards are rising again. What I can confirm is that we have recorded the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in 50 years. I can also confirm that the priority of those opposite is not cost-of-living relief. It is not cost-of-living relief when it comes to energy bills. It is not tax cuts for every Australian. It is not rising wages. Do you know what their priority is? Long lunches for bosses which are funded by—let's be very clear—taxpayers. They're asking the cleaners, the teachers and the construction workers of this country to subsidise long lunches. That is the priority this Dutton coalition has. I think Australians are very clear about who has their backs and who does not. (Time expired) Medicare 45 14:06 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care today announced the Albanese Labor government's landmark new agreement to properly fund public hospitals and health services for another year. How will the plan strengthen Medicare and build Australia's future? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I say thank you to Senator Green for her question. This is a transformative new health agreement that will make a real difference to the lives of millions of Australians. I'm unsurprised that Liberal senators laugh when we talk about billions of dollars going into public hospitals. I'm unsurprised that Liberal senators laugh when we talk about billions of dollars going into hospitals— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, stop the running commentary. Senator WONG 00AOU that families take their kids to and that our ageing parents go to. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm unsurprised that they laugh at a government that is actually putting money into public hospitals because we know Senator Ruston— The 10000 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I called you by name. I asked you to stop the running commentary, and you simply ignored me. I want order and silence. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm unsurprised that Senator Ruston laughs at an additional $1.7 billion to fund public hospitals and health services for another year. I'm unsurprised that Liberal senators laugh at record levels of funding, with $33.91 billion for 2025-26. That will be delivered to every state and territory to help cut waiting lists, reduce waiting times in emergency rooms and manage ramping. Of course, this is on top of all of the historic investments that Labor have made to Medicare as part of our work to build Australia's future, delivering the largest boost to Medicare rebates in decades, more in two years than they did in nine. The fact that they laugh at public hospital investment really shows the contempt with which the coalition looks at Medicare. It shows the contempt with which they treated Medicare and the health services that Australian families need. Unlike them, we believe Australians should be able to access affordable, reliable health care. That's what we believe. We don't believe health is a laughing matter. We believe that it is a part of what we do in government—provide health services to Australians. That is in comparison to those opposite, who cut $50 billion from public hospitals while Mr Dutton was health minister. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, how will all Australia's states and territories benefit from the game-changing health announcement the Albanese Labor government made today? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am very pleased to confirm that all Australians will benefit from Labor's announcement, from the Prime Minister's announcement, today. The Commonwealth contribution in every state and every territory will increase by 12 per cent in 2025-26. Let's remember that those opposite cut public hospital funding. Under us, public hospital funding is growing. We are also delivering one-off funding boosts, with $407 million for New South Wales, $402 million for Victoria, $414 million for Queensland, $158 million for Western Australia, $169 million for South Australia, $50 million each for Tassie and the ACT, and $51 million for the Northern Territory, all of which is at risk from Mr Dutton's secret cuts—all of which is at risk. And this is the GP-tax health minister; that's who Mr Dutton was. You can't trust Mr Dutton with health. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, I note the Prime Minister's comments today that access to health care should depend on your Medicare card, not your credit card. How is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for Australians to see a doctor, buy cheaper medicine and get the health care that they need? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia From the day we were elected, the Albanese government has been working to strengthen Medicare and to make it easier for Australians to see a doctor, because Labor built Medicare and we will always protect it. We've made medicines cheaper by reducing the maximum amount Australians pay for PBS medicines and we are freezing the maximum cost of PBS prescriptions until 2026, and, for Australians with pensions or concession cards, we've frozen the price until 2030. The landmark new hospital agreement we've announced today will boost funding for hospitals next year. And we are also taking the pressure off hospitals through our urgent care clinics. Now, we know Mr Dutton wants to make $350 billion in secret cuts to services. That's even before he spends $600 billion on his nuclear announcement. And now what we know is that he's a risk to Medicare— (Time expired) National Security 47 14:11 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked when he was first advised of the planned mass-casualty terror attack against Sydney's Jewish community, as to which he told the House: We don't go out there and brief about National Security Committee meetings. We don't discuss those details, because it's an ongoing investigation. The Australian revealed today at least six occasions when the Prime Minister has publicly disclosed NSC meetings or intelligence and security briefings, including following the Adass Israel Synagogue firebombing. Minister, why is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to discuss briefings and NSC meetings about the Adass firebombing but not the incident in Dural? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I have said previously in this place that I'm not going to comment on operational matters regarding national security. What we want to do, and what we all— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M It's a point of order in relation to relevance. We tolerated these answers yesterday, but I can assure you today— A government senator interjecting— Senator Cash I0M When you were in government, you made it clear—the minister made it clear— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you're now debating. Senator Cash I0M This is not an operational— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, resume your seat. You are now debating. The minister is being relevant to the question. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Paterson, I think you did ask me this question yesterday—or it might have been one of your colleagues; I'm sorry; I can't recall which—and the answer I gave yesterday will be the answer I give today, and the reason for that is that our focus is ensuring that we can support the police in delivering— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, resume your seat. Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M Again, the point of order is in relation to relevance. Disclosing the date of when the Prime Minister was briefed cannot possibly be categorised as being prejudicial or confidential. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash— Senator Cash I0M I would ask you to draw the minister's attention to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've called a point of order. You are now getting into the substance of the question. The minister is being relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! I do not need your running commentary. Senator WONG 00AOU I will note that the New South Wales police themselves have made clear that the publication of information around this investigation has 'compromised our investigation and been detrimental to some of the strategies we may have used'. I certainly won't be adding to that, and I'm surprised Senator Paterson would add to that. I invite him to take a more responsible course than that being advocated by some of his colleagues. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a first supplementary? 14:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The same article also revealed: After the Wakeley church terror attack, Mr Albanese on April 16 said he had been briefed by Mr Kershaw and ASIO director-general Mike Burgess. Mr Albanese was also briefed by the AFP on July 12 last year about a Russian espionage case. Why did the Prime Minister think it was appropriate to publicly speak about briefings from our security and operational agencies during ongoing investigations last year but not now? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am surprised that Senator Paterson continues with this line of questioning when he has seen what the New South Wales police have said. I know that Mr Dutton is a reckless politician, but this is quite a reckless— Senator Cash I0M A point of order again in relation to relevance. It would be great if the Minister representing the Prime Minister could tell us why Chris Minns was able to be upfront with the Australian people and yet the Prime Minister is not. I would ask you to direct the minister to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you weren't happy with my last ruling. I've sought the advice of the Clerk. The minister is being relevant. That is also the advice of the Clerk this time, and it is my continuing advice. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I know that Mr Dutton is a very reckless politician; very focused on his political strategy. This is about keeping Australians safe. If you were serious about keeping Australians safe, you would not play the political game that you are playing with an ongoing investigation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, when you asked your question you quite rightly waited until there was silence, and I ensured there was silence. I have called order three or four times and you've simply shouted over the top of me. I'm asking and requesting that you be silent Senator WONG 00AOU Of course, there is immense hypocrisy from those opposite when Mr Dutton on Sunday confirmed he hadn't even asked for a brief. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a second supplementary? 14:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Why is it that New South Wales Premier Minns can be upfront with the Australian people about when he knew about what could have been one of the most catastrophic acts of terror seen in Australia but the Prime Minister is unable to answer the same basic questions and is keeping Australians in the dark? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would say this to you, Senator Paterson: you're right to make comments about the potential catastrophic incident, which is why it ought to be treated as seriously as we are treating it. Unlike some on your side, we want this investigation to find everyone who is associated with this activity, these events and what was found in Dural to be apprehended and to face the full force of the law. That's what we want. What you want and what Mr Dutton wants is a very different set of political strategies. We want to put Australians' safety first, and that is what we are doing. Medicare 48 14:18 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Last month, Cleanbill released their 2025 Blue report, revealing that all across the country GP bulk-billing rates have dropped and out-of-pocket costs have continued to rise. The AMA yesterday stated that the average length of a GP consult is now 18.7 minutes. Will the government commit to extending the tripled bulk-billing incentive to everyone and increasing the rebates for longer appointments in order to bring down out-of-pocket GP costs? 14:19 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Steele-John for the question and for his deep interest in the area of health. Like Senator Wong, we are incredibly proud of the announcement today in regard to boosting our hospital systems right across Australia—and, in fact, behind Medicare. In November 2021, six months before the last election, the financial viability of general practice was in serious trouble after the coalition's six-year freeze on Medicare rebates, which started when Peter Dutton was Minister for Health. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners took the extraordinary step of calling on every GP in the country to stop bulk-billing to maintain the viability of general practice. Dr Karen Price said, 'This is why, as a college, I'm exhorting everybody, including my own practice, to move as many people as you can onto private billing.' At the time of the last election the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, said that general practice was in the most parlous state in the 40-year history of Medicare. Bulk-billing was falling off a cliff because of the six-year freeze on Medicare rebates. We have a different approach: more doctors, more bulk-billing and more urgent care clinics. That's our approach to strengthening Medicare, which is why we tripled the bulk-billing incentive from 1 November last year. We tripled it in the largest investment in bulk-billing in history. Since we tripled the investment, we have seen a turnaround in bulk-billing with a national increase of 1.9 percentage points in the first year—75.6 per cent to 77.5 per cent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The GP workforce is in crisis right now because GP trainees are not afforded the same pay as their hospital colleagues. They're often not afforded the same respect by this government and this health system. Will the government commit to closing the gap for GP trainees to make general practice a genuinely attractive option again? 14:22 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator Steele-John, thank you for the question. We know that workforce issues actually hit right across Australia in different points, certainly after COVID, and we certainly moved in terms of the health space. In the First Nations health space, we have provided an opportunity for 500 health traineeship positions. Now, 300 or so—I can get those numbers for you—are in place. We are aware of the concerns around GPs, but we know that supporting and tripling bulk-billing, in terms of Medicare in this country, is absolutely critical to assisting the employment situation across Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, second supplementary? 14:22 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Not that long ago, Australians could go to the GP and reasonably expect that their out-of-pocket costs would be minimal or non-existent. As so many in the community now know, that is no longer the case. Will the government commit to ensuring that everyone in Australia can see the GP for free? 14:23 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Steele-John. The number of junior doctors choosing to go into general practice grows each year. In 2025, a record 1,750 offers are expected to be made to junior doctors to begin government funded GP training. Around 40 per cent of these future GPs are commencing their training in the new general practice speciality of rural generalism, which will support people in rural areas to access primary care I'm enormously proud that in the Northern Territory we are going ahead with Charles Darwin University's push to see more doctors graduate from Charles Darwin University—as well as from Flinders University in the Northern Territory. The Australian health system added one new doctor every hour last year, on average, with more doctors joining in the last two years than at any time in the past decade. Cost of Living 49 14:24 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government has prioritised the delivery of cost-of-living relief at every opportunity because we know that people need support. This has included a tax cut for every taxpayer, energy bill relief for every household and a million small businesses, cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing and Medicare urgent care clinics, cutting the costs of child care, and free TAFE. Why is it so important to provide cost-of-living relief and policies that make a difference in people's lives? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question and also for her continued advocacy on behalf of the people of South Australia to make sure that the government continues to provide cost-of-living relief where we can do so, when we can responsibly provide it without adding to the inflation challenge that we have been dealing with that we inherited from the former government. The Albanese government has seen inflation come down, wages go up and more jobs created at the same time—1.1 million jobs, which I know those opposite hate to hear. In one term of government, we have seen wages going up and cost-of-living support provided where we've found room in the budget to do so, where we have prioritised cost-of-living support, whether it be the tax cuts that were made fairer so that they helped all taxpayers, whether it be the energy bill relief that we provided to households and small business that those opposite opposed, whether it be the cheaper medicines—an issue we brought into this parliament that those opposite opposed—more bulk-billing that those opposite consider wasteful spending, and more Medicare urgent care clinics, which were also included in the language of the opposition as 'wasteful spending'. Well, I challenge the opposition to go and chat to a few people using the urgent care clinics and ask them if they think that's wasteful spending. Maybe ask the people that are going into the emergency department that Senator Ruston was laughing at before if they think that investment in public hospitals is wasteful spending. Maybe when people go and get their 60-day scripts— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 In relation to the personal reflection that was just made by the minister, which I would say is completely inaccurate— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, that is a debating point. Senator Ruston 243273 Could you ask— The PRESIDENT 112096 I beg your pardon, Senator Ruston, it was a personal reflection. I will ask the minister. Minister, if you could withdraw. Senator GALLAGHER ING Me? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. Senator GALLAGHER ING Alright, I withdraw. Again, I would challenge those opposite, for all of those families that have benefited from the investment in early childhood education, whether they consider that wasteful spending because that is what the opposition is saying. We've got inflation low, we've got wages up and we've got employment and jobs up as well. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary? 14:27 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Just over a year ago, the Prime Minister announced that the Albanese Labor government will deliver fairer tax cuts for all Australians, not just some. How are Labor's tax cuts helping Australians with the cost of living and ensuring they keep more of what they earn? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith again for concentrating on cost of living and how the government is supporting households where we can responsibly do so. Obviously, those tax cuts are flowing through. It's a decision we took 12 months ago. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, took a decision to make them fairer so not just some people would get a tax cut but 14 million taxpayers across the country would receive a tax cut thanks to our fairer tax plan, and those benefits will be even bigger from July this year. The figures from the Treasurer show there'll be even more money on average in the pockets of every taxpayer next financial year. We have stronger wages growth, we have strong jobs growth, and those tax cuts are flowing through to help households. These are the priorities of the Albanese Labor government: a focus on cost of living, get inflation down, cost-of-living help where we can, clean up the budget, and make sure that people get a fair crack at jobs and opportunities from new jobs across the economy in the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia How does Labor's economic plan support Australian households, and what are the priorities going forward? 14:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Our priorities are low inflation, keeping wages growing, more jobs, more opportunities and cost-of-living support where we can provide that. That stands in stark contrast to those opposite. From the policies they have announced to date there is a $600 billion bill for nuclear energy, for some time in the future, to deliver four per cent of our country's energy needs, and $350 billion in cuts to pay for the nuclear plan they have for nuclear reactors around the country. The other one is $10 billion for people to go out to lunch and slug the taxpayer for it. That is the plan. That is the contrast between a government that's focused on cost of living and their focus on nuclear reactors and breaking the budget, and then cutting services, cutting pensions, cutting Medicare, cutting school spending and cutting hospitals in order to pay for it. (Time expired) Energy 50 14:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Watt. According to many reports and warnings from the industry, Australia is this year likely to find itself in the position of needing to import liquid natural gas to shore up supplies on the east coast. This is despite the fact that Australia has enormous reserves of gas in places like Queensland—Barwon basin—and that Australia is one of the largest gas exporters. Minister, will you please explain why the Albanese Labor government has allowed this ridiculous situation to come to pass, especially when your renewables plan cannot possibly work without natural gas? 14:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Hanson, you're right in saying that there's no doubt that Australia does need more gas to be supplied, and that is because—even for many of us who want to see more renewables brought into the system because it will be the cheapest, cleanest form of energy available in the future—it is going to require more gas as a backup source. And of course there are a lot of manufacturing outfits right across Australia that rely very heavily on gas. That is why we have taken a range of actions to ensure that we can obtain the gas supplies that Australia needs. Already in this term of government, we've seen gas developments approved by this government, which are necessary for the manufacturing gas that's needed and also to back up renewables into the future. The reality is that we are dealing with a situation where we inherited many warnings of gas shortages that were provided to the coalition over their years in government. In fact, AEMO and the ACCC issued a dozen warnings about gas shortages over the decade the coalition was in power. Now, we can't wish away the consequences of a decade of neglect, but we are acting on both supply and price while also being a responsible energy partner for the countries to whom we export gas. Some of the things that we've done have been to take strong action on gas supply and price by introducing the gas mandatory code of conduct, expanding AEMO's powers to address market shortfalls, and responsibly approving new exploration and production. Our work to deliver more gas at more reasonable prices is making a meaningful difference. The latest ACCC outlook forecasts surpluses of gas on the east coast in 2025 and 2026. Under the gas code of conduct, we've secured more than 600 petajoules of domestic gas, which is enough to power east coast generators for six years. We've seen new gas come online for east coast users through the Senex project in Queensland, which is something the coalition never managed. And, of course, our future gas strategy established a long-term plan to help address supply changes. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, I would dearly love to know when you are going to stop blaming the coalition for what happened in the past when you've been in government for nearly three years. In 2024, Australia exported almost $70 billion worth of natural gas, and about 56 per cent of these exports attracted no royalties for Australian taxpayers, who own these resources. Qatar receives about $26 billion for its exports, while Australia receives less than 10 per cent of that. Minister, when will your government act to ensure that Australians receive a fair return for all natural gas extracted and exported by foreign owned multinationals? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Of course, what we've sought to do in the not quite one term we've been in office is to shore up gas supplies both for domestic use and to meet the export contracts that have been entered into by a range of companies over previous years, well before we were in office. The fact is that Australia does produce much more gas than we use at the moment, and the gas that we don't use is exported—and those exports make a lot of money for Australia, including in towns like Gladstone. I was in Gladstone a week or two ago, Senator Hanson. I don't know when the last time you were in Gladstone was. But there are many, many jobs in towns like Gladstone that depend upon the export of gas. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please direct your answers to the chair. Senator WATT 245759 Okay. Well, President, I don't know when Senator Hanson was last in Gladstone, or when Senator Canavan was last in Gladstone or any of them were in Gladstone. But I was there only a couple of weeks ago, with Senator Ayres, talking about the work we're doing to shore up aluminium supply and also gas supplies into the future. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary. 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'm glad you're getting around the state. You are a Queensland senator. Australia has all the gas it needs to meet domestic demand for at least the next 40 years, but the Commonwealth has no policy to ensure sufficient reserves and, as a result, we are facing shortages on the east coast. Minister, will you please explain why the Albanese Labor government has not implemented a domestic reserve policy similar to in Western Australia to ensure that we do not run short of this vital energy resource? 14:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for acknowledging the work of the then Western Australian Labor government in providing a domestic gas reserve. But the reality is that we do have a range of measures in place to meet Australia's domestic needs for gas while being a responsible trade and energy partner. And, as I said, there are hundreds if not thousands of jobs in towns like Gladstone and many other towns around the country that rely on gas production and gas exports, and we don't want to jeopardise them— Senator Chisholm 39801 Roma. Senator WATT 245759 places like Roma, as Senator Chisholm says. I'm sure you've been out to Roma at some point, Senator Hanson, and have noticed— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I remind you once again— Senator WATT 245759 I'm sure that Senator Hanson has been to Roma and has observed the jobs that are produced through gas production and gas exports. Queensland and Western Australia both already have state based reservation schemes, and gas produced in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia is for domestic use only. In addition, our government has produced a future gas strategy, which is all about making sure we can meet our domestic needs and those export contracts. (Time expired) Small Business 52 14:36 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, more than 27,000 businesses have gone insolvent since the Albanese government was elected in May 2022. The December 2024 quarter was the worst on record, with 3,852 businesses becoming insolvent. This is the third-worst quarter on record in a row following the June 2024 and the September 2024 figures. Mr Albanese now holds the record for the most business insolvencies for a prime minister, with an average of 2,648 per quarter. When a small business becomes insolvent, people lose their jobs, people lose their homes, and families and individuals suffer from severe hardship. Why has the Prime Minister ignored the record level of business insolvency under his government and instead made prices higher for small businesses while also increasing their green and red tape? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The senator is right to talk about the importance of small business. They are the engine room of our economy and the hearts of so many local communities across the country and they certainly employ millions of Australians—more than five million people—and contribute more than $500 billion to the nation's economy. The advice I have is that the number of small businesses has actually increased by around 140,000 to a record 2.6 million. Obviously that is a good thing. But we are conscious of the pressures facing small business, which is why the government has helped to ease the pressure on Australia's 2.6 million small businesses by providing more than $640 million in practical and targeted support. We know that the opposition voted against energy bill relief for small businesses. Can I also indicate that the government has updated the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and small businesses are now getting a larger slice of the $75 billion in contracts that the Australian government spends each year, with a 40 per cent target for contracts up to $20 million in value and a 25 per cent target for contracts up to $1 billion in value—so, using the power of Commonwealth procurement to ensure that small businesses get a reasonable share of what is a very large procurement budget. We're also improving payment times to small businesses, with a total investment of $33.4 million for a series of new reforms. In addition, we've supported small business with $60 million in cyber and digital support. I make the point that we recognise the importance of small business to the economy and have sought to provide assistance in the ways I have outlined and many more. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:39 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria A dry cleaner in Gordon in Sydney, Mr David Weng, recently saw his energy costs increase from $2,000 a month to $3,826 a month—nearly double. He said: It's shocking. It's killing us. It really spoils my business. If you are running like that, there is no way you can keep going. Will the Prime Minister admit that his failure to address energy prices and his failure to deliver the $275 price reduction is contributing to the record level of small-business insolvencies? (Time expired) 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I would say to Mr Weng in relation to energy costs is that we understand that energy prices have been very difficult for many small businesses, which is why this government did provide energy bill relief in previous budgets. It is disappointing that those opposite, who pretend to be the champions of small business in this country, voted against it. If you care, Senator Hume, about the energy prices that small businesses are paying and about the cost to their business, please explain to the chamber and to Mr Weng why it is that you chose to vote against energy bill relief for small businesses in this country. Let's be very clear about it. Let's remember, also, that we take our advice from the Energy Market Operator, who has confirmed time and time again that Australia's energy system should be focused on the cheapest form of energy, which is renewables backed up by gas. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, 4,191 hospitality businesses have become insolvent since Labor took office, and 603 of those became insolvent in the December quarter alone. Under your government, 90,000 hospitality jobs have been lost. Why is the government now opposing coalition policies designed to help the hospitality sector and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who work in hospitality? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! Senator Cash, I've just called for order. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Gallagher and Senator Watt, come to order. 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This is Mr Dutton's plan for a long-lunch-led economic boom! What an extraordinary run-up to that question! I have some sympathy for Senator Hume, who has been out there trying to defend what I'm sure she knows is a dud of a policy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, you've asked the question. Senator WONG 00AOU without putting out a costing. Now she's coming in here and saying, 'Things are really bad, so we're going to vote against energy price relief and ask workers to fund tax breaks for long lunches; that's our economic plan and that's our set of priorities.' Only a Liberal opposition led by Mr Dutton could come up with such a ridiculous policy. Look at their priorities—$1.6 billion, up to $10 billion a year, on the long lunch. How is that good economic management? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! First Nations Australians: Youth Justice 53 14:43 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. You recently met with state and territory Indigenous affairs ministers about the huge number of unsentenced children being held in prison around this country, where we know their human rights are being abused. But, despite your best efforts with these meetings, we know state and territory governments are moving backwards. Just this week, your Labor colleague in Victoria Premier Jacinta Allan announced she's reviewing the bail laws that have just been brought in so she can hold more kids in prison unsentenced. Why are state governments ignoring you? 14:44 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Thorpe for her question. Clearly, as we've said in the Senate on many occasions, the area of justice is a state and territory issue. But the senator is correct: when we met in November in Perth I did meet with all Indigenous affairs ministers, as well as the Coalition of Peaks, who represent around 800 Aboriginal organisations from across the country, along with my co-chair, Pat Turner. What we did do at that ministerial council is call on every minister at that table to go back to their cabinet and to look at the issue of remand. We are deeply troubled at the rising rates of remand in this country, especially with our youth, and the overcrowding that's taking place. It's not just our youth across the other jurisdictions. I'm also very concerned about the area that I come from in terms of the Northern Territory. On the question around whether the ministers have responded, a letter has been sent off to ministers following up on where they are at with it. That is something that both Pat Turner and I are following very closely. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Great—another letter! Numerous legal experts told the children's justice inquiry that your government put in force standards on states to protect the human rights of children. You can use external affairs powers and funding agreements like we see in health and education. Why does your government keep saying there's nothing concrete you can do to protect children when clearly there is? 14:46 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I certainly reject from the outset that take on our concern for children and rules around children in the question that you've put, Senator Thorpe. You may not have seen it, but just a few weeks ago we did announce the interim children's commissioner for First Nations children across the country. Certainly we want to see the successful applicant for that position announced very soon. So we are making endeavours. But we recognise that the care and protection of children across each state and territory jurisdiction is a state and territory matter. So the role of the First Nations children's commissioner is to do precisely that in terms of the areas that Senator Thorpe was raising. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Very disappointing. Minister, will you tell the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General to use the legal powers and leverage we know you have to uphold our international human rights obligations and protect children from ongoing abuse, or will we just see more chats and meetings that go nowhere? That's all we hear from you. 14:47 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Clearly the communication that has to occur often does happen by letters or phone calls, Senator Thorpe. Its's really important to be able to— Senator Thorpe 280304 It's not action. Kids are dying—on your watch, by the way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Thorpe! Senator McCARTHY 122087 Obviously the senator doesn't want to hear the answer. It's really important to be able to communicate in an effective way with state and territory jurisdictions, and that is what I am doing. I have answered the senator's question in terms of the children and in terms of the First Nations children's commissioner. Vocational Education and Training 54 14:48 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. Building Australia's future is about creating a better life for Australians, building more accessible education and training, and creating new employment opportunities. TAFE education and training plays a central role in providing Australians with the skills they need to get the jobs they want. These jobs are in areas like construction, early childhood education and aged care. What steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to reduce the cost of training, and how is this helping Australians to get the skills they need for the jobs they want? 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Urquhart, who I understand is a graduate of Devonport TAFE in the electorate of Braddon. What a fine product of the TAFE system she is. The Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future, including by ensuring Australians have the opportunity to gain the skills they need to get ahead for free. We're delivering free TAFE as part of our action to drive inflation down, lift wages up and create more jobs. In fact, the Albanese Labor government has now delivered free TAFE to almost 600,000 Australians. More than six in 10 places have been taken up by women and one in three in regional and remote Australia. We've had 39,000 people enrol in construction, 40,000 in early education, 54,000 in digital technology and 150,000 in aged care and disability care. Of course, that means huge savings for students. Free TAFE is on the chopping block under Peter Dutton and the coalition. It's one of the $350 billion worth of cuts they've pledged if they win the next election. Why do they need such savage cuts? Of course, it's to pay for their plan to shout $10 billion worth of free lunches for bosses. Mr Dutton isn't content with his plan to cut workers' pay; now he wants workers to shout their bosses lunch. We finally know how much Mr Dutton's long-lunches policy will cost taxpayers—up to $10 billion a year. The opposition says this is all about supporting small business, so I was surprised to hear Senator Hume on 2GB yesterday saying the policy would subsidise a lunch at the well-known small business Kentucky Fried Chicken, that battling small Aussie business KFC! She added to that this morning on Sky News telling us, 'After they've had a productive week, take them out to the pub and buy them a chicken schnitzel.' There we have it: the coalition's IR policy. It's schnitties, not skills; it's parmas, not penalty rates; it's wagyu, not wage rises. Under Peter Dutton you will be worse off. You cannot afford Peter Dutton. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Watt. I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles. Senator Urquhart, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Under the Albanese Labor government, almost 600,000 Australians have enrolled in free TAFE. Mr Dutton and the coalition have described free TAFE as wasteful spending. How is the government's free TAFE policy helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures while investing in the future, and why is this so important? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Free TAFE is making a difference to Australians, and that's why we're making it permanent. It's getting Australian workers and employers the skills they need all while reducing cost-of-living pressures. That is probably why Mr Dutton and the coalition want to cut it. We've heard them call free TAFE wasteful spending and say it needs to be cut. This, of course, is coming from the party that has come up with its burgers for bigwigs plan, where taxpayers will subsidise long lunches for bosses. And they still won't tell us what it will cost. Just today, one day, we've had Senator Hume refuse to say at all how much it will cost on Sky News; we had Sussan Ley on the ABC saying it will be $250 million; we've had Senator Canavan say it will cost less than $250 million on Channel 9; and we've had David Littleproud indicate it will cost about $125 million on Sky News Regional. You can clear this up by releasing the costings. The way this is going, the costings for this policy are a bigger secret than Area 51. They're a bigger secret than Scott Morrison's secret ministries. Come clean and tell us what it will cost. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please refer to those in the other place by their correct titles. Senator Urquhart, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania When speaking on the Free TAFE Bill, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' What are the key barriers to Australians accessing free TAFE, and why won't the government be pursuing alternative policies? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland By removing financial barriers, free TAFE is helping Australians to gain skills and build their future. Now, we know that Mr Dutton and the coalition have made it clear that they don't believe TAFE students are worth the investment with snobby remarks like the one from Ms Ley saying, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I've been very Zen over a lot of interjections, but Senator McGrath has been shouting across the chamber for a great deal of question time, and I would ask him to stop. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sadly, Senator McGrath, you have been very loud since we started question time. I invite you to make your contribution during taking note or at some other time. I ask you to come to order. Senator Ruston 243273 On a point of order, I would like Senator Watt to withdraw his personal reflection on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will remind the chamber that that remark, which I will not go into, was being made quite freely by the opposition. I took it in the spirit that it was intended—that it was a joke—but I will ask Senator Watt to consider withdrawing. I'll put you on notice. If he withdraws it, I will not tolerate it any longer from the opposition. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw, President. So, at the same time, the coalition is saying that free TAFE is not worth funding. What they do think is worth funding is their secret plan for $10 billion in long lunches for bosses. The shadow Treasurer, the leading economics spokesperson in the opposition, has even claimed that their long lunches policy is a productivity measure. This week he was asked: 'And where are the productivity gains from? I guess the lunch tax deductions,' and Mr Taylor said, 'We're pulling every lever we can to drive productivity.' It's a 'parmi' productivity plan from Angus Taylor! We know that the coalition is going to cut free TAFE. They've already said they will, just like they'll cut wages. But it's rolled gold for bosses with free lunches. Syria: Human Rights, Australian Defence Force 55 14:56 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong. The country of Syria has been overthrown recently by terrorists formerly associated with ISIS and al-Qaeda. There are reports these terrorists are abusing and killing Christians and other minorities. In 2012, the then US Deputy Secretary of State Jake Sullivan sent an email to Hillary Clinton saying, 'Al-Qaeda is on our side in Syria.' In 2016, the Los Angeles Times reported that terrorists funded by the Pentagon are fighting terrorists funded by the CIA in Syria. Given the Australian government has previously condemned the Assad regime for its atrocities, why has it said nothing about the human rights abuses in Syria committed by the current regime, and is this because Australian foreign policy is controlled by deep state western intelligence agencies more interested in imperialism than in upholding human rights and democratic values? 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for the question, Senator Rennick. In relation to the last assertion, I would reject that, and I would say to you that Australia always should and continues to support international law and human rights. Obviously, how we reflect that support varies. It may be by bilateral consultations, public statements, what we talk to people about privately or what we talk about publicly. Given who we are and the values and interests that Australia has, international law, including respect for human rights, matters to us. You are correct that the Assad regime had form. Obviously, that ends decades of brutal oppression, and we hope it could be the end of what has been a horrific period for Syrians marred by conflict, division and displacement. I articulated previously, at the time of the overthrow of the Assad regime, a call on all parties to protect civilians, refrain from violence and prioritise dialogue. In relation to the organisation which was involved in the overthrow and is also part of the current Syrian regime, which is Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, I would say to you that Australia listed HTS as a terrorist organisation in 2022 due to concerns over its conduct. Obviously, we again would say it's critical that Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham and other armed groups who are now in control protect all Syrian civilians. Like other partners, we will be watching the actions of HTS in the period ahead. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland What does the Australian government have to say to Australian veterans who served and died for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan only to find out that they were fighting for imperialist organisations lying to them—firstly, about there being chemical weapons in Iraq; and, secondly, about al-Qaeda being the enemy in Afghanistan when al-Qaeda was funded by the same imperialist organisations? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): Well, it is true, certainly in relation to the assertion of weapons of mass destruction, that history has demonstrated the problematic nature of some of the decisions that were made by past governments. What I would say to all veterans is that we always stand with the men and women in the ADF who serve the government of the day, who engage in action overseas when asked to, who serve Australia bravely, and we always thank them for their service, regardless of whether or not at the time or subsequently people may have different views about the government's decisions at the time. We are very privileged and honoured in this country to have very fine men and women in the Australian Defence Force who demonstrate discipline, courage, determination, professionalism across the globe. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Will the minister please ask our intelligence agencies if the entire war on terror over the last two decades has been nothing but a Western intelligence PSYOP campaign designed to advance Western imperial interests in the Middle East? And does this campaign include Hamas, given the deep state has funded other Islamic terrorist organisations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda through programs such as Timber Sycamore? 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Whatever your views, I don't think it would be correct to say that the threat of and the existence of terrorism is not something that Australian governments and governments across the globe have to deal with; it is the case. But what I would say to you is we have to deal with that, both by being very focused on national security matters, on making sure we work with and take the advice of agencies including our intelligence agencies but also our law enforcement agencies, and we also have to deal with some of the conflicts and misinformation which give rise to that sort of hateful ideology. I thank you for your interest in these matters, but, on some of these issues, I don't agree with how you are articulating some of the past history. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. MOTIONS 56 MOTIONS National Security 56 15:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Prime Minister's failure to be upfront and accountable with the parliament and the Australian people in relation to when he became aware of a planned mass casualty terror attack against Sydney's Jewish community as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator CASH I0M Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Prime Minister's failure to be up front and accountable with the Parliament and the Australian people in relation to when he became aware of a planned mass-casualty terror attack against Sydney's Jewish community. This is a matter of national security, and that is why it is incumbent on the Senate to suspend standing orders in order for us to debate exactly why the Prime Minister is failing in his No. 1 priority to the Australian people. The Prime Minister has been asked some very simple questions, questions that, unlike what Senator Wong says, go to 'law enforcement investigation and are prejudicial to it'. They merely go to the date—the date upon which he was notified. Now, the reason we need to suspend standing orders is because it is a first priority of a government to ensure the national security of both Australia and its people. We have had in this country the exposure of something that could have been a mass terrorist event against the Jewish people, and the Prime Minister has failed in every regard when it comes to reassuring the Australian people and advising them. I'm starting to wonder if he, quite frankly, was ever advised of this event, a mere date. Senator Wong, when in opposition, used to frequently say to us on this side of the chamber, 'The minister has an obligation as the Minister representing the Prime Minister to be accountable to this chamber', and the coalition will not tolerate these baseless claims. Well, quite frankly, it is incumbent upon this chamber to interrogate why the Prime Minister is providing us with baseless claims. The contrast, of course, is Premier Minns, the Labor Premier of New South Wales. He was asked when he was briefed. He didn't hide behind his ministers. He didn't hide behind the excuse of being prejudicial to any law enforcement investigation. In fact, he showed leadership, and he actually made sure the people of New South Wales understood: 'I'm in charge. I'm in control. I know what I'm doing.' And why did he do that? Because I'm assuming he understood that a matter of national security—a potential terrorist event; explosives intended for a synagogue—was something he needed to reassure the people over. Contrast that, however, with our Prime Minister. You've got to hear the answers the Prime Minister gave in question time today. They were, again, obfuscation. They were an embarrassment. They were hidey. This is the man that was elected by the Australian people—on the preferences of the Greens, of course—to lead this nation. You have, potentially, a mass terrorist event in this country. We are not asking the Prime Minister to compromise the operational details. We would not do that. But I tell you what we are asking the Prime Minister on behalf of the Australian people—do you have any idea what is going on? Not only that; it's not just the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has an attorney-general. I want to know what the Attorney-General was doing. The Prime Minister has a Minister for Home Affairs. I'm sure the Australian people would like to know what the Minister for Home Affairs knew and when. And, if they did know, why didn't they tell the Prime Minister? All we have seen to date is a prime minister who is trying to hide behind a claim of confidentiality. The Prime Minister needs to start thinking very carefully. He should not use a claim of confidentiality on national security as an issue when it suits him, because he was exposed today in the question that Senator Paterson put to Minister Wong, as the representative of the Prime Minister. When it suits the Prime Minister, he will tell the Australian people when he has been briefed. He will tell the Australian people when the National Security Committee of the cabinet has been briefed. But, on this, he's playing politics. He refuses to tell the Australian people the simple detail of when he or his government knew about this sickening incident. As I said, Senator Wong, when in opposition, used to make it very clear that these types of questions needed to be answered. Guess what? Your words are now coming back to haunt you, and the Australian people will not tolerate the obfuscation and hiding by the Prime Minister. (Time expired) 15:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will not be supporting this suspension and this grandstanding by the new Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who is trying to prove a political point at the expense of an ongoing investigation into a serious threat. This suspension motion talks about being upfront and accountable. This Prime Minister stands up every single day and answers questions— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 May I remind those on my left that your leader, Senator Cash, was heard in complete silence, and that same courtesy and respect will be afforded to Senator Gallagher. If you can't give that respect, then leave the chamber. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Prime Minister stands up every single day, takes questions and answers questions from any journalist that turns up to his press conferences—unlike Mr Dutton, who never does. If there is anything about leadership that I've understood, it is that a leader is a person who is principled and who stands up, answers and is accountable for every decision that they take. Every time he has been asked about this, the Prime Minister has said that there are two issues that he is focused on: (1) the safety of the Australian people and (2) not to be involved in or to provide commentary on or speculation about an ongoing investigation that is being led by the security agencies and involves combined effort between the AFP and New South Wales police, which, of course, involves some of the other national security agencies. It is not the Prime Minister who is out trying to politicise this; it is Mr Dutton and his team over here. It is outrageous. It is a new low in Australian politics—the desperation and recklessness and arrogance of the opposition!—that they would choose to take an issue like this and run and play politics with it. That's exactly what they are doing. All the lectures that we heard from those opposite around national security and supporting the security agencies and letting them do their jobs, which is exactly what we are doing, have been forgotten by those opposite—no, no, let's do a running commentary on it; let's try and make it the Prime Minister's fault. That's not leadership. We've got Mr Dutton, who stomps around the country creating division, who's never met a culture war that he doesn't want to jump on and who seizes an opportunity to play politics with an issue like this, the national security of Australia. You question— Senator Hughes 273828 Did Chris Minns break national security obligations? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, you are being completely disrespectful to my request for the opposition senators to listen in silence, the same respect that was afforded to Senator Cash when she spoke. I invited senators who couldn't show that respect to leave the chamber. I'm inviting you to either sit here in silence or leave the chamber. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Leader of the Opposition hasn't even asked for a briefing on this matter. He probably doesn't want to be briefed, because that might stop him from being able to play these games. That is what is going on right now. There is an ongoing investigation. The focus needs to be on hunting down the criminals who are involved in this and allowing the security agencies to do their work. They are investigating this matter. There is no reason for this to be the subject of ongoing political debate, as chosen by those opposite. We won't be lectured by them around matters of national security—that's for sure—because of the approach that they have decided to take on this. The government will be opposing this motion, and I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.  

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

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

Question agreed to.

15:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 I now intend to put Senator Cash's motion to suspend. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.  

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

 29 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 4 PAIRS Askew, W. Urquhart, A. E. McDonald, S. E. Watt, M. P. Ruston, A. Farrell, D. E. Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy) McAllister, J. R.

Question negatived.

15:23 The PRESIDENT 112096 Are you seeking the call, Senator Paterson? 15:23 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes. Leave not granted. Senator PATERSON 144138 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement of no more than five minutes. The problem that the government has today, in their second attempt today of covering up about what they knew and when they knew it—about the AFP's involvement in this investigation—is that it doesn't pass the pub test. Senator Wong's argument in question time today was that they couldn't possibly answer this question because doing so would compromise an ongoing police investigation. So is Senator Wong arguing that the Premier of New South Wales has compromised a police investigation by directly answering this question when he was asked? That is a very serious charge to be made against her fellow Labor politician, New South Wales Premier Minns. And how has Premier Minns compromised a police investigation by disclosing, when asked, when he was briefed? And how would Anthony Albanese be compromising a police investigation if he answered when he was briefed? Is it material to the police investigation about this very serious attempted terrorist attack? In what way would the investigation be in any way impeded by the Prime Minister disclosing this fact? The other problem with this argument—apart from inadvertently blaming the New South Wales Premier for compromising a police investigation—is that it's totally contrary to the past practice of the Prime Minister himself. He never talks about national security committee meetings; he never talks about briefings—except when he does; except when it's convenient; except when it is in his political interests to do so. In fact, there were six examples printed in the Australian newspaper just today—including during active and ongoing investigations into other terror incidents, including the Adass Israel Synagogue firebombing. So how did the Prime Minister compromise the investigation into the Adass Israel Synagogue bombing when he publicly disclosed the fact that he'd been briefed by the AFP and ASIO about that? How did he compromise that investigation when he said he called a National Security Committee meeting of cabinet to response to that attack? It's very obvious that what is really happening here is that the Prime Minister is embarrassed. He's embarrassed for one of two reasons: either the AFP didn't tell him, and we have had a catastrophic failure of our national security architecture on his watch and he doesn't want to admit to that having happened; or the AFP did tell him, and he didn't act—he didn't call an NSC meeting; he didn't surge resources to the AFP and ASIO and our other intelligence and law enforcement agencies; he didn't reach out to the Jewish community; he didn't reassure them that he had their best interests at heart and he was doing everything he could to protect them. From start to finish in the handling of this antisemitism terrorism crisis, the Prime Minister has been a day late and a dollar short. He has been too little and too late. It is so often that he finally agrees to something only after the opposition puts pressure on him to do so—like when we called for the introduction of a federal taskforce on antisemitism; like when we called for the holding of a National Cabinet meeting to talk about antisemitism. He was dragged kicking and screaming into holding those meetings, into doing those actions, because he only responds to political pressure; he never leads. He shown weakness and equivocation, every step of the way, when it comes to this crisis of antisemitism which has festered and grown out of control on his watch. I hope that the Prime Minister doesn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming, yet again, to taking more action on antisemitism. I hope he is able to take up the opposition's suggestion from two weeks ago that there be federal mandatory minimum sentences for Commonwealth terrorism offences. On 21 January we said that the government should introduce mandatory minimum sentences to protect Australians and send a strong message to the perpetrators of these offences that there'll be serious consequences for their behaviour. The Prime Minister dismissed the need for mandatory minimum sentences when he was asked about that throughout January. He said that the government had no plans to introduce mandatory minimum sentences. When we moved a motion in this place on Tuesday afternoon calling on the government to introduce mandatory minimum sentences, the Labor Party voted against it. They voted against the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences. They have to explain why they think it would be appropriate for someone convicted of a terrorism offence to be sentenced for less than six years—to be sentenced to, perhaps, a few days or a few weeks or a few months—in response to a successful Commonwealth prosecution for a terrorism offence, or they can be dragged kicking and screaming again into finally doing what the opposition has called on them to do: to show leadership, to introduce tough laws, to put in place tough deterrence, to finally get this antisemitism terror crisis that has festered on their watch under control, so Jewish Australians and all Australians are safe again. 15:28 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, what an extraordinary performance! It really sits on top of a series of days of overreach, with the Liberals and Nationals establishing that they are not up to the job in national security terms. They are not up to the job, out of their depth and unable to conduct themselves like adults. They have lost the sense of perspective of putting the country's interests first, rather than trying to go straight to TikTok, which is exactly what Senator Paterson was there trying to do, with his pretend, faux seriousness, looking straight into the camera, trying to confect this idea. This group over here say that they are big on national security, but they performed so poorly as a government that they isolated Australia on the national stage and made us weaker. The Morrison government made us weaker, less secure and less safe, particularly in the Pacific—but no more so than Mr Dutton, who insulted Pacific states and Pacific leaders when the veil was taken off, when he wasn't performing and he thought he wasn't on camera. He promised Ms Queenie or whatever her name was, the immigration star, that we would be back to the $5 million visas, which were rorted systematically by criminals and money launderers when he was the immigration minister. So what do we have? This show, all blowhard and noise, here on 'overreach Wednesday', when they were talking about social cohesion and protecting the interests of the Australian Jewish community, although just a few years ago Senator Cash and some of these other characters were cheering Senator Brandis on when he said, 'People do have a right to be bigots, you know.' They are utterly inconsistent, utterly juvenile and unfit to play a serious role in national security terms. What sits underneath that? Why are there all these questions about who knew what when, when they know that is a matter for the security agencies and no government worth its salt would do anything different? What sits underneath that assertion, apart from a venal sense of partisan self-interest? It's a smug sense of entitlement. They can't imagine that their own sense of entitlement is the only thing that drives them forward on these questions. This is a hopeless stunt. It shows why they are not fit for the job or up to the task and why they are out of their depth on national security questions. It will happen again. It will happen over and over again this week—the confected outrage, the blowhard activity and all of the carry-on. We'd rather get on to listening to what you geniuses have to say in the debate on motions to take note of answers, but we'll see how we go. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Paterson be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 5 PAIRS Askew, W. Pratt, L. C. McDonald, S. E. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. Watt, M. P. Ruston, A. Ciccone, R. Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy). McAllister, J. R.

Question negatived.

 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 61 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Payman, Senator Fatima 61 15:39 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia by leave—I inform the Senate that I now sit as a Western Australian senator for Australia's Voice. I also inform the Senate that I should be designated as party whip for the purpose of standing order 24A, relating to the Selection of Bills Committee. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 61 15:39 Senator MCGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without noticed asked by Opposition senators today. There are two questions I want to focus on. The first are the three questions I put to Senator Wong, who was representing the Prime Minister. They went to the cost-of-living crisis that is endemic in Australia at the moment. It has grown at such a rate because of the policies of the Labor Party, because of decisions of the Labor Party and because we have a weak Prime Minister. Working household costs have gone up 19.4 per cent under this government. To break that down even further, food costs have gone up 14 per cent, housing has gone up 14 per cent, health has gone up 12 per cent, education has gone up 11 per cent, and insurance and financial services have gone up 96 per cent since the Labor Party came to power. I'll repeat that. The cost of insurance and financial services has increased by 96 per cent since the Labor Party came to power. Yet, we have a ministry of ministers who pat Australians on the head and say, 'You've never had it better since the Labor Party came into power.' We've got a Labor Party who don't understand how tough it is out in the real world. We have a Labor Party who believe the small businesses they go into are actually the Chairmans Lounge of Qantas or the equivalent of Virgin. We've Labor Party who have forgotten what it is like to walk into a small business. They've forgotten the people who work in a small business. They've forgotten how tough it is for those people struggling because of the cost of living in Australia. The Labor Party try to blame everyone. They blame the dog that ate the homework. They blame the weather. They blame Robert Menzies. They blame Joseph Cook. They blame everyone except the fundamental truth, which is that they themselves are responsible for the economic security of Australians, and they have failed. They have failed miserably. The second question put to the government was from my colleague Senator Paterson, from Victoria. Senator Paterson asked some very serious questions in relation to when the Prime Minister was briefed about the planned mass casualty terror event. A caravan full of explosives was going to be placed in front of a Jewish school or a Jewish synagogue or a Jewish home. This is mass terrorism coming to Australia. The coalition is not asking for operational details. We know this is a very serious matter. But we do want to know when the Prime Minister was first told about this. The New South Wales Labor Premier was upfront and told the media about the planned terrorist event. This is the New South Wales Labor Premier. He did not hide behind the secrecy of operational planning or operational details. He was very upfront. He said, 'This is when I was told.' He did not go into details, and he was not questioned on the details. But we have the Prime Minister of this country, a weak Prime Minister, who either was not told by our security services because they don't trust him, because his office is known to be a leaky office, or was told and then decided not to do anything about it. Either way, Australians should be scared that Anthony Albanese is the Prime Minister of this country. He's either not trusted by the security services or not up to the job of chairing the National Security Committee of cabinet to make sure that Australians are safe. We just want to know the date, Prime Minister. What are you hiding? 15:44 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Well, let's add some facts to this debate that we're having in the chamber today. The facts are that when we took office 2½ years ago inflation, on your watch, had been high and rising. Wages were low, and real wages were going backwards as a deliberate design feature of the economy that Liberal governments built. Today, under out government, inflation is declining. And under our government more than 1.1 million jobs have been created—the most new jobs under any government on record. Unemployment under our government is at the lowest average level in 50 years. And, under our government, wages are growing again, and real wages are growing, too. So, inflation is down, jobs are up and wages are up. Those opposite can talk down those achievements, not just of the government but of the Australian people. On our side of the chamber, as a government, we are determined to build Australia's future. But right now, today, the future we are building together with Australians is at risk, and that risk is Mr Dutton and the Liberals. What awaits Australia under a Dutton led government is $350 billion in budget cuts. Mr Dutton is not paying Australians the respect they deserve by detailing what these cuts would be. But Australians probably don't need Mr Dutton to tell them what he is going to cut when he takes an axe to the budget and slashes and burns $350 billion, because Australians know that the very first place Peter Dutton will swing his axe is against Medicare. Why? Because he has form. When he was the health minister of Australia, he cut $50 billion from Australia's Medicare system. He was the health minister who was voted the worst health minister on record by some people who know something about that: Australia's doctors. He tried to end bulk-billing as we know it by imposing a GP tax on every doctor's visit that Australians would undertake. He cut $50 billion from our hospital system, and today we are proud to say that as a government we are reinvesting in Australia's public hospital system. And of course it was Mr Dutton who, when he was health minister, launched the infamous Medicare privatisation task force. So, this guy has form, and it is no wonder that, as Australia has faced post-pandemic inflation—like every other advanced economy in the world—Mr Dutton has opposed every single measure we have put in place to provide Australians some help during these challenging times. He opposed a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer. He said we should go to an election about it. He opposed $300 of energy bill relief and even more for small businesses. He opposed cheaper child care. He opposed fee-free TAFE. He opposed raising the minimum wage so that it would keep up with rising inflation. And he opposed all the measures we put in place to make jobs more secure in this country. Australians want to know what Mr Dutton would slash and burn as he goes after his $350 billion in budget cuts. Would it be Medicare? I think Australians know that would be top of his list. What about free TAFE? What about cheaper child care? What about energy bill relief? What about those pay rises for hardworking Australians? All of it would be at risk under Mr Dutton. Australians want to see a government that is committed to building their future, and the contrast couldn't be clearer: higher wages and help for all under the Albanese Labor governments, or lower wages and budget cuts under Mr Dutton. 15:50 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Where to begin? It's quite interesting. I think I'll start with one of the comments that Senator Wong made to my colleague Senator McGrath. I think she said, 'We are in a far better place than we were a long time ago.' I was stunned by that statement, because I think that even if I tried really, really, really hard I wouldn't be able to find one single person that is better off today than they were three years ago. We've had some 990 days of this government, and wherever I go and whoever I speak to the regular messaging I get is how hard it is for them: how they're struggling, how they can't cope, how there is a mental and psychological toll connected to the financial toll of the cost-of-living crisis that we are all enduring. My colleague on the other side made a comment about how we tend to talk down the achievements of the Labor government. We're actually talking about the facts of what this government have delivered, and their legacy is a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis, a crisis of small business insolvencies, and an antisemitism crisis. That's the legacy of this government. What we need them when we ask these questions—when we ask the questions that the Australian public rightfully deserve to know the answers to—are clear and straight answers, not some kind of talking-point concoction of different statistics that sort of make it look like they might be doing a good job. Everybody knows how hard it is out there, and the Australia public deserves to know what this government is going to do about it. And there isn't much time left. We don't know when the election is going to be. We don't know if we've got a month or two months or three months. Perhaps that's where the focus is now, instead of running the economy and serving the interests of the Australian public, because that attention is certainly not where it should be. The attention is probably a little bit too much on Peter Dutton. The people on the other side speak about the Leader of the Opposition constantly. And I understand why. When you're lacking leadership in government, you're looking to somebody that might actually be able to deliver some results. The thing you need to understand is that we don't have to provide all of the answers in opposition. In government you should be providing those answers. You should be able to tell us what you are going to do and why you haven't been able to deliver what you should have delivered. I'll tell you what you have delivered for small businesses: higher rents, supply chain problems, skyrocketing insurance premiums, utility and wage bills going through the roof, and just red tape after red tape after red tape—and much more expensive raw materials. Questions around business insolvencies remain largely unanswered. But I have the answers for you. Since this government took office 27,036 businesses have gone under. In a housing crisis, it is devastating to know, even more than usually, that 7,183 of those businesses were in construction. A further 4,191 were hospitality businesses. Hospitality businesses are one of the largest employers of women in our economy. A further 1,765 of those businesses were retailers, small shops—maybe the local hairdresser, a pet-wash business, a local pharmacy, a local butcher or bakery. A further 1,383 were manufacturers—people, small businesses that made stuff here in Australia for other Australians to buy. Thirteen hundred and eighty-three have closed down since Anthony Albanese became our Prime Minister. That is a terrible shame, and that is an indictment on this government. I don't understand how anybody can sit there and pretend that this isn't a real problem and then point to the good news story that we have more new businesses, so we don't have to worry about all the families that have been crushed by the loss of their family businesses. That is unacceptable. If you don't recognise you have a problem, you can't solve it. 15:55 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I'll just talk a little bit about inflation, real disposable income and the cost-of-living matters that were raised today. But I think it's important to start by correcting something that my friend and colleague Senator McGrath said, which is that this government has never said that people have never had it better. In fact, the constant refrain both today during answers to questions and more generally has been a recognition that Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis. But the cost-of-living crisis is not ahistorical, and you don't need to go back to Menzies or to Cook—convenient exaggerations—you only need to go back to Scott Morrison. When we talk about the source of the inflationary problem, the inflation that has driven up prices for Australians and has made their disposable income far lower, it is the spending and economic policies of the Morrison government. Now, that's not to say that there isn't some slack deserved by the previous government in relation to dealing with COVID. Of course there is some slack required. But, when those opposite try to sheet home an inflationary problem that was created in those circumstances to this government, it's important to go back and actually look at some of those facts. Some of that spending was justified and some of it was profligate. But Scott Morrison delivered deficits in the vicinity of $161 billion, 7.8 per cent of GDP. Government spending was a record at the time, of 32.1 per cent of GDP. There was some $40 billion spent in excess of what was required in the JobKeeper program—that is, $40 billion handed out to companies that didn't actually need it. It's that lack of fiscal discipline, that lack of proper economic and financial planning, that meant that inflation was 6.1 per cent in May 2022 and moving upwards. That trajectory peaked in December 2022 at 7.8 per cent. For all the criticism we heard for most of last year, inflation has trended down under this government for most of its term in office. The Reserve Bank of Australia told the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living last year that inflation has significantly moderated across the last 2½ years. We have, in the first part of 2025, headline inflation in its target range for the first time in a long time, and underlying or trimmed mean inflation with a three in front of it and projected to return to band in either mid or late 2025. Those inflation numbers and the trajectories tell a story of an improving inflation situation, but they don't address the fact that, while inflation is moderating, prices for people remain incredibly high. My friend Senator McGrath spoke about real disposable income, which is a function of income and expenses, and the effect of inflation on those two things. But, at a time when we know Australians are doing it tough, when they need that extra income, there's something fundamentally wrong—it's a kind of duplicity—with saying that the Labor government doesn't care about it but the Opposition does, in circumstances where that opposition has voted against policies and legislation that have delivered wage increases, including wage increases for those on minimum wage—that is, the very poorest of the poor. There were 2.6 million Australians who received multiple minimum-wage increases during the term of this government. It is estimated that, based on the opposition to wage increases, tax cuts and energy bill relief that this government has implemented, working Australians would be $7,200 per annum worse off. That's real money. That's money that has been delivered by policies that were opposed by the coalition or would have been done differently by the coalition. That's more money into their pocket, reduced expenses and increased income. Wage growth across the economy is more than four per cent, and that's now for multiple quarters in a row. If you're doing it tough out there, you need to know that Labor has moderated inflation, has increased your wages and is providing some relief in relation to the higher cost of things. Those are real solutions. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Set the clock for three minutes. Senator Brockman. 16:00 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Three minutes? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I understand from your own whip— Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Deputy President, I feel robbed, but I'll do what I can in three minutes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Well, speak to your beloved whip. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I have three minutes, the opposition had three questions for the Labor Party and we had three completely failed answers from this failure of a government. The first question, from my good friend Senator McGrath, was on the cost-of-living crisis that is facing everyday Australians, particularly small businesses and families. We've got a serious problem in our communities through that cost-of-living crisis, and this government's failure to address it in a meaningful way, to understand it and to do anything other than give lip service to it is an absolute disgrace. The second question was a serious question on a national security issue—potentially the most serious terrorist attack on Australian shores, if it had been able to go ahead—and that was the discovery of explosives in a caravan connected to Jewish sites that were potential targets for this explosive. The Prime Minister couldn't answer a simple question about when he was briefed on it, even though, as Senator Paterson showed, time and time again in the past this Prime Minister has had no hesitation in revealing such information where it suited him. Yet, in this particular case, because it clearly doesn't suit him, he hasn't revealed this information. Why? I ask the Australian people who are listening: why is the Prime Minister running scared on this issue? Finally, question No. 3 was on the decimation of our small-business sector under this government. There have been 27,000 insolvencies since May 2022. That is just extraordinary! This is a failed government. I had three minutes. I outlined the three questions we asked— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Brockman, I understand that you now have five, so you have two more minutes. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Oh, there you go! I'll need to think of a couple more questions! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 You protest; I deliver. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I'm not protesting! Thank you for letting me know. I will continue on, then, about the small-business insolvencies, because this is very close to my heart. In the electorate of Swan in Western Australia, where my office is based, I meet with small businesses every day and I hear the stories of those small businesses. I met with one last week who'd seen their electricity bill basically double over the period of this Labor government. The Labor Premier, who's also facing an election campaign in Western Australia at the moment—the writs were issued today—really belled the cat for the Labor Party and their energy policy when he said that blackouts were part and parcel of Labor's energy plan. 'Part and parcel' was his exact phrase. Small businesses are seeing their energy prices skyrocket—in some cases, almost double—under the Labor government, yet they can't even expect to get supply, because blackouts, as revealed by the Labor Premier of Western Australia, are part and parcel of the Labor energy plan. How does the Labor government in here answer these important questions? They answer these important questions by attacking Peter Dutton. That's all they've got. They spend more than half of every answer attacking Peter Dutton. They don't defend their own record, because they've got no record to defend. All they can do is go on the political attack, and the Australian people are waking up to this failure of a Labor government. Question agreed to. Medicare 65 16:05 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Steele-John today relating to Medicare. It has never been harder to see the GP than it is right now. Let me share some key figures that may enlighten some in the government who seem to be unable to hear the voices of the community members that come to them day after day, I'm sure, as they do with me, and speak of the absolute difficulty that people are experiencing in getting this basic health care. In Perth last year, only 2.9 per cent of GP clinics bulk billed, and the average out-of-pocket cost for a standard appointment was $42.68. In Macnamara last year, only 4.8 per cent of GP clinics bulk billed, and the average out-of-pocket cost for a standard appointment was $51.14. Even in parts of our country where we have a higher rate of bulk billing clinics in comparison to the rest of the country, the percentage of clinics that are bulk billing is still far below half. In Wills, for example, only 45 per cent of GP clinics bulk bill, and the average out-of-pocket cost, last year, was $44.16. In Richmond, in New South Wales, only 8.9 per cent of GP clinics bulk billed, and the average out-of-pocket cost was, for a standard appointment, $40.89. In Sturt, in South Australia, only 8.9 per cent of GP clinics bulk billed, with an average out-of-pocket cost for a standard appointment being $42.62. These amounts of money are totally unacceptable. This cost is unbearable. These barriers to care are leading to ill health, are leading to folks ending up in hospital beds and are leading to deteriorating mental health. I've heard from people directly, on the doors in Perth, how difficult it is for people right now. I will never forget talking to a mum in Maylands about the cost of seeing the GP. She was quite open with me. She said: 'I have something on my skin—a mark, a blemish—that I know I need to get checked, but I can't afford it. I cannot afford to go to the GP to get it looked into, because I have to put food on the table for my kids.' Nobody should ever have to make a choice like that. Nobody should ever have to ignore the signs of ill health to be able to pay their rent and to be able to keep a roof over their head. I have heard, also, so many stories from nurses in the WA hospital system, and Royal Perth Hospital stands out. So many of these health professionals are burning out. So many are struggling because the system is underfunded and because people are being forced to turn up to the ED when, if they were able to access a GP for free, they would not have ended up in a critical situation. They would not have had to present at the GP. The Greens have a plan to fix this. We are proposing a tripling of the bulk-billing incentive for everyone. We are proposing an increase in the Medicare rebate for long sessions—long consults—so that you can get the detailed care and have the long conversations. We are proposing more funding support for trainee GPs to solve the workforce crisis and the building of 1,000 local free healthcare clinics where you can see the GP for free with no cost. Question agreed to. PETITIONS 65 PETITIONS Nullarbor Plain 65 16:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I table a non-conforming petition of over 17,000 people celebrating the magnificent natural and cultural heritage values of the Nullarbor Plain, including that it contains the largest arid landscape karst system in the world, and raising concerns about the impact on those values of a gargantuan industrial development, over one-third the size of Tasmania, that is proposed for that area. NOTICES 66 NOTICES Withdrawal 66 16:11 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for today, proposing the disallowance of the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Regulations 2024. Presentation 66 Presentation 67 16:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing 111 not apply to the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, allowing it to be considered during this period of settings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the bill to be considered during these sittings, and I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of Bill This Bill will amend the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 to regularise activities the Commonwealth carries out, through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, as an authorised representative of an insurer to provide insurance products to current serving ADF members, veterans and their families. It will also give authority to the Commonwealth for its engagement in such activities in the past. Reasons for Urgency The rapid passage of this legislation is required to confirm the Commonwealth's authority to act as an authorised representative for an insurer and ensure the continuity of insurance services expected of the veteran community. The Commonwealth's withdrawal from these activities would require careful, and potentially protracted, planning and would result in significant inconvenience for current serving ADF members, veterans and families who benefit from these longstanding insurance arrangements. Withdrawal 67 16:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 2, proposing the reference of a public work to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Withdrawal 67 16:12 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Henderson. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 68 Reporting Date 68 BUSINESS 68 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 68 16:13 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Brockman for yesterday, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator McDonald for yesterday, for personal reasons, and for today and tomorrow, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 16:14 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Minister representing the Treasurer has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 666, agreed to on 19 November 2024, relating to Treasury correspondence on the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024, and (ii) on 25 November 2024, the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury advised that he expects to be able to respond to the order 'as soon as practicable once the necessary steps are complete'; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 6 February 2025. 16:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a very short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING We won't be supporting this motion. The Albanese government has partnered with Australia's food relief sector by directly funding the important work supporting vulnerable Australians. We've been working to comply with Senator Smith's order for the production of documents. He has requested departmental advice to government. We've taken appropriate time to ensure the documents being provided warrant public disclosure. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 16:15 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 10 February 2025, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, budgets or other records of interaction from 22 May 2022 to 24 January 2025, between: (a) the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (the department) and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government or their office; (b) the department and the Treasurer or their office; (c) the department and the Treasury; and (d) the department and the Western Australian Government; in relation to plans to construct a grade separated interchange or other upgrades at the intersection of Erindale Road and Reid Highway in Balcatta, Western Australia. Question agreed to. NOTICES 69 NOTICES Withdrawal 69 16:16 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 733 for today. BUSINESS 69 BUSINESS Withdrawal 69 16:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Liberals and Nationals have teamed up with the Greens and One Nation to block: (A) faster environmental approvals for businesses, (B) easier access to the latest environmental data for businesses, and (C) fast-tracking work with the states for critical minerals, housing and other energy projects, (ii) under the last Liberal Government, the Liberals cut 40% from the federal Environment department, (iii) under the last Liberal Government, the average decision for a new project was 116 days behind schedule, and (iv) under the last Liberal Government, 80% of decisions contained errors or were non-compliant; (b) calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the Environment department; and (c) That the government business order of the day relating to the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills be discharged from the Notice Paper. 16:17 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber under Senator Duniam's name. The PRESIDENT 112096 It has been circulated, I understand. I'll just clarify: Senator Askew has indicated that she is moving an amendment to government business No. 1. It's standing in the name of Senator Duniam. It was circulated. I'm just checking in that senators—okay. So that's all good. Thank you, Senator Askew. Leave granted. Senator ASKEW 281558 I move the amendment: Omit paragraph (a). Omit paragraph (b). At the end of paragraph (c), add ", and the Senate calls on the Labor Party to guarantee that this legislation never be returned to the Parliament". The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, I note you've got an amendment as well. Senator David Pocock 256136 Do we deal with that one first, or do I move mine as well? The PRESIDENT 112096 Let me just seek the advice of the Clerk, because I'm not sure; sometimes amendments cancel one other out. We'll deal with Senator Askew's first. So the question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Askew, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, to government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator McKim JKM President, I'm sorry for the late notice. I would like to ask that the question be split, so I'm asking for the division to be cancelled in order to do that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Okay. Let's cancel that division, and I will call the amendment again. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Askew to government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to. Senator McKim JKM President, I ask that you put the questions separately in relation to (b), which is the part that says 'calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the environment department'. We wish to vote differently on that compared to the other elements of this amendment. The PRESIDENT 112096 If it suits the chamber, I will put (b) first and then the remaining motion. Senator McGrath? Senator McGrath 217241 President, to clarify: the motion before the chair is the deletion of paragraph (b) as per the amendment that was moved by Senator Askew in the name of Senator Duniam? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. The Greens party have indicated that they want the motion split. They've asked for (b), which starts off with 'calls on the Liberals and Nationals' to be voted on separately, and I'll put the vote on that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, don't shout out. I'll come to you. Yes, Senator McKim? Senator JKM My bad—and (c). We would like (b) and (c) put separately to (a). The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, this might assist you. The motion I would put is that the amendment to paragraph (b) be agreed to, and if that got up that would delete that paragraph. Senator McGrath 217241 To confirm, we are voting on the deletion of paragraph (b), and paragraph (c) is not involved and paragraph (a) is not involved. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's right. I believe we need to call a division. The question is that paragraph (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 16:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the paragraph (c) of Senator Duniam's amendment be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 31 NOES 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. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 8 PAIRS Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Hume, J. Polley, H. McDonald, S. E. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. Watt, M. P. Paterson, J. W. McCarthy, M. Ruston, A. Sterle, G. Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy) McAllister, J. R.

Question negatived.

 16:39 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the remainder of the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.  

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

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. 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. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:41 Senator MCGRATH 217241 Queensland I want to clarify that the substantive motion that is left is effectively just paragraphs (b) and (c). The PRESIDENT 112096 That is correct. Senator MCGRATH 217241 That motion that was just put up also included the words 'that the Senate', and that was also deleted. Senator Pocock, I think this means that the remaining motion no longer makes any sense. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe we can fix up a small technicality like that. Thank you for sharing it with the chamber. Senator MCGRATH 217241 No worries. I think it's very important to clarify such things. I will hand over to Senator Pocock. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Can you get that in writing? It is in writing, because it's in the Hansard. 16:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber. I hope this helps Senator McGrath, as it re-inserts 'that the Senate'. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's quite clever! Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, the previous motion, Senator Duniam's amendment, removed the whole of paragraph (a), so that's a problem for your (v). I am advised, Senator Pocock, that you can still proceed with your amendments to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the motion, but it does make it a little hard to retrofit it to the amendment which we just dealt with. I'm in your hands, so you need to advise me and the Senate of what you intend to do. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I will die on this hill. I'm happy to proceed. The PRESIDENT 112096 You're happy to proceed with (b) and (c)? I just advise the chamber that we're not in the committee stage. I'm trying to move the Senate along. We're in our normal Senate business, so I need some indication from you, Senator Pocock. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Thank you, President. My amendment would be to have paragraph (b) stand, as the Senate has voted, and then to remove (c). The PRESIDENT 112096 Okay. As I understand it, we are now proceeding with the part of Senator David Pocock's amendment relating to paragraph (c) of the motion. Senator McGrath 217241 I think, President, if I can assist the chamber— The PRESIDENT 112096 Just wait and I'll give you the call, because we are not in committee stage here, Senator McGrath. 16:46 Senator MCGRATH 217241 Queensland I think that Senator Pocock has two remaining amendments. One is to paragraph (b), where he adds the word 'Labor'. Then he wishes to have paragraph (c) deleted. First of all, if that's correct, the coalition would like to split that, if that's possible, to vote on (b) and (c) separately. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sure. Senator Pocock, let's just make sure you've moved the amendment as revised. 16:46 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, President. I move the amendment: Paragraph (b), omit "calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out", substitute "calls on Labor, the Liberals and Nationals to rule out". Omit paragraph (c). The PRESIDENT 112096 The question at this stage is that the first part of the revised amendment moved by Senator Pocock, relating to paragraph (b)—because the coalition have indicated they want to vote on it separately—be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung. The 10000 The government have indicated they are happy for the division to be called off, so, therefore, the amendment to paragraph (b) will stand. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that paragraph (c) of Senator Pocock's amendment be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. 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. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:52 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We are seeking to have the two points of the final motion put separately. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that paragraph (b) of the amended motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that part (c) of the amended motion be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:54]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 23 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 14 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Attorney-General's Department 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:56 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on 10 February 2025, documents, briefing notes, meeting minutes, or correspondence pertaining to communication received since 1 January 2024 from the Western Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet regarding 'future acts', the future acts regime, and the Federal Native Title Act 1993, including submissions to the Australian Law Reform Commission. Question agreed to. Department of Education, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Department of Home Affairs 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:57 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now move to general business notices of motion Nos 737 to 740, standing in the name of Senator Henderson. 16:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I'm just wondering if, when we get to the vote on this, we could vote on 737, 738 and 739 together and 740 separately. 16:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Henderson, I move general business notices of motion Nos 737, 738, 739 and 740 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 737 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 4 pm on 12 February 2025, any document or documents which include the latest available data relating to the calculation of the National Planning Level for new international student commencements. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 738 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 4 pm on 12 February 2025, for each higher education provider (being publicly funded universities and private providers), the latest available data for the following: (a) the number of new overseas student commencements in 2024; (b) the indicative international student profiles as proposed for 2025; (c) the indicative international student profiles as proposed for 2026; (d) the number of onshore international students for 2024; (e) the number of onshore domestic students for 2024; (f) the total number of onshore (domestic and onshore international) students for 2024; and (g) onshore international enrolments as a proportion of total onshore enrolments for 2024. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 739 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, by no later than 4 pm on 12 February 2025, for each vocational and education training provider with a Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students registration, the latest available data for the following: (a) the number of new overseas student commencements for 2024; (b) the indicative international student profiles as proposed for 2025; (c) the indicative international student profiles as proposed for 2026; (d) the number of onshore international students for 2024; (e) the number of onshore domestic students for 2024; (f) the total number of onshore (domestic and onshore international) students for 2024; and (g) onshore international enrolments as a proportion of total onshore enrolments for 2024. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 740 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 4 pm on 12 February 2025: (a) with respect to student visa applications: (i) the number of offshore student visa applications for each education provider approved for the calendar year 2024, (ii) the number of offshore student visa applications for each education provider denied for the calendar year 2024, (iii) the number of onshore student visa applications for each education provider approved for the calendar year 2024, (iv) the number of onshore student visa applications for each education provider denied for the calendar year 2024, (v) the number of onshore and offshore student visa applications received by month for the calendar year 2024, (vi) the total number of onshore and offshore student visa applications approved for the calendar year 2024, (vii) the number of student visa applications where the applicant or their agent have lodged an appeal to a refusal or cancellation for each month of the calendar year 2024, and (viii) the number of student visa holders which have submitted a subclass 866 Protection visa application for each month of the calendar year 2024; (b) with respect to temporary graduate visas: (i) the number of temporary graduate visa holders by location (using city/suburb, postcode or relevant data) for each of the calendar years 2019 to 2024 as at December in each year, or the latest available data for 2024, (ii) the number of temporary graduate visa holders whose visa terminated for each of the calendar years 2019 to 2024, (iii) the destination of temporary graduate visa holders (for those exiting Australia) for each of the calendar years 2019 to 2024, (iv) the duration temporary graduate visa holders remained on a temporary graduate visa prior to exiting Australia for each of the calendar years 2019 to 2024, (v) the number of current temporary graduate visa holders: (A) by how long the visa holder has remained in Australia while holding a temporary graduate visa, including any subsequent temporary graduate visa where relevant, in one-year increments (including less than one year), and (B) by how long remains on their current visa in one-year increments (including less than one year); and (c) with respect to skilled visas: (i) the total number of visa applications for each skilled visa subclass for each of the calendar years 2019 to 2024, and (ii) the total number of visa applications for each skilled visa subclass whereby an applicant is nominating an Australian study requirement in each of the calendar years 2019 to 2024. 16:58 Senator 39801 Queensland CHISHOLM (—) (): I seek leave to make a short statement in regard to general business notice of motion No. 740. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will be opposing this motion. The data is commercially sensitive and may prejudice an individual education provider's commercial and financial interests as well as their reputation. Releasing information on visa statistics, such as visa refusals, linked to particular education providers may affect their commercial interests by providing insights into the recruitment behaviours and habits of individual education providers that may be of commercial value to competitors and other education sector entities. This is consistent with the Department of Home Affairs policy of not publishing international student enrolment data by an education provider. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 740, standing in the name of Senator Henderson and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:03]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 8 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Sterle, G. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Davey, P. M. McCarthy, M. Hume, J. Watt, M. P. McDonald, S. E. Farrell, D. E. Paterson, J. W. Gallagher, K. R. Ruston, A. Polley, H. Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy) McAllister, J. R.

Question agreed to.

 17:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now deal with general business notices of motion Nos 737, 738 and 739, as moved by Senator Askew and standing in the name of Senator Henderson. Question agreed to. National Capital Investment Framework 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 17:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by not later than midday on Tuesday, 11 February 2025: (a) any agreement, memorandum or other document that formally establishes the National Capital Investment Framework; (b) any document showing the eligibility criteria by which applications for funding under the National Capital Investment Framework are assessed; (c) any process documents related to the National Capital Investment Framework, including any document that shows how applications for funding are received and assessed; (d) any proposals that have been submitted for assessment under the National Capital Investment Framework since its establishment; and (e) any file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas, diary entries or other records of interaction held by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that refer to the National Capital Investment Framework. Question agreed to. Gambling 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 17:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 744 relating to an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents (OPD) no. 647 required the Government to disclose all 'records of interaction' between the Prime Minister and the National Rugby League (NRL) and the Australian Football League (AFL) related to online gambling reform, (ii) on 20 January 2025, the Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported that it had obtained, through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, records of meetings between the Prime Minister and the NRL and the AFL on 30 August 2024, (iii) the AFR further reported that 'several people familiar with the meetings, which were revealed in extracts of Mr Albanese's diary obtained under freedom of information laws, said a key topic of discussion was Labor's then proposal to curb gambling ads', and (iv) these meetings, which were disclosed under FOI, were not disclosed in the Government's response to OPD no. 647, despite them being in scope of the order, and therefore the Government has not fully complied with the order; (b) declares that denying the Senate access to documents which may be released under FOI shows a profound lack of respect for the Senate; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the Senate on Thursday, 6 February 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to fully comply with OPD no. 647 and why documents obtained under FOI could not be obtained by the Senate, 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. Question agreed to. Tourism Australia 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 17:07 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Trade and Tourism, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 18 February 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Trade and Tourism and/or his office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Tourism Australia in relation to Tourism Australia's non-compliance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and Tourism Australia's Gifts and Benefits Policy, as detailed in the Australian National Audit Office's report on procurement and contract management by Tourism Australia, published on 16 December 2024. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 17:08 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Duniam, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) on 29 November 2024, access to documents was sought in relation to the Nature Positive bills currently before the Parliament under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), (ii) on 28 January 2025, Minister Plibersek's office responded, advising that 6 documents (totalling 42 pages) related to the request, with access refused in part to an email and letter from Minister Plibersek's office to Senator Hanson-Young, and an email and letter from Minister Plibersek's office to Senator David Pocock (document nos 2 and 4), based on section 47C of the FOI Act, a public interest conditional exemption relating to deliberative processes, and (iii) the Senate is not subject to such deliberative processes exemptions; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 4 pm on 6 February 2025, the following documents: (i) document no. 2 in Attachment A to the FOI decision with the description 'email and letter from Minister's office to Senator Hanson Young', dated 25 November 2024, and (ii) document no. 4 in Attachment A to the FOI decision with the description 'email and letter from Minister's office to Senator Pocock', dated 25 November 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 746, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.  

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

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 8 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Sterle, G. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Davey, P. M. McCarthy, M. Hume, J. Watt, M. P. McDonald, S. E. Farrell, D. E. Paterson, J. W. Gallagher, K. R. Ruston, A. Polley, H. Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy) McAllister, J. R.

Question agreed to.

 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority 79 Order for the Production of Documents 79 17:12 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that order for the production of documents no. 701, relating to the report to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority concerning the influence of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union on the Cbus Super Fund, has not been complied with; (b) notes that the Treasurer has suggested in his response to the order that the report is likely to be considered 'protected information' under section 56 of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998; (c) affirms the longstanding position that: (i) unless a statutory secrecy provision expressly limits the powers of the Houses, it is subservient to parliamentary inquiry powers, (ii) this means that the power of the Senate to require the production of documents is not affected by provisions in statutes which prohibit, in general terms, the disclosure of information, and (iii) the provision of such documents to the Senate is protected by parliamentary privilege; and (d) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to fully comply with the order by 9 am on Thursday, 6 February 2025. Question agreed to. Department of the Treasury 79 Order for the Production of Documents 79 17:12 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 11 am on Thursday, 6 February 2025, any reports or documents prepared or commissioned by the Treasury arising from Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act referrals in relation to the Board of Housing Australia in 2023. Question agreed to. BILLS 79 BILLS Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 79

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025

First Reading 79 17:13 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator McKIM JKM I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 79 17:13 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— For background The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 (the Bill) increases the superannuation guarantee rate for firefighters and paramedics by 4.4 per cent to match the base rate of superannuation contributions provided to Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel. This is intended to set a national minimum rate of superannuation contributions for firefighters and paramedics, either through legal effect or through symbolism depending on the jurisdiction. Firefighters and paramedics undertake physically demanding work in uncontrolled emergency settings with community safety and lives depending on their ability to efficiently and effectively undertake their duties. Most firefighters and paramedics who do not promote to an Officer rank feel a responsibility to retire before the age of 60 so that the effects of aging don't place their colleagues' or community's safety at risk. The specialisation of firefighter and paramedic skills mean that they are not transferable to other industries. Retired firefighters and paramedics find it difficult to find other work with a similar rate of pay. As a result of early retirement, the financial security of firefighters, paramedics, and consequently their families is significantly diminished when compared to other workers in other industries and sectors. Modelling by The Australia Institute demonstrates that to close this financial gap in retirement savings, that superannuation contributions in excess of 20 per cent would be required. An increase of 4.4 per cent would raise the superannuation guarantee rate to 16.4 per cent for firefighters and paramedics. Whilst this falls short of a complete resolution of the superannuation shortfall, it would bring parity with ADF personnel—who are subject to comparable physical and mental workplace pressures and stressors—and would be seen as a meaningful step forward by frontline emergency service workers. On commencement The Bill commences the day after the day on which it receives Royal Ascent. It should be noted however that the practical effect of the Bill commences on 1 July 2025. On the structure The Bill provides scope to the legal effect of the Bill by defining a firefighter employee and firefighting duties, and a paramedic employee and paramedic duties. With reference to a firefighter employee or a paramedic employee, the number 4.4 is added to the existing superannuation guarantee rate table set out at s.19(2), which is 12 from 1 July 2025. Therefore, from 1 July 2025 the applicable superannuation guarantee rate for the specified employees would be 16.4 per cent. On the scope The Bill applies to firefighters and paramedics, but not police. Firefighter and paramedic unions have undertaken research to verify the need for additional superannuation and requested to be included in the Bill, whilst police associations declined to participate in research that would evidence the need for additional superannuation and declined to be included in the drafting of the Bill. The Bill is based on evidence and is in line with the wishes of the relevant representative organisations at the time of drafting. On the implementation of scope through definitions The Bill provides for additional superannuation to be paid for employees employed as a firefighter or employed as a paramedic. To provide some certainty, the Bill would also provide the higher rate of superannuation to employees undertaking duties that are similar to the core duties of a firefighter or a paramedic. The duties of a firefighter are focused on activities related to firefighting operations and fire prevention operations, whilst the duties of a paramedic include the provision of emergency medical transport and the provision of emergency medical care outside of a health facility. This provides further guidance on what kinds of work are intended to be covered, without solely relying on job titles or common understandings, which are both often subject to gradual change over time. On the appropriation and taxation status The Bill does not contain an appropriations clause, nor does the Bill itself impose taxation or alter the rate of taxation. As such, this is not considered to be an appropriations Bill or an imposition of tax Bill On the effect in different jurisdictions The effect of the Bill would be varied in different jurisdictions due to State Governments' constitutional jurisdiction over industrial relations legislation. As a result, the Bill will have direct legal application, indirect application, or no application in different jurisdictions. This is in line with the intention of setting a legal and moral basis for a national minimum rate of superannuation payments for firefighters and paramedics. The Bill would have direct legal application in the following jurisdictions: Commonwealth (excluding Norfolk Island) Northern Territory Australian Capital Territory Non-government sector By virtue of state legislation or industrial instruments referring to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, the Bill would also have effect in: Tasmania New South Wales South Australia (paramedics) Queensland (paramedics) Western Australia (paramedics) The Bill would have no immediate effect in the following jurisdictions: Victoria (which is covered by defined benefits schemes) Western Australia (whose firefighters are covered by a defined benefits scheme) South Australia (where the relevant rate under the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service Superannuation Scheme is higher than 16.4 per cent) Norfolk Island (whose Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 provides for graduated introduction of superannuation in this jurisdiction) Queensland (firefighters) The vast majority of firefighters and paramedics whose superannuation would not be impacted by the Bill are considered to already be in receipt of superior superannuation benefits. There are two jurisdictions which are not affected by the Bill, which are not considered to have superior superannuation benefits. The first is Norfolk Island for whom there are jurisdiction-wide special arrangements with regard to the rate of superannuation payable. The second is firefighters in Queensland who are in receipt of 14.5 per cent superannuation contributions. The application of 14.5 per cent superannuation for firefighters in Queensland state legislation replaced the existing reference to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. Section 7 of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 outlines that if the Commonwealth were to impose tax on a State that exceeds the Commonwealth's legislative power, then the intention is for the tax not to be imposed. This means firefighters in Queensland would continue to receive 14.5 per cent as prescribed in state legislation. It is envisaged that the passage of the Bill will assist firefighters in Queensland to negotiate more favourable superannuation benefits with the Queensland government in lieu of the Bill having direct application. Senator McKIM JKM I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 81 DOCUMENTS Department of Education 81 Order for the Production of Documents 81 17:14 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Henderson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than midday on 10 February 2025: (a) the South Australia Bilateral Agreement (Better and Fairer Schools Agreement) as updated, or any such agreement in draft, to reflect the announcement of 24 January 2025 between the Commonwealth and South Australian governments; (b) the Victoria Bilateral Agreement (Better and Fairer Schools Agreement) as updated, or any such agreement in draft, to reflect the announcement of 24 January 2025 between the Commonwealth and Victorian governments; (c) the Western Australia Bilateral Agreement (Better and Fairer Schools Agreement) as updated, or any such agreement in draft, to reflect the announcement of 1 February 2025 between the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments; (d) the Australian Capital Territory Bilateral Agreement (Better and Fairer Schools Agreement) as updated, or any such agreement in draft, to reflect the Prime Minister's announcement of 24 January 2025 that such agreements would be amended; and (e) the Tasmania Bilateral Agreement (Better and Fairer Schools Agreement) as updated, or any such agreement in draft, to reflect the Prime Minister's announcement of 24 January 2025 that such agreements would be amended. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 82 17:15 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Hume, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer by no later than midday on Monday, 10 February 2025: (a) all correspondence, including letters, emails, instant messages and text messages between the Treasurer or members of his office and the Treasury relating to: (i) the Coalition's simpler meal tax deduction for small business policy, announced by the Leader of the Opposition on 19 January 2025, and (ii) any policy for the tax deductibility of the costs of meals similar to the Coalition's policy; (b) any ministerial briefings, minutes or advice provided to the Treasurer by the Treasury relating to: (i) the Coalition's simpler meal tax deduction for small business policy, announced by the Leader of the Opposition on 19 January 2025, and (ii) any policy for the tax deductibility of the costs of meals similar to the Coalition's policy; and (c) any correspondence internal to the Treasury, including the Secretary of the Treasury or his office, relating to: (i) the Coalition's simpler meal tax deduction for small business policy, announced by the Leader of the Opposition on 19 January 2025, and (ii) any policy for the tax deductibility of the costs of meals similar to the Coalition's policy. Question agreed to. BILLS 82 BILLS Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025, Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There for Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025 82

Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025

Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There for Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025

First Reading 82 17:15 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, and for related purposes. A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to tertiary education, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I present the bills and move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 82 17:17 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT (THERE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, NOT PROFIT) BILL 2025 This Bill will put an end to the culture of obsceneentitlement at the top of the Commonwealth bureaucracy. It isn't just our university vice chancellors who are wallowing like pigs in gravy. It might surprise most Australians that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is not the highest paid person in the Australian Government. In fact he's not the highest paid by a large margin. Many top bureaucrats rake in much more pay than the Prime Minister. The head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gets over $1 million a year and the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs are not far behind at $960,000. In fact there's only two departmental heads earning less than $900,000. These are extremely generous salaries and entitlements by international standards. United States Government Department Secretaries, who head up much larger agencies with much bigger budgets, under US law get less than half those salaries. They are limited to US $250,000 or around $403,000 Australian dollars. The newly appointed Secretary of Defence will run a department with a larger annual budget than the entire Australian Government, but he'll get less than half the salary of our Defence department secretary. These ridiculously generous salaries and entitlements are set by the Remuneration Tribunal, a secretive outfit that does most of its work behind closed doors—with little transparency or public scrutiny. By and large our departmental secretaries have got those top jobs by climbing the public service ladder and then bobbing their heads and adjusting their views to suit the government of the day. And once they're at the top of the greasy bureaucratic pole, they're very far removed from the daily lives of the vast majority of Australians. There's no cost-of-living crisis for them. Instead it's huge salaries, government cars and taxpayer funded air travel, always at the front of the plane with access to the Qantas Chairman's Lounge. How can any of them appreciate the struggles of the average Aussie family when they are rolling in taxpayer funded cash. Less than 1% of Australians earn more than $350,000 a year and they're all members of that 1% club. And this is the generation of top bureaucrats that delivered us Robodebt. It's this top level of bureaucrats that has treated welfare recipients like criminals while ignoring concerns from public servants—some of them in Tasmania—who told their bosses they thought Robodebt was illegal. It's this top layer of bureaucrats who have overseen the shocking treatment of veterans. These are the people who don't care when billions of dollars are wasted on failed defence programs and dud IT projects. It's these top level bureaucrats who turned a blind eye while the big 4 consulting firms scammed hundreds of millions, indeed billions, from federal agencies while service delivery for ordinary Australians went down the toilet. And it's these fat cats who expect on retirement to take up lucrative roles in those very same consulting companies or else direct government contracts handed out by their former colleagues. They've been feathering their own nests for far too long. This Bill seeks to put the brakes on this disgraceful abuse of entitlement. The Bill will end the excessive renumeration paid to departmental Secretaries and other public office holders by amending the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 to require the Tribunal to determine secretaries' remuneration within a statutory limit of $430,000. Any variation from that limit will be a direct political responsibility of the government of the day and will be subject to parliamentary disallowance. Departmental secretaries have important responsibilities, and their pay should be appropriate to ensure those positions are competitively filled by competent and talented people, but the present levels of pay at the top of the public service trees just don't pass the pub test. The Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet shouldn't be earning more than twice the salary of the Deputy Prime Minister, $479,003. Other Department secretaries and agency heads should not earn more than the Federal Treasurer, $438,113. I'm still fuming that someone like Kathryn Campbell, the Robodebt queen, got a nearly million-dollar gig after the she presided over that tragic disaster. I'll happily acknowledge $430,000 is an arbitrary figure, but it's reasonable and proportionate remuneration and we need to focus debate on what the bureaucrats should be paid. The amendments proposed by the bill will also apply to other holders of public offices including the Chief of the Defence Force, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Force and the chiefs of the Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. Public service should be just that, serving the public, not a pathway to profit. A commitment to the public good, duty and sacrifice are values that should be at the core of the Australian Government. These aren't values supported by the culture if obscene entitlement is allowed to continue to infect the top ranks of our public administration. Our top bureaucrats should be properly paid, but not at levels that corrupt their judgment and ethics, and which put them far beyond the lives of the people they are meant to humbly serve. They've been flying high with a bloated sense of entitlement and power for far too long. It's time we bring them closer to ground level. This bill will do that. TERTIARY EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (THERE FOR EDUCATION, NOT PROFIT) BILL 2025 This Bill seeks to put an end to the culture of obsceneentitlement that is like a cancer at the top of Australia's universities. Australia's university vice chancellors are among the highest paid in the world. In 2023, the remuneration of the Group of Eight vice chancellors, the self-proclaimed elite of our tertiary education section, averaged close to $1.3 million per annum in salaries and generous entitlements, often including luxurious residences. More than a dozen vice chancellors are on million-dollar packages. With few exceptions, other vice chancellors are pulling in between 800 and 950 thousand bucks a year. This salary is much more than the Prime Minister's, the Deputy Prime Minister's or the Federal Treasurer. And with vice chancellors' pay in the stratosphere, that sets the scale for a large number of other university bureaucrats. It was recently revealed that 306 top university executives are paid more than state premiers or federal ministers. These are of course executives administering what are public institutions, built up and paid for by generations of everyday Australians taxpayers. Sadly, however, much of the public education and public service culture of our universities has been lost- because universities have become corporations and not learning institutions. Over the past four decades, we have seen our universities transformed, from the nation-building institutions they once were, into voracious corporate entities. Measuring their success in terms of international student numbers, grand campus building programs, and extravagant pay and perks for their top executives. The culture now, especially in the Group of Eight, is not that of public education in the national interest, but rather the institutionalised greed of investment banks and corporate law firms. Recent research by the Australia Institute has shown there's no correlation between vice chancellor's pay and student satisfaction. The Institute found: "…if anything those universities with higher paid vice-chancellors are more likely to have lower student satisfaction. Notably, the four universities with the highest student ratings of the quality of their educational experience, also pay their Vice-Chancellors less than the average across the sector, and the three universities paying their Vice-Chancellors the most, have very low levels of student satisfaction." To add insult to injury, these huge salaries are being paid at the top of an industry that's engaged in massive wage theft from poorly paid staff who actually teach students. And the circumstances of many Australian university students are also dismal. While university education was free in 1985, university is now, for many, eye-wateringly expensive. We have undergraduate degree fees upwards of $50,000. Average HECS debts have more than doubled in less than two decades. Students are feeling the cost-of-living crisis acutely. From 1985 to 2023—adjusted for inflation—income support for students grew by less than 20%, while average full-time earnings grew nearly 40%. Meanwhile Group of 8 vice chancellor salaries grew a whopping 320%. It's clear that the top university bureaucrats have blown away much of the social licence their institutions once enjoyed. The Government knows this. They know that these obscene salaries are indefensible. They know all about the massive scale of wage theft. And they know about the decline in teaching standards and student satisfaction. However, as with so many things, they're terrified about upsetting the vested interests. Education Minister Jason Clare has said he'll fix things with a 'national expert governance council' to set guidelines for university executive salaries, but that's a bureaucratic cop out. It's another advisory body. There's no mention of legislation or enforcement. The Minister has also said vice chancellors' salaries ought to be in line with the top of the public service. Well, that wouldn't be much of a change. The head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gets over $1 million a year, the secretaries of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs pull in $960,000. In fact, all but two department heads get paid more than $900,000. Vice Chancellors are already in that cohort of salaries, so they needn't worry much if that's going to be the deal. Instead, we need a big stick, that is federal law to significantly cut and cap the salaries of vice chancellors, and that's what this Bill aims to do. The Bill would amend the Australian National University Act 1991 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to impose conditions on Australia's public universities so that the remuneration of vice chancellors would be below the remuneration of the Federal Treasurer; currently $438,113. To be precise, the Bill will set a limit on vice chancellors' pay at $430,000 remuneration per annum. This is a reasonable and proportionate remuneration benchmark that reflects the responsibilities of university chief executives within the broader context of the Australian public sector and democratic governance. I'll happily acknowledge that's an arbitrary figure, but that's something we need to focus up debate on what these bureaucrats should be paid. It's necessary because, (with the exception of the ANU), the governance frameworks for our public universities are in the hands of state governments and parliament; but they don't care about what vice chancellors are paid because it's not their money that's being spent. It's the Commonwealth Government that pays, and its Australian taxpayers who are footing the bill. The amendments provide a measure of flexibility in allowing the responsible Ministers to prescribe a remuneration amount for vice chancellors, but this must be by legislative instrument which must be tabled in both houses of the Australian Parliament and subject to disallowance. As a consequence, the Australian Government will be politically accountable to the Parliament for any variation from the $430,000 per year limit and the Parliament will retain ultimate authority over the maximum remuneration available. If a university doesn't comply with the limit, then they'll be subject to administrative sanctions from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency in regard to their registration. We need to have a rigorous Senate Committee inquiry and this Bill is intended to give such an inquiry a sharp focus on these obscene salaries. I look forward to seeing some of those fat cats squirm as they try to justify the unjustifiable. Australia's vice chancellors fancy themselves flying in the stratosphere. We need to bring them closer to earth. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 85 BUSINESS Consideration 85 17:17 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That, if the Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 has not been finally considered by the adjournment on Thursday, 6 February 2025 then: (a) the bill be listed as the first item of government business on Monday, 10 February 2025; (b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 11 am; and (c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the general business notice of motion No. 755 standing in the name of senator Dean Smith and move by Senator Cadell be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 29 NOES 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. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 8 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Sterle, G. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Davey, P. M. McCarthy, M. Hume, J. Watt, M. P. McDonald, S. E. Farrell, D. E. Paterson, J. W. Gallagher, K. R. Ruston, A. Polley, H. Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy) McAllister, J. R.

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 86 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cybersafety 86 17:21 The 112096 PRESIDENT (): A letter has been received from Senator Payman: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "The exposure to online pornography of Australian children is damaging to their developing minds, and contributes to mental health problems, the destruction of relationships and violence against women". Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 17:21 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Imagine the face of a 10-year-old child you know—your son, your daughter, your grandchild, your niece or a family friend. Picture their wide-eyed innocence, their curiosity and their fragile sense of self just beginning to take shape. Now imagine that child alone with a device, stumbling upon images that are so graphic, so violent, and so beyond their understanding that their innocence is shattered in an instant. No child should bear the weight of such exposure, yet this is the brutal reality for too many young Australians out there. We stand here with a duty to protect, lead and legislate for the common good, but what good are we truly serving if we restrict teenagers from social media while leaving young children, as young as eight, exposed to hardcore pornography. What message does that send? Is it that a Facebook post is more dangerous than violent sexual content? It's not just inconsistent; it's inconceivable. This is not about censorship or government overreach. This is about protecting children who cannot protect themselves. One of the most insidious aspects of pornography is its effect on brain chemistry. The release of dopamine rewards the body for viewing sexually explicit material. Like an addiction, prolonged exposure can lead to a need for more extreme content to achieve the same effect. It is linked to sexual dysfunction, infidelity and relationship breakdowns. Beyond personal consequences, it also affect young people's attitudes, particularly towards women. Research from the French high council for equality found that 90 per cent of pornography depicts verbal, physical or sexual violence against women, reinforcing disrespect and objectification. I challenge anyone in this chamber to say without hesitation that it is acceptable for a primary school aged child to be exposed to violent, degrading sexual material. If you cannot say that—and I suspect none of you can—then we must act; we have the obligation to act. The rise of internet enabled technology has made explicit content easily accessible on devices children use daily, often unsupervised. Research shows some children encounter pornography as young as seven, either accidentally or intentionally. This is profoundly dangerous. It disrupts their development, distorts self-concept, damages body image and creates unrealistic expectations of relationships. A study by Our Watch reveals that 79 per cent of young people believe that pornography contributes to the dehumanisation of women. It's alarming that one-third of young people use pornography as sex education despite knowing it's a poor substitute. If we fail to act we're not just allowing harm to continue; we're enabling a culture that normalises exploitation and violence. So where is our sense of urgency? If the government can act swiftly to restrict children under 16 from social media, why aren't we addressing this crisis with the same determination? If our allies, like New Zealand and the UK, can take decisive action, why can't we? The age assurance trial is a step forward, but it's moving too slowly. While we wait for results, children are exposed to harmful content every day. We cannot afford further delay. The solution will not be simple, and I don't claim to have the answers. But I do know this: indifference is not an option; inaction is not an option. Party lines and ideological differences do not matter when it comes to protecting our children. What matters is our shared responsibility and collective will to act. We can rise above political noise, put aside blame games and overcome the bureaucratic inertia. This is not a Left or Right issue; this is not about winning votes or headlines. This is about doing what's right, and deep down we all know that. I'm not here to point fingers. I'm here to extend a hand. Let's work together across party lines to create solutions that protect and heal. If we cannot come together for our children, what hope do we have for anything else? The time for excuses is over. The time for action is now. Our children are watching. Let's show them we were worthy of their trust. 17:26 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia A few days ago I saw a very cute reel on social media of two very young girls lip-syncing to a pop tune, having a great time. It was so funny, and I think I watched it about 10 times. Then googling linked me to other music by one of the artists. Within a few seconds I was exposed to sexually explicit lyrics and dancing that left absolutely nothing to the imagination, none of it suitable for children on any measure. It's a good example of what can be a quick and short path from innocent to illicit to tragedy. It shows the need for every parent to keep a watchful, vigilant eye on not only what children are posting but, more importantly, what they are watching. Australia's five million children under 14 years—4.8 million in 2023—have unparalleled access to the online world today. One in three Australian children aged six to 13 own a mobile phone. Nine in 10 Australian teenagers own a smartphone. Children know TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram and so many more, but very often their parents and carers do not. In supermarkets, on the sidelines at sports events and at bus stops, young children are glued to some sort of screen, just one click away from online grooming, pornography, violence, extortion, bullying, gambling—the list goes on. Addressing online pornography and the exploitation of Australian children is a priority for Peter Dutton and the coalition. It was Peter Dutton who in 2023 first pushed for guardrails for young, impressionable minds on social media through age verification. He committed to implementing an age limit of 16 for social media in Australia within 100 days of the election of a future coalition government. It was the opposition leader's bipartisan work that saw new age-limit legislation passed in December last year. A Peter Dutton coalition has vowed to protect Australian children from emerging threats to their safety and wellbeing online and to equip parents with the awareness and the tools they need to keep children safe online, because the evidence shows that increased social media use may lead to poorer mental health, especially for girls—and risk. Coalition colleague David Coleman highlighted last year that self-harm hospitalisations by girls aged 10 to14 have quadrupled during the past decade. For Wayne Holdsworth, a parent I met personally last year, the harms of social media are very real. Wayne lost his son Mac, a 17-year-old targeted by sextortion. He wished he had known about the risks of self-harm and that he knew then what he does now. We all need regular reminders that the internet is a tool but can also be devastating through no fault of the user. Set up by Peter Dutton, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation was inundated with more than 40,000 reports of child exploitation in the 2022-23 financial year. That number has more than doubled in five years. As predators and their deeds are increasingly exposed, the coalition promise to double the size of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, but we can and must do more. An ongoing challenge remains sexual exploitation of children overseas by Australian men who use the internet to commit their crimes. The coalition will also make it illegal to post material glamorising violence, drug and property crimes to increase a person's notoriety. We must also do more work to stem the publicity sharing fight clubs, because it is young people who are doing it. Young people need protection. In this case, they need protection from each other. Sure, the internet is a tool that can lead to fun, but it can also lead to great harm. The coalition is serious about doing more to protect children and supporting parents and carers to do the same. Senator Payman is right. This is an issue for all users, and we can and must do more. 17:31 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I am really pleased to speak on this matter today. I am very pleased that we are getting a chance to talk about something that really does affect particularly views about women in our country and about what our government is doing to tackle some of these issues. The Albanese government is committed to minimising the harm that comes from children accessing content online that is not appropriate for them. We are taking a multifaceted approach to this risk, with measures both delivered and underway to address underage access to adult content. But I think the place to start is the damage that can occur. That's why it is so important that our government is acting. We know that the national plan to end violence against women and children highlight the risks of pornography in driving harmful behaviours against women and children. It states that pornography can depict physical and verbal aggression towards women, male dominance and female submission and nonconsensual behaviours. The relationship is complex, but research suggests that there are links between people's use of this material and their attitudes about relationships, sex and men and women's roles and identities. It is also associated with victim-blaming attitudes, such as the belief that, if a woman is affected by alcohol or drugs, she is at least partly responsible for what might happen to her. Viewing pornographic material that showcases violence can have a negative impact on a young person's development, as Senator Payman pointed out. With regard to their wellbeing and relationships, it can influence their attitude and beliefs about sex, intimacy and consent. This is a serious concern, and addressing the drivers of violence against women and children is of paramount importance to our government. We also know that parents and families are concerned about these types of materials and the access that children have to them. While access to adult content for people over 18 years of age is legal, it is not legal to allow minors to access it. It's the responsibility of the government to support parents and children in the community to prevent access to age-restricted products. That's why our government is working to deliver $6.5 million in the 2024-25 budget to conduct a trial of age assurance technologies to protect children from harmful online content, including on social media, and age-restricted content, such as pornography. Funding for the trial was announced on 1 May 2024 by the Prime Minister following a meeting of National Cabinet on gender based violence. The eSafety Commissioner is requiring industry to develop codes to protect Australian children from access or exposure to online pornography. If the materials that are provided by the industry are not good enough, the eSafety Commissioner is empowered to develop mandatory industry standards that the industry will be required to comply with or face hefty fines. These two codes that the eSafety Commissioner is developing are aimed at protecting Australian children from access and exposure to online pornography and other class 2 material. More broadly, phase 2 codes should ensure that Australian end users have effective tools and options to limit their exposure to class 2 material if they choose not to engage with it. The eSafety Commissioner has also published guidance for parents and families on navigating conversations around pornography with young people. The Albanese government shares the view of the senator for Western Australia: pornography can negatively impact a young person's mental health. That's exactly why we are taking this action. The eSafety Commissioner's reporting acknowledges that, while parents tend to underestimate the frequency of their children's exposure to online risks such as pornography, children see their parents as an important source of support to them. So I urge all senators and indeed all parents to avail themselves of the evidence based resources that the eSafety Commissioner has produced with leading experts in child development. Finally, I want to mention some of the other work our government has delivered in this space. I'm very proud that on top of all of the reforms and the trial we are delivering, last year the Albanese government successfully passed legislation to ban the sharing of non-consensual deepfake, sexually explicit material. This behaviour is now a crime. Digitally created and altered sexually explicit material that is shared without consent is damaging and distressing, and we know that it overwhelmingly affects women. That is why we have no tolerance for this sort of behaviour and that is why it is now a crime. 17:36 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Violent and degrading pornography is rife on the internet, and what's particularly concerning is the level of inadvertent exposure that children have to this type of content. Porn that depicts non-consensual sex or is violent or degrading towards women is everywhere, and sadly it's that type of toxic porn that is shaping young people's attitudes and behaviour towards sex, relationships and consent. We know that in order to address violence against women we need to address problematic pornography. In particular we must ensure that children are not exposed to it. We know that many young men and young people generally are learning about sex from violent porn when they should instead be learning about respect, intimacy and physical connection in a safe way through respectful relationships education in schools and through safe and well-informed discussions with family or trusted adults. Online spaces can be harmful to everyone, but there is a gendered aspect to them. Girls are three times more likely than boys to have experienced online sexual victimisation before the age of 24, according to research conducted by the Queensland University of Technology last year. We need the big tech giants to take action to ensure that this type of harmful sexual content is not fed into the feeds of young people online. We know that parents will often not have a line of sight on what kids are voluntarily accessing, and it's all the more so in relation to content, ads or pop-ups that force their way into children's online spaces. The tech giants make profits out of this, and they are damaging the wellbeing of our kids. We don't agree with Labor and the Liberals that simply banning kids from social media will fix things, because we think kids will get around that ban so easily and still won't develop the skills to navigate being online safely. There must be an obligation on the online platforms to stop inappropriate content from being pushed to children. The other part of the solution of course is that education and primary prevention are the most effective ways of driving cultural change. We need to integrate education on the potential harms of exposure to online porn for young people, and the ways in which it can shape harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours, into consent and respectful relationship education. It's now mandatory to include consent education in the Australian curriculum, which is very welcome, but more funding is needed to properly train and support the teachers that deliver that material, to resource any third-party providers that teach it and to address the general underfunding of public schools for teaching this and any other material. There have been some positive steps in this space. Last year I welcomed the deepfake sexual material bill, which criminalised the sharing of deepfakes and other artificially generated sexual material. That was a much-needed change. But that bill didn't take the extra step of criminalising the creation of the deepfake sexual material in the first place. I moved an amendment for that to occur but sadly didn't get any support for it. The next government should revisit that issue and fix it properly. We know deepfakes and harmful pornographic materials minimise, degrade and objectify women, and they embed a culture of gendered violence. Changing our rape culture requires more education and prevention efforts to ensure young people can be safe online. The Greens are committed to ending our rape culture. Education about harmful porn as a driver of sexual violence is an integral part of that effort. Educating all arms of the justice system to be trauma informed is another. Fully funding frontline family and sexual violence services is another crucial way to save women's lives, and the lives and futures of their kids. There was an additional $100 million for crisis housing announced over the weekend and the Greens welcome that, but, sadly, we are still at around three-quarters of the funding that the women's safety sector said they needed to meet demand back in 2018. The epidemic of violence against women has only worsened since then, so demand has increased more. But the federal government have chosen not to allocate the full funding that is needed for every woman or person who reaches out to try and escape violence. They say they are too poor to do so but they waste billions on nuclear submarines and taxpayer handouts to property investors and fossil fuel companies. They need to re-prioritise, stop pandering to the tech giants and the big corporations, and put the community and women and children's safety first. I commend Senator Payman for bringing this issue to the chamber. 17:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a new grandfather with a lovely two-year-old grandchild, I have enormous interest in this motion, and I thank the senator for moving it. As I watch our grandson play and develop, I see his inquisitive mind naturally focused on learning what we adults do—watching. When he could walk at 12 months, long before he started talking, we could send him to another room and ask him to get something. He understood exactly what we said and came back with it. Children are the future of Australia, the future of humanity and our most valuable resource and asset. My comments apply to both girls and boys. Maria Montessori, the most astute observer of human development and behaviour, said that the critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are birth to six. Parents and nearby communities determine whether a child becomes a valued contributor to and a resource for society or a drain and burden on society. It's very nature means that sex is a matter of great interest to every child. That is natural—healthy. The choice then becomes how to introduce sex to children, or children to sex—the beauty of respectful sex, the enjoyment of sex, the spirituality of sex. Anything that disturbs the child's balance, including online pornography, is damaging to children's developing minds and contributes to mental health problems, the destruction of relationships and violence against women, and violence against men. Add debasement of humans to that list, add debasement of society, add debasement of education. This applies to all humans, girls and boys, not just women but also men. When a girl debases a boy or a boy debases a girl, they debase themselves. There will always be pornography. Some key points are limiting access to it. The robustness of the child or adult to withstand the damage of pornography and the building of strength in children, all these aspects of managing pornography are ultimately the parents responsibility. Strong morals are the precursor. Choice leads to accountability and that leads to trust. Give people a solid basis for making respectful decisions. Truth based on facts and data is vital for making respectful decisions. Parents cannot be with a child for life, so it is our responsibility as parents and grandparents to guide the child to discover these for themselves, to develop their role in society right across the country, and instil in children to value truth and respect for fellow humans, whether male or female. That is largely up to the parents to display. When children and adults value truth, accountability and respect, they take responsibility for their decisions and have respect for each other. Maria Montessori developed the Montessori method based on love and orderliness. A lot of people think it is just love but it is also a sense of orderliness. Children need boundaries and they are absolutely essential for giving them security. Sadly, today's governments are undermining parents and that means a growing number of parents abandon responsibility for their children. Children sense that and miss it. It creates a hole, a yearning within. Again, Maria Montessori said, 'Wherever one sees a lack of responsibility, one finds a lack of choice.' Governments are undermining parents in so many ways, removing the parent's choice in parenting, usurping the parent's role, undermining the parent's role, breaching morals, telling lies. Governments are killing truth: climate, lies, fear, the belief that the planet is going to end in five years, that the oceans are boiling, that the globe is boiling. This hurts learning, when children are in fear. It's an antihuman agenda. Beyond the climate scam and the COVID scam, humans are portrayed in an antihuman agenda as greedy, rapacious, uncaring, irresponsible and unkind. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pygmalion effect comes into play. People, especially children, live up to the expectations that we and society have of them. Then we've got gender distortion. Transgender itself is a nonsense. We cannot change gender or sex. Chromosomes are either XX, female, or XY, male. Why try when it's futile? We cannot reverse attempts to transition. We must hold all people in regard and respect and treat all people with love and support, not physical mutilation with chemicals, whether it's a mental health condition such as temporary gender dysphoria or the tiny percentage of adults who are hermaphrodite. Look at Sheldon's book from the turn of the previous century. Beauty used to be in the sparkle of a person's eyes, the shine of the hair, the glow of the skin. Now we devalue physical attributes in many women, and young women hide behind make-up and live with the delusion that who they are is not good enough—terrible. It all starts with truth, and truth starts with parents displaying truth, valuing truth and instilling truth. (Time expired) 17:46 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for bringing forward this matter of public importance on exposure to online pornography. This is indeed something we should be turning our attention to more often. We live in an age when most young people have high-speed internet in their pocket. I would assume that most people in this place are very grateful that they got through their teens without that—without being able, in their room, to access the internet on their phone. A UK Children Commissioner's report on young people's pornography use found that the average age at which children first see pornography is 13. By age nine, 10 per cent of a sample of 1,000 young people had seen pornography; 27 per cent had seen it by the age of 11, and 50 per cent of children had seen it by the age of 13. Additionally, 79 per cent had encountered violent pornography before the age of 18. We're setting young people up for failure if this is their first interaction or viewing of what they think is sex. We have to do better as a society. I've had many parents raise this with me. We know that children describe seeing online porn on platforms including Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and TikTok, according to the eSafety Commissioner. We have to do more as a parliament to look after young people in Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The time for the discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 90 MATTERS OF URGENCY Central Australia: Crime and Community Safety 90 17:48 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 5 February 2024, from Senator Nampijinpa Price: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government's failure to address Central Australia's crime and community safety crisis, and their failure to partner with the Northern Territory Government to deliver practical solutions." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:48 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I move: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government's failure to address Central Australia's crime and community safety crisis, and their failure to partner with the Northern Territory Government to deliver practical solutions." Today I speak about this very urgent matter. It is a matter that is very close to my heart and has been ignored by the Albanese government for too long. The reality is that my home town of Alice Springs and the region of Central Australia more broadly has changed so much since I grew up there. It is a spiralling and has been spiralling for some time. The Albanese government thought letting alcohol restrictions lapse would be helpful. They thought throwing $350 million at us would fix it. The previous Northern Territory Labor government thought they could fix it. But neither of them did. In fact, from my experience, what those Labor governments did, or perhaps more accurately didn't do, has made life much worse. We continue to live with the effects of their irresponsible decision-making, and that is why this matter requires urgent attention. It's no secret to anyone that the current situation in Central Australia is dire. The NT has been in the national headlines disproportionately, due to a breakdown in law and order and, more specifically, the disorder in Alice Springs, which culminated in two separate curfews. The narrative in the media is borne out in the data. When we look at youth offending, the number of young people in detention on an average night nationally is 2.7 in 10,000, but in the NT that number is 22.2 in 10,000. Rates of family and domestic violence continue to rise, with increases of more than 20 per cent across the Territory and more than 150 per cent in some regional areas. Frontline services cannot meet demand. One in five children in the NT have a child protection notification, compared to one in 20 nationally. Given all of this, it was a relief when the CLP enjoyed a landslide victory and formed a majority government in the Northern Territory in August last year. The new CLP government have made swift legislative changes like strengthening bail laws. They also strengthened law enforcement on the ground through action such as establishing the Fugitive Task Force in Alice Springs, which saw at least 50 high-risk repeat offenders get taken off the streets, away from where they could cause further harm. The Northern Territory government is doing everything it can, but there are additional measures for which they need the cooperation of the Commonwealth government to get done—things like making sure welfare payments are made on days when takeaway alcohol isn't available and making sure there are mutual obligations for those in receipt of welfare. They want to see an audit of federally funded programs—sounds familiar—and reform of royalty distribution. These are things I have advocated in favour of for so long. Finally, they want to broaden the pathways to income management for people like parents who don't send their kids to school and want to increase the managed amount for parents of youth offenders. These are practical measures and they must urgently be adopted by the Albanese government. We know they will have an impact on the community. We know they will encourage the responsible use of money—spending it on things like food instead of alcohol. They will encourage people to find meaningful training or employment. They will have a positive impact on crime and violence in the region. That is why the coalition has been clear about their in-principle support for these measures. Unlike the leader of the Labor government, the leader of the coalition, Peter Dutton, cares about the people of Alice Springs and the wider Northern Territory. He cared enough to come and stay in Alice Springs and to talk to people on the ground and understand the reality of the situation residents are facing. Now is not the time for Anthony Albanese to back away from the important issues. He cannot back away and pretend that these places or issues do not exist just because they are complex or uncomfortable to face. That is why I'm calling on the Prime Minister to stop ignoring the crisis that has gone on for far too long in Central Australia and calling on him to do more than just throw money at us and hope we go away. I'm calling on the Prime Minister to stand up and show some leadership and support to the Northern Territory. I'm calling on the Prime Minister to urgently agree to the implementation of all seven measures proposed by the NT government. 17:54 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I've got to say from the outset that this is an incredibly cynical approach to what is an incredibly important issue. There is no real plan that has been exercised here. A plan involves a whole series of moving parts happening at once. What we've seen in the plan from the opposition is no plan. Particularly in the case of the Northern Territory, they can start taking a leaf out of some exceptionally good examples that have occurred elsewhere. I'll go to some of examples of opportunities they had to support in the Senate, particularly in light of some of the debate that we had earlier today. One of the things that's particularly important when we are talking about the critical issues of crime and family and domestic violence and the challenges in any part of the country—but specifically, in this proposition, in Central Australia—is talking about how we actually gain proper jobs and good opportunity, how we deal with the questions and challenges of crime and how all those matters are intermingled with the social compact in the approach that you take. Part of creating a healthy community is making sure there's more schooling and there's funding for it, because, as we know, substantial funding and meeting the Gonski requirements for funding—that's been put in place in the Northern Territory—is part of the mosaic and the puzzle. But we also need to make sure that we have economic success and jobs, and later I'll jump to an example in Fitzroy Crossing. Today, we proposed the Future Made in Australia. One of the tenets, which every speaker on the opposite side spoke against, is about community involvement and a community compact when there are arrangements and funding put into business and community to get outcomes. Part of that community compact is to make sure that First Nations communities also have the opportunity to be trained and get jobs. When you start talking about training and getting jobs, the opposition opposed fee-free TAFE. When you want to build a community, you have to build it by giving training, skilling and jobs. That's part of the mosaic. It is not only the funding that has been put in place—which has been applauded by the Northern Territory government—but also the policies that make a difference. Those people opposite me right now oppose the fundamentals of making sure that we get the right social context and the right social opportunity to make sure that Central Australia moves forward. I'll give the example of Fitzroy Crossing—such a beautiful example of the success of a community. In the case of Fitzroy Crossing, when that bridge was knocked down only a couple of years ago in those horrific floods, we saw the economic disconnection—and the community disconnection, most critically. When that bridge was rebuilt, it was rebuilt with local labour, with local training. It was rebuilt by 220 people from the local community being trained, and they received good, paying jobs. They were paid for real jobs. They were given jobs that actually gave them opportunity, and, when that Fitzroy Crossing bridge was built, not only was that bridge built back more successfully, and six months before it was due to be completed, but also the crime rates in that community decreased by 43 per cent, the number of kids going to school substantially increased and domestic violence decreased. When those opposite talk about the issues they think are important, they don't talk about the real issues that actually glue communities together. When we start talking about making sure that we have the economic answers and approach, as part of the mosaic of getting it right, we start talking about Future Made in Australia; we talk about fee-free TAFE, which, only last week in Adelaide, the opposition was still speaking against. We have those opposite without a package of ideas or a plan that's successful. They really don't like the idea of it being successful because it requires community involvement, it requires government involvement and it requires business involvement. Whenever they see that tripartite approach—community, in the Future Made in Australia; business, in the Future Made in Australia; and government, in the Future Made in Australia—they immediately just turn off. They switch off. Well, go to Fitzroy Crossing and see how it works, because it does work. A social contract and social infrastructure can be built. Have the guts to support it and be fair dinkum. 17:59 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The Greens won't be supporting this motion about practical solutions today. In fact, it reads exactly like the coalition's election platform. There are three points that I want to make with the limited time that I have here today. One of those is very, very clear: you can't police your way out of the situation that's happening in Central Australia. This is hundreds of years of trauma based on colonisation, displacement, the eradication of culture and the segregation of people. It's also known as the White Australia policy, and God forbid that we are going back to that time. Some people in this country actually believe that this happened a really, really long time ago. When I speak to people that's what they say. But next week is actually the anniversary of the national apology to stolen generations people. Every year there is a breakfast here in this place. It is no surprise to hear, because I've spoken about it many times in this chamber, that I am from the following generation of children. My mother was in a mission, taken from her family. This happened to many mobs across our country. This is the cycle of dysfunction that was created for us. The second is that the rates of family and domestic violence throughout the Northern Territory are unacceptable. They are absolutely unacceptable. That's what Senator Shoebridge and I heard when we were on the missing and murdered First Nations women and children inquiry. There needs to be significant investment but in crime prevention and early intervention, not punitive approaches that criminalise people and continue to paint black people in this country as people who are simply absolutely inadequate or cannot do for themselves. There is a mountain of evidence about the systems failure, that we do not provide the basic human needs—food, water, shelter and safety—in our communities. These need to be approached by every level of government to make sure that we are actually coming together and finding common ground to fix that instead of these inflammatory comments about what's happening in our community. (Time expired) 18:01 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for bringing this important urgency motion before the Senate today. For those following along at home, I think it is important to read it so people understand what it is we're actually debating here and so we're central to the core of the issue of what we're actually discussing here. The motion Senator Nampijinpa Price brought here reads: The Albanese Government's failure to address Central Australia's crime and community safety crisis, and their failure to partner with the Northern Territory Government to deliver practical solutions. It's writ large that this is patently true, that this is not happening under the Albanese government. There is not the cooperation with the Territory government to get the results on the ground that are absolutely necessary. In Senator Nampijinpa Price's contribution she remarked on the fact that the data around youth offending is getting worse. It's getting worse. It's not getting better. The number of young people in detention on an average night nationally is 2.7 in 10,000, but in the NT that number is 22.2 in 10,000. Family and domestic violence continues to rise, with increases of more than 20 per cent across the Territory and more than 150 per cent across some regions in the Territory. One in five children in the NT have a child protection notification compared to one in 20 nationally. If that figure doesn't frighten the living daylights out of you and spur you on to greater action, I don't know what will. Our children are our most vulnerable citizens. This is occurring right here in our country. This is a truly terrible situation that is happening right now. We've seen decisions by this government that more often than not are simply driven by an ideological obsession and we've seen their unwillingness to provide the practical solutions that we know work in these communities. They need to listen to people on the ground, rather than someone in an ivory tower coming from some academic position and often in different communities and, indeed, different states and different parts of the country, such as the universities of Sydney, Melbourne and elsewhere. These academics, who think they know best, want to keep these communities in this utopian little view that they have and aren't prepared to listen to the people on the ground that actually know the solutions that they want. Why won't they go there? Why doesn't the government go and listen to communities on the ground? One of the things that was working quite well, although no panacea, was the cashless debit card. When we were in government, we were in the stages of replacing the BasicsCard that was brought in by the Labor government. It was a very clunky and old technology that was quite restrictive and limited the ability for people to have more autonomy over their lives. We were replacing it with the cashless debit card, a much more advanced technology. There were improvements that were being implemented. But in one of the very first pieces of legislation that this government brought in, without listening to anyone on the ground and without consulting anyone in the communities—we saw through the inquiry process and through estimates that there was no consultation—they ripped away the cashless debit card from the Northern Territory and from the four trial sites where it was occurring. My point is they're not prepared to bring in practical solutions. Instead, they're only listening to those who have got an ideological obsession, who are detached from the reality of what's actually occurring on the ground and who are imposing their ideological obsessions on these communities. This is why we're seeing these sorts of results. We need practical solutions that come from the insights of people on the ground, who know what they want. This government needs to listen. They're proving that they're not able to, so put us in charge, because we'll make it happen. 18:06 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'll just briefly say that this government has lost its way—and so have the state governments—in dealing with the escalating crime that is happening. I want people to think about this. As crime increased, we had the Voice debate in this nation. What it's done is to pit one Australian against another. There's hatred brewing out there: 'You've stolen our country. You've invaded our nation.' We've got senators here who are standing up; it's war. It's just ridiculous where we are at this moment. That's being transmitted to the kids who see this is happening. Children feel they can get out there and do whatever they want to. They have no respect for anyone else in our society. Every day on our TV screens we see the hatred and the crime that's being committed. Up in Cairns 60 cars have been stolen in one month. You've got kids behind wheels of cars, drag racing to outrun the police. What is happening about it? Nothing. I went to a meeting this morning with the minister's office about Closing the Gap. I asked the question: do you have self-determination? She said: 'Yes, we do. We have all of our community groups. We have our members and organisations, and it goes from the bottom up to the top.' I said, 'It's really not the state governments that are stopping you.' She said, 'No, it's not.' The fact is that the people, themselves, who are in these organisations cannot run them because they don't know what the hell they're doing. Until you actually have people who really understand the process of being directors of companies, who can stop the nepotism and really get to the issues of it—it's not the government, it's not the taxpayers and it's not the lack of interest. It's people who have not got the understanding of how to really deal with this whole issue. So start taking the blame for your own inability to do the jobs that you are supposed to be doing, and help the kids of this nation. 18:08 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales First of all, I want to commend the words and the work of my colleague, Senator Cox. I endorse everything she's said. I want to be clear. When we were up in the NT, on the missing and murdered women and children inquiry, what we heard from all of the services, from all of the communities, was that they are in desperate need of investment in housing, in economic empowerment and in health care. To deal with the crisis of domestic violence, services for women and children are desperately needed. That's investment that's needed urgently. Just this week, we heard from the NT children's commissioner, from a jurisdiction where up to 100 per cent of kids in custody are First Nations, where the UN has called out the abuse in NT prisons. This is what the NT children's commissioner said: Therapeutic models of youth justice are not ideological; they are evidence based … We know that once a child enters the formal system— the criminal justice system— they are more likely to return, particularly if they are detained. In contrast, youth diversionary programs and alternative responses that operate outside of the … court system are more effective in helping children get their lives back on track … Let's have more of that— (Time expired) 18:09 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia ():  This motion is about Central Australia. It's from the CLP. Their recommendation's to actually fix the mess left behind by a policy that has done nothing to improve the lives of Territorians. The coalition has stepped up its support-in-principle of the CLP's plan. I was in Alice Springs on election night after Territorians voted to get rid of Labor and to start to clean up the mess, putting their trust in the CLP. Labor broke the economy in the Northern Territory, and Labor has left families and communities broken. The Northern Territory, along with every other Australian state, rejected Labor's $400 million Voice referendum, and, while Labor was distracted by that, the cost of living spiralled, with greater impact on people in remote and regional areas. Amid that, it was Labor that allowed the alcohol restrictions to be lifted there. Medical evidence to the 2024 coroner's inquiry into the deaths of women in the Northern Territory heard that what followed the lifting of those restrictions was a 77 per cent increase in family violence assaults in Alice Springs. Only a fool would have thought the outcome would be different. It was foolish and despicable, and it did nothing for the people of the Northern Territory. For the Northern Territory, though, there's even worse to come, with Labor's plan to end income management. Income management restricts a portion of welfare so it can't be spent on anything but essentials. You never learn, though, Labor. What do you think will happen when you remove income management, when, in the Northern Territory, one in five people are on it? I hope Northern Territorians in the electorates of Lingiari and Solomon punish you for even thinking about that. Central Australian Women's Legal Service's most recent report says that 339 of the 1,600 clients assisted last financial year experienced coercive control; 279 of those reports 'involved alcohol'—familiar words, spoken all the time when you talk about this dysfunction. Just look at what happened in the Northern Territory when you increased access to alcohol and gambling. It was the same when you removed the CDC in the communities that wanted it, in Ceduna, Kalgoorlie and the East Kimberley. You said yes to more violence in those areas and to more social distress. What you've failed to recognise is that this isn't just about Aboriginal families. This is about all of the people who live there—everyone. In Central Australia, we're not talking about a huge number of children; we're talking about around 40. You know how I know that? It's because I was actually talking to people in Alice Springs about that last week. It's a bit of honesty from the locals: 40 children at any one time. Sometimes, it's up to 80, but it's only 40. You spent nearly $300 million for a 'better, safer Central Australia', you called it. And yet that's not what you've actually delivered. You did spend $130,000 on a temporary ice-skating rink in Alice Springs, in one of those summers, for no effect for the children who actually needed it. You also fund a bus service that runs until four in the morning—and not just in Alice Springs but in Katherine, too. I dare you to let your children out on the streets until 4 am. What is a service doing, going around and providing a bus service—funded by taxpayers; funded by this very place—until 4 am? Let me tell you what it's like for Territorians after your handiwork: more assaults, violence and property crime. Insurance? It costs $800 more to insure the same car in Alice Springs than it does in Kalgoorlie, Port Lincoln or Townsville. You know what? I actually did the work. I asked a broker to look at it. There are more insolvencies in those areas. Businesses just can't do it anymore. Children should be in school, not on the streets—and not at four in the morning. In my home state of South Australia, in Pipalyatjara, only two per cent of children attend school more than 90 per cent of the time; in Amata, it's three per cent; in Indulkana, it's five per cent; and in Yalata, a former CDC area, not one student attended school regularly, down seven per cent in 2023. Labor, you've failed these children, you've failed these families and you're failing Territorians. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Nampijinpa Price be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [18:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, 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. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 95 DOCUMENTS Consideration 95 COMMITTEES 95 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 95 Additional Information 95 18:22 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiries into the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 and the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 96 Scrutiny Digest 96 18:22 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I present Scrutiny digest 1 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. And I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 96 Delegated Legislation Monitor 96 18:23 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I present the Delegated legislation monitor 1 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak to the tabling of Delegated legislation monitor 1 of 2025, which reports on the committee's consideration of 274 legislative instruments registered between 29 October and 15 December 2024. In this monitor, the committee has commented on four new instruments, including the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulations 2024. This instrument remakes its 2014 predecessor and prescribes an industry code with includes changes to implement the government's response to the Independent Review of the Franchising Code of Conduct. The explanatory statement provides that the purpose of the code is to regulate the conduct of participants in franchising, in particular to address the power imbalance between franchisors and actual or prospective franchisees. The committee has resolved to draw its concerns relating to this instrument to the chamber's attention, under standing order 23(4). As the instrument prescribes a mandatory industry code to regulate the code of conduct of franchising participants, the committee considers that this instrument provides for significant matters that are more appropriate for parliamentary enactment under scrutiny principle (j). The committee notes the instrument's explanatory statement explains that prescribing these matters in delegated legislation is enabled by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and that the instrument replicates the previous code. The instrument also sets out civil penalty provisions for contravening the code. The provisions concern matters that are significant in nature, including a prohibition on entering into a franchise agreement that includes a restraint of trade clause. Most of the provisions impose 600 penalty units, while others set out civil penalties of $500,000 for persons who are not a body corporate, or pecuniary penalties that may be higher than $10 million. While the explanatory statement justifies the appropriateness of these high penalties, the committee remains concerned as a matter of principle about the significant amount of these penalties. The penalties far exceed the committee's expectations for maximum penalty amounts in delegated legislation, which are 50 penalty units for individuals and 250 penalty units for corporations. The committee is therefore drawing the inclusion of significant elements of a regulatory scheme and significant civil penalties in this instrument to the attention of the Senate. The committee has also commented on the Fair Work (Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code) Instrument 2024 and the Fair Work (Road Transport Industry Termination Code) Instrument 2024 in this monitor. The Fair Work Act 2009 includes a framework for dealing with the unfair deactivation or unfair termination of regulated workers and requires the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to make these codes. This includes providing that a person has been unfairly deactivated or terminated if the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that the deactivation or termination was inconsistent with the relevant code. The committee has commented on these instruments as they prescribe significant elements of the unfair deactivation and termination framework, as opposed to merely matters of detail. This includes by setting out the entire process that digital labour platform operators and regulated road transport businesses must follow when deactivating or terminating a worker. The codes are integral to the Fair Work Commission's determination of whether an unfair deactivation or termination occurred, and the measures in the code may have a significant impact on the rights and interests of affected workers, operators and businesses. The committee therefore considers these measures to be more appropriate for primary legislation so that they are subject to a higher level of parliamentary oversight. In light of this, the committee has resolved to draw the inclusion of significant matters of a regulatory scheme in these two instruments to the Senate's attention under standing order 23(4). In this monitor, the committee is seeking the Minister for Resources's advice in relation to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2024. The purpose of this instrument is to ensure that offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities are undertaken in a way that reduces health and safety risks for persons at or near such facilities. The committee has raised several scrutiny concerns with this instrument, including whether independent merits review is available for discretionary decisions made under the instrument which have the capacity to impact on individuals' rights or obligations. Neither the instrument nor the explanatory statement clarifies whether such decisions made by the relevant authority, NOPSEMA, under the instrument are subject to merits review and, if not, what characteristics of these decisions justify excluding merits review. The committee expects that the exclusion of merits review should be justified by referring to the criteria set out in the Administrative Review Council's guidance document entitled What decisions should be subject to merits review? The committee is also seeking the minister's advice about a no-invalidity clause in the instrument. The provision states that a failure by NOPSEMA to give a facility operator written notice of its decision whether to accept or reject a submitted revised safety case within 30 days of receipt does not invalidate its decision. As this is not set out in the explanatory statement, the committee is requesting the minister's advice about three matters: firstly, the circumstances in which, and likelihood, that NOPSEMA may exceed the time limit for making decisions; secondly, applicable safeguards; and, thirdly, why this no-invalidity clause is necessary and appropriate for inclusion in the instrument. The committee looks forward to engaging with the minister on this instrument. Monitor 1 of 2025 also includes two ongoing matters. The first is the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) (CFMEU Construction and General Division Administration) Determination 2024. The committee has been engaging with the Attorney-General on this instrument since monitor 12 of 2024. The committee thanks the Attorney-General for his undertakings to amend the explanatory statement to include information previously provided in response to the committee's concerns, including about retrospective effect and delegation of administrative powers. However, the committee is seeking further advice about whether the explanatory statement can be amended to include information previously provided about merits review, privacy and discretionary powers. The committee is also seeking specific justification for the exclusion of merits review under the instrument by reference to the criteria in the Administrative Review Council's guidance document. The second ongoing matter concerns the National Land (Road Transport) (Parking) Rules 2024. The committee welcomes the minister's undertakings to amend the explanatory statement to include information previously provided, including about discretionary powers and privacy. The committee is now seeking further advice about skills, qualifications and experience of delegates at executive levels 1 and 2 at the National Capital Authority. The committee is also querying whether there is specific legal authority for the instrument to delegate the National Capital Authority chief executive's powers and functions which arise under the authorising instrument, the National Land (Road Transport) Ordinance 2014. Lastly, the committee is concluding its examination of the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Regulations 2024, following an undertaking made by the Minister for Health and Aged Care to amend the explanatory statement to include information about the scope, necessity and appropriateness of immunity from liability afforded by the instrument. The committee also resolved to withdraw the notice of motion to disallow the instrument and thanks the minister for his engagement on this instrument. The committee would also like to thank the agencies and ministers that have continued to provide updates to the committee secretariat on the progress of implementing outstanding undertakings since the last monitor was tabled in late November 2024. I am pleased to be able to advise the chamber that the number of undertakings that have been outstanding for more than 90 days has remained steady, at 19, with 17 undertakings implemented since 26 November 2024. I reiterate the committee's expectation that undertakings are implemented in a timely manner, and I note that the committee will continue to closely monitor the implementation of outstanding undertakings in 2025. With these comments, I thank my colleagues for their ongoing hard work on this important committee, including Senator Reynolds, who I note is in the chamber. I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 1 of 2025 to the Senate. Debate adjourned. Electoral Matters Joint Committee 98 Report 98 18:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters titled From classroom to community: civics education and political participation in Australia. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The strength and stability of Australia's democracy depends on the capacity of our citizens to confidently engage with politics and cast an informed vote. Australia's system of compulsory voting means that all Australians need to be informed to participate in our democracy and elections. This is important at a time when democracies around the world, including Australia, are facing rising disengagement, distrust and misinformation and disinformation in a complex online information environment. The report was informed by more than 130 submissions, 11 public hearings and five site visits around the country, from Canberra to Maningrida in Arnhem Land. The committee visited schools to hear from students and teachers and was hosted by migrant groups doing on-the-ground work and First Nations organisations in remote communities. The inquiry also heard from school students, educators and school leavers through an online survey which received almost 1,000 responses. The committee heard strong evidence that effective civics education in schooling is critical to give young people the tools to be informed, responsible citizens. However, the current state of civics education is ineffective and varies considerably across the states and territories and even individual schools. Civics education is often given little time or focus. The content can be dry and lack relevance and does not teach practical skills like how to vote. We know there are some committed teachers who work very hard, but there are gaps in teacher training and confidence, and teachers fear backlash from bringing contemporary issues into the classroom. National civics education assessments of students in years 6 and 10 undeniably demonstrate this. In this report, the committee recommends nationally aligned and mandated civics and citizenship content in the Australian curriculum and better support for teachers through high-quality professional development. This report also recommends increased resourcing and support so that more students, particularly those living in regional and remote areas, can visit Canberra or access digital learning experiences. Civics education and civics engagement are lifelong learning processes that continue beyond the classroom. However, some Australians report never having received any form of civics education. This can result in feelings of alienation and distrust in political processes and institutions. Some groups have also faced challenges that impact their access to education and equal participation, including people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, those living in regional, rural and remote areas, and young people. We recommend that the Australian government work closely with trusted grassroots community organisations to provide meaningful and culturally appropriate voter education opportunities and materials. Support is also needed for polling stations in regional and remote communities. The committee also makes recommendations to ensure that diverse youth are given more meaningful opportunities to build their understanding of civics issues and have their say on formal policies and processes. Misinformation and disinformation on social media thrive during electoral events. This inquiry also heard that, without strong media literacy skills, many Australians are left vulnerable to false narratives that can distort their understanding of democratic issues. The committee makes recommendations aimed at enhancing media literacy skills, for not only our young people but also adults and other vulnerable populations. In the report, there is a one-page dissenting report authored by Senator the Hon. James McGrath which suggests that targeting civics education towards specific communities creates division, targeting our differences rather than what unites us. But our differences are what unite us. Australia is strong because we can celebrate what sets us apart with respect. The committee recommendations show that these initiatives are about removing barriers, ensuring accessibility and strengthening democracy for all Australians. Instead of excluding any group, the recommendations ensure that everyone, regardless of background, has the tools and knowledge to fully participate in Australian democracy. On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to all those who contributed their time and expertise to this inquiry and say a special thanks to the JSCEM team and the inquiry team, led by Miriam Berger. I seek leave to continue my remarks later Leave granted; debate adjourned. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 99 Report 99 18:39 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to speak to a report tabled out of session from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Financial abuse: an insidious form of domestic violence, which was tabled in December. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Acting Deputy President and members of the Senate, I want to indicate to you that the scale of this is off the charts. It's affected 1.6 million Australian women alone. That's not to say there aren't men who experience it, but predominantly this insidious form of control is being experienced by women. The cost of this is $5.7 billion per annum, so this is no small thing. It's an insidious interpersonal form of control. It's very dangerous, it's growing in frequency, and it certainly attempts to strip victims of their independence, their security and, too often, their hope. It's certainly not as visible as a bruise from physical domestic violence, it's not as loud and it doesn't always involve a raised voice or a raised hand, but it is powerfully impactful and devastating, and its impact can be very, very long-lasting. We took evidence about decadal experiences of financial abuse. Financial abuse can take many, many forms. It could be a partner draining a shared bank account, withholding child support, coercing a victim into debt or manipulating superannuation to leave someone with nothing. For too long, financial abuse has remained hidden in the shadows of our national conversation about domestic and family violence. Given Australians' absolute sense of outrage at physical domestic violence, this is a matter that I think is now ripe for Australians to consider and discuss and for us as a parliament to work on, along with the financial services sector, the banks, government agencies and, indeed, the legal profession, to address the incredible challenges that face us as a nation. This report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which I'm very pleased to chair, has been tabled with over 60 recommendations which seek to deal with this insidious issue. Our inquiry exposed a large number of concerns about the systemic failure that allows perpetrators to manipulate financial systems unchecked. This is the report. I want to acknowledge the members of the committee, who unanimously adopted the terms of this report. As I said, I'm privileged to share this report. The deputy chair, the Hon. Alex Hawke MP, another New South Wales member, did a great job in helping us manage the extraordinary experience of the evidence that we received. It was truly one of the most harrowing periods of evidence that I've received. I know, Acting Deputy President Cox, that you've referred to reports you tabled about violence against women. This is of that kind—an outrage to ordinary, decent Australians but something that's being done and is proliferating. I want to thank the members: Andrew Bragg, Mr Georganas, Mr Howarth and Dr Mulino, who accepted the terms of the report, and also Senator Pocock. I acknowledge the incredible work that was done by Senator Louise Pratt in bringing this forward. I also thank Senator Paul Scarr, who attended so many of the hearings. Our thought leader on this, who really drew it to the attention of the committee, was my colleague from the other place the member for Swan, Ms Zaneta Mascarenhas. I thank our wonderful secretariat, led by Ivan Powell and including Sean Turner—who was the committee secretary for a period of time—Dr Jon Bell, Morgan Jacobs, Rachel Benzie, Senal Kiridena and Julia Bowan Crockett, who did the most remarkable job in pulling this evidence together. This is such a big report that there's no way that we are going to cover it off, and at the end I'm going to seek leave to continue, because I will continue to come back and speak to what's going on in here. But today I want to commence, because people in this place, operating out of what we would perhaps describe as a normal moral code, are actually shocked by the nature of some people's behaviours with regard to their intimate partners. There was a report that was delivered for the previous government under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2020. It was entitled Preventing the financial abuse of women: literature and desktop review. I acknowledge that it was done by a group of thought providers and researchers from KPMG. We've had plenty of discussions about consultancies, but when people do good work we should acknowledge it. This is just a tiny sample of some of the behaviours that 1.6 million Australian women have experienced and that costs our economy $5.7 billion a year; it comes under figure 1.7: controlling her access to economic resources; controlling her access to money; not allowing her to have money; not giving her any money; taking away money given to her; preventing her from accessing benefit money, including child benefit; not allowing her to have access to her bank account; making her close down her bank account; preventing her from having access to her debit card or cheque book; destroying her debit card and cheque book; and changing her PIN without telling her. That's just the first tiny little bit of the list in terms of controlling behaviour. The next layer is actually stealing her money—taking her wages and benefit money, taking child benefit money, child tax credits, Sure Start grants and, if you can believe this, maternity pay. This is an outrage to every decent person in the nation. But it is proliferating, with 1.6 million women impacted by behaviours of this kind: spending money from the joint account, taking money from her purse, taking money left on the side, taking birthday money, selling vouchers, taking her savings and the children's savings, borrowing money from her and never paying it back, intimidating her into giving him money, ripping up her money. Just stop for a second to imagine that interaction in a household in Australia tonight, where, having worked and earned money, a woman takes home cash that is literally chopped up or ripped up in front of her—the physical offence of that, and the working out of that in terms of an impact on her capacity to look after herself and her children. Then there is pawning her possessions, selling the children's possessions, and of course gambling with her money. I've got only one minute and 44 seconds left. That was one chart that is embedded in the report. I've gone nowhere near any of the recommendations for banks and financial service providers, for financial product advisers, for superannuation entities, for the government and government agencies and indeed for the legal profession. This is an ecosystem that is enabling people like that to inflict insidious and profoundly harmful damage on our fellow citizens, and it's got to stop. It has to be named. It has to be called out. And we need a dedicated and coordinated response to create conditions in which this sort of behaviour is acknowledged as intolerable, is not rewarded and is absolutely punished. In reality, economic coercion is the primary reason victims remain trapped in unsafe relationships. It is exactly the sorts of behaviours that I've just described, by people who perpetrate the use of their power over another, that leads to incredible suffering over extended periods and damages the health and wellbeing of an entire generation of children who are caught up in it. I seek leave to continue my remarks, if there are no other comments, and I will be coming back to speak about this report at every opportunity I have. Thank you very much. Leave granted. 18:49 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Just quickly on the same report, if I can provide my compliments to Senator O'Neill. Don't leave while I'm paying you a compliment, Senator O'Neill! I think Senator O'Neill provided outstanding leadership to this inquiry and consistently throughout this term has also provided outstanding leadership of the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations Law and Financial Services. As you mentioned, Senator O'Neill, there were outstanding contributions in relation to this inquiry, in particular from the member for Swan and I think that should be noted. A lot of thought went into the recommendations made in the report. I was very pleased to be part of that detailed consideration, and I do hope that the government seriously considers those recommendations. I was personally shocked by much of the evidence that we heard, and I think there are matters which should be addressed on an urgent basis as a matter of priority. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 18:51 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Can I thank you for those kind words, Senator Scarr, and acknowledge your fantastic contribution not only to that report but to the committee as well. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 100 Report 100 18:51 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in relation to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report in relation to right wing extremist movements in Australia. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. That report was delivered out of session on 6 December 2024. As chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I would like to thank all the members of the committee who participated in that inquiry, including the deputy chair, Senator Nita Green. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the secretariat in dealing with a range of submissions, dealing in some cases with very confronting and controversial material. If I can pay my compliments to Ms Sophie Dunstan and the other members of the team of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I will have something further to say in relation to the report, perhaps next week, but at this point in time the main message I would like to note is we have a situation in this country where in particular there is a cohort of vulnerable young people who are being taken down the rabbit hole of violent extremism, especially via the internet and social media, including through online gaming platforms and other mechanisms or vehicles, which insidious members of extremist groups use to capture the minds of young people. This is a serious issue. ASIO and the AFP are certainly aware of the issue, but the age of the people who are being captured by this vile ideology is of deep concern. I think we, as lawmakers, and various agencies at both Commonwealth and state level need to cooperate with each other and make sure that we are applying best practice in terms of deradicalisation, and, even before we get to that stage, to apply whatever strategies we can apply to promote understanding and divert young people from these noxious ideologies. I will have some further remarks on that comment on the report and seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 101 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 101 Order for the Production of Documents 101 18:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024. COMMITTEES 101 COMMITTEES Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities—Select Committee 101 Membership 101 18:55 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The President has received a letter nominating senators to be members of the Select Committee on Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities. 18:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities — Select Committee — Appointed— Senators Cadell and Nampijinpa Price Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Bragg, Brockman, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Reynolds, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma and Dean Smith Question agreed to. Environment and Communications References Committee 101 Reference 101 18:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2025: The extent and the appropriateness of industry influence over government decision-making as it relates to online gambling reform and the Government's response to the recommendations of the Murphy Inquiry. I'm here today to seek the Senate's support for an inquiry into the influence the gambling industry and those that profit from them have over government decision-making. This morning, Senator Grogan emphasised how complicated this reform is, how uniquely complex it is and why a go-slow approach is best. I went back to the Hansard to look at how long it's taken to develop other complex pieces of legislation. According to the Department of Home Affairs, it took just eight days to have the Migration Amendment Bill drafted—just eight days to draft the bill that allowed the government to pay other countries to take people from Australia. It seems that where there is the political will to do so, legislation can be developed quickly to meet any need. Meanwhile, with this reform, we are up to 16 months and counting from the time the government received the multiparty backed recommendations of the Murphy inquiry. I argue that this is not due to a nebulous concept of complexity. There is something else behind the government's decision to shelve this reform, and that is the influence of the gambling lobby, the big sporting codes and the corporate media, who are working to ensure that they can continue normalising this product among children so that the revenue can continue to flow to those industries for generations to come. Since the crossbench first started advocating for a response to Peta Murphy's recommendations, we've seen signs of the influence these industries have over the Prime Minister of Australia's thinking. The first time was when the government's proposal was leaked almost immediately after it was briefed to the gambling industry. It was a tell-tale sign. Not a single consumer advocate or gambling harm expert had been consulted on the proposal. It took media appearances and letters from me and other members of the crossbench to ensure that they could actually be at the table. Then there were the meetings disclosed through orders for the production of documents and also the ones that weren't disclosed in OPDs. There were meetings at coffee shops in Marrickville and opportunistic get-togethers following parliamentary friendship events. But the piece of correspondence that stood out to me was an email from the gambling lobby to the PM's office. On 24 April 2024, Responsible Wagering Australia shared a paper about an undisclosed topic with an unknown person in the Prime Minister's office. Most of this email is redacted, and we're told that it's for commercial reasons, but it's quite difficult to understand how an industry representative body—not one of the companies themselves—could be handling commercially sensitive information and then handing that over to the PM's office. That would mean that the industry body representing the biggest bookmakers in the country has been given access to commercially sensitive information from their members and then it's been developed into a paper in commercially sensitive form and then shared with the government and presumably with members. If that's the case, I imagine there would be competition concerns that regulators in this country may be interested in looking at. What's worse is that, since that time, we've discovered that meetings went undisclosed by the PMO. I find it incredibly disappointing when the Senate agrees to an order for the production of documents and information is withheld and then someone FOIs them and gets the full suite of documents. The Australian Finance Review reported earlier this year that the PM went on a round robin of meetings with Channel 10, Channel 7, Peter V'landys, Cricket Australia, the AFL and Channel 9. For anyone interested, the NRL got a bit more time. They got 20 minutes with the Prime Minister. None of these meetings were disclosed in response to the OPD—not my OPD but an OPD that the Senate demanded—even though they were clearly in the scope of the order. We will wait for an explanation tomorrow. I thank the Senate for agreeing to get the minister to give an explanation, but it's another troubling sign that exchanges between the government and these industries are being concealed. There have been multiple occasions when the PM has gone off script and found himself parroting lines from the gambling lobby. On 12 August, the CEO of Responsible Wagering Australia said, 'The risk of blanket bans on advertising in the wagering space is that we run the risk of driving Australian consumers to the illegal offshore providers.' To be clear, offshore gambling is illegal. That's why they're called 'illegal offshore providers'! But the very next day the PM said at a press conference: 'The internet means that people can gamble offshore. That means it is much more difficult to put restrictions on.' Of course, none of this is true. This is spin that has been used by the gambling industry for decades. As I mentioned this morning, the co-founder of gambling giant Paddy Power said recently that this argument is a 'load of baloney'. That's a clear example of a well-trodden line used only by gambling lobbyists, and the Prime Minister said it. Here's another example. Recently the Prime Minister was asked by Zali Steggall MP in the other place where his gambling reforms were up to. He responded: We know, when we look at where the harmful gambling comes from, that almost 70 per cent of that harmful gambling is actually poker machines. More than or around 15 per cent, off the top of my head … from lotteries and lotto and those tickets as well. After hearing this, I got on the phone and asked experts where this data came from. They were stumped. They had never seen or heard of this data. I asked the department of infrastructure and the Prime Minister's department where he got this information from. It wasn't from them. I even asked the PM where he got it from. In a return letter from the Deputy Prime Minister I was told that it was data that he had recollected, that it had no actual source. Then, to the rescue, Peter V'landys, a man who runs two organisations that profit from gambling, made the mistake of giving these exact figures in an interview he gave to David Crowe and Paul Sakkal of the Sydney Morning Herald. According to that article: V'landys argued that independent statistics showed that out of 100 people who sought help from a problem gambling hotline, 70 were due to poker machines, 15 due to lotteries, eight due to racing, four due to sport and three due to casinos. So the only two people who have seen these figures are apparently the Prime Minister and Peter V'landys. Clearly Mr V'landys and the gambling lobby have more sway over what the PM says than experts or even the Murphy inquiry, which itself was a comprehensive examination of the harms associated with gambling advertising. I went into some detail this morning about just how comprehensive that inquiry was. It was the very best of our parliament. I watched some of the hearings and read some of the evidence, and that is what our parliament can achieve. As I said this morning, Peta Murphy achieved something that many of us potentially will not achieve in our time in this place: a committee report on a controversial topic that has the unanimous backing of the parliament. This is exactly why this needs to be examined, because I'm certain this is the tip of the iceberg and that behind these glimpses sits yet more unseen influence that has delayed and now tragically stopped in this parliament a critical reform to a public health issue that Australians have been asking for. It's terrifying and deeply troubling that two lobbyists could have so much more sway over the Prime Minister's thinking than the parliament, public health experts, members of the Australian community—and parents, who are having to explain to their 12-year-old what a multi is. What I'm proposing is not a long inquiry, but I do think it is an important one. It will allow us to scrutinise the timeline of events, it will allow us to find these documents that have been withheld from this Senate, and it will allow us to call and hear from those at the centre of why this reform has been shelved—a reform that had so much work put into it. The road map was there. After 18 months, it's been kicked beyond the next election. So I ask my fellow senators for their support to look into what I think is a really important issue for so many Australians. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question is that the motion moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to. A division is required, but we have to defer the division until tomorrow. Economics References Committee 103 Reference 103 19:07 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Roberts is not present, so we will move on to government business. BILLS 103 BILLS Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 103

Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 103 19:08 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I stand in continuation on this important piece of legislation, the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. We see in the opposition their obsession with saying no. In this case, it's saying no to investment and more jobs in Western Australia. Let's be clear. Under this legislation, if companies don't produce a processed critical mineral they're not eligible for the tax credit, nor are they eligible until they succeed. Taxpayers don't pay a cent until the industry succeeds. This legislation is about delivering a greater economic benefit to Australia from what we dig out of the ground. Currently we export minerals for a fraction of their processed value. It is worth this chamber remembering that new industries have often needed government support to get off the ground. This is what other nations are doing with tax incentives. There is also a trend towards the nationalisation of critical minerals. So we are at a very critical point in competing for the finance of critical minerals projects and Australia's role in future supply chains. Frankly, we are at a critical stage for the future of our mining industry. We are competing to attract investment now. Meanwhile, the coalition's approach to this issue was grants for pet projects, and it was universally critiqued as not being fit for purpose. And they have absolutely nothing on the table now. They have no interest in tackling Australia's dig-and-ship culture that has seen Australia fail to add value to our own resources during previous mining booms. The coalition's Western Australian senators and MPs are turning their backs on their communities. Be warned: they will be relying on tax from WA's resources sector to help fund the $600 billion for the seven risky and expensive nuclear power stations that the Australian taxpayer will foot the bill for. This includes an uncosted nuclear power station for the town of Collie. But what Collie wants is support from this legislation to get projects off the ground, projects that will get off the ground with the passing of this bill. Hardworking people have, for decades, worked in Collie in the coalmines and power stations that have been the engine of our great state. However, as solar panels on our homes drive cheaper energy production, it has been known for some time that the ageing power station is set to close by the end of this decade. Meanwhile, we have the member for Canning wanting to address issues by arguing for a nuclear fantasy and Collie coal exports in a continuation of their dig-and-ship mentality. It's also worth remembering that Collie coal exports are also a fantasy, as the last ship of coal exported from Collie caught fire because it's not stable enough for export. The coalition are simply not working with communities. They aren't working with industry. Instead, they simply want to impose their own irrational agenda. In contrast, look to the work of the Collie Just Transition group, made up of WA government, industry, businesses, unions and community organisations. They have come together to build a just transition plan for Collie. They've put forward an agenda that sees the maximisation of opportunities for affected workers, a plan that diversifies the local economy, brings millions of dollars of new investment into the region. And it's a plan that includes projects that will get off the ground with the support of this legislation. I note that it includes a magnesium refinery where Magnium Australia are looking to CSIRO patented technology for the clean extraction of magnesium metal. It also includes International Graphite's mine-to-market battery graphite materials project. The people of Collie want a say in their future as well as real investment that brings money and jobs into their town, not a taxpayer funded nuclear power plant or a coal fuelled fantasy that ships pollution and their jobs offshore. The people of Collie already know that critical minerals are literally critical to their future. The benefit this production tax credit will bring to Collie is just one local example of Labor's plan to grow our WA economy, an economy that helps workers earn more with skilled jobs in industries with a future—like critical minerals. There are communities right around WA that will benefit from this production tax credit. There are projects in Perth. There are about 12 in Forrest and 20 or so in Durack. From the Northern Territory and South Australian border of WA to Esperance, the south-west and the Kimberley, communities are being ignored by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton; ignored by the member for O'Connor; and ignored by the Forrest candidate Ben Small, a former Liberal senator in this place. They should all know better. It's clear the view of the leader of the WA Liberals, Libby Mettam, doesn't matter either. She said, 'We will support this measure,' but she doesn't have a vote. Those opposite do. Shane Love, Leader of the Nationals and Leader of the Opposition, was also ignored when he said, 'It is essential not just for Western Australia and not just for Australia but for the western world.' What about Mia Davies, the Nationals candidate for the federal seat of Bullwinkel, who said, 'Downstream initiatives are welcome'? Well, I'm sorry to say, Mia Davies, that under a Dutton coalition government, which you aspire to be part of, such initiatives will not be welcomed. Nor are the coalition listening to Australian business. The coalition position on this bill does not reflect calls from the CEO of Australian Strategic Minerals, Rowena Smith, or from the managing director of Wesfarmers, Rob Scott. They're ignoring Rebecca Tompkinson of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA, who has said, 'This is a smart targeted use of the tax system to solve big problems, leverage our competitive advantages and enhance Australia's prosperity.' They ignored Warren Pearce, CEO of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, when he said, 'This bill needs to pass parliament.' Investors are looking for a reason to choose Australia over other countries right now. The window of opportunity is narrow, and the coalition doesn't care that our investment and jobs will go elsewhere. This issue is a stark reminder to Western Australian voters about what the coalition thinks about our state. You are ignoring the real issues and instead focusing on 'ship the sheep'. You don't actually want to keep sheep. This would mean keeping them onshore. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Pratt, I remind you to address your remarks through the chair. Senator PRATT I0T Those opposite don't actually want to keep the sheep. That would mean keeping them onshore to be processed in WA, adding value to our exports and bringing jobs and local economic benefits. Meanwhile, they also want to waste the opportunity to add value to our natural resources—dig and ship. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Pratt, I remind you that imputations to motive are out of order. Senator PRATT I0T The coalition take Western Australia for granted, just like they have taken Western Australia's mining revenues—which underpin our national economy—and tax revenue for granted. How will they pay for their $600 billion worth of nuclear power plants? In contrast to the coalition's 'dig and ship' mentality, the Albanese government is committed to investing in climate action, to working with other nations to address current supply chain insecurity for critical minerals, and to investing in skilled jobs and in regional communities. It is also committed to getting a bigger and better economic return on what we mine. I'm proud to support this bill and to stand up for a future made in Australia. 19:17 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise in support of the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. However, my support is not without some qualification because, as I said in the debate last year, we need to focus on some key technologies that will assist us to lower emissions, support existing and new industries, and protect our national security. For that reason, I was surprised to see that low-carbon liquid fuels, LCLFs, were not included in this bill as a recipient of those tax credits, especially when many of our international competitors are incentivising their industries to be leaders. You might ask why I was surprised. There are several reasons. First, low-carbon fuels were included in the priority sectors that made up the key focus areas of Future Made in Australia in the National Interest Framework that went with it, the framework that we agreed to in this place last year. It is in that framework because, as the National Interest Framework states: Australia is likely to have a comparative advantage in the production of some feedstocks used to produce LCLFs— low-carbon fuels— or in the production of LCLFs, or both. I belief both are vitally important for our country. Other countries—such as the United States, Brazil and Singapore, amongst others—have all seen the potential that low-carbon liquid fuels offer, and they are moving quickly to reap the benefits. We are in a race to build a whole new industry in Australia, which should be a part of the long vaunted green economy or, as is often sold to us, the creation of a clean energy superpower. It's a noble ambition, but we've to put some effort and some funding into it. We have clear advantages, but we are not the only ones. While countries like Singapore don't have the advantage of our feedstocks, nor the great amounts of renewable energy that will be needed to make low-carbon liquid fuels, they certainly know how to make big bets on nation-building industries. Low-carbon fuels, which including sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel, need to be in this bill as recipients of production tax credits. If they are left out then what we are saying is that we are comfortable for our future to be made in Singapore or some other country but not here. This defeats the most important benefits of producing low carbon fuels here—that is, fuel security, which is vital to our national security. Not only that; we would pass up the estimated 18,000 new direct jobs that are predicted to come from standing up a sustainable aviation fuel production industry, plus the estimated $13 billion that would be added to our GDP. We would effectively load all of these benefits onto ships heading to Singapore, with all the feedstock we would be sending them, and Singapore would benefit as they export it to the rest of the world. As we waste time debating the merits of including low-carbon liquid fuels and building an industry here in Australia, the world will race ahead, leaving us behind. This, I believe, would be unacceptable to most Australians. The truth is that low-carbon fuels are an indispensable tool to lowering Australians' carbon emissions. A study by Airbus shows that, on average, sustainable aviation fuels can reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent compared to traditional jet fuel. This is particularly important when we consider that worldwide the aviation industry accounts for up to three per cent of human induced greenhouse gas emissions. Low-carbon liquid fuels are important, as they will play a role in decarbonising the hard to abate transport sector. Unlike hydrogen, which is also important, we have immediate uses for sustainable aviation fuel and biodiesel. We don't need to build masses of new infrastructure such as refrigeration, storage and new transport to get it into use once we're producing it. Our trucks and planes can use it immediately, so, as soon as we build it and we are producing it, it is getting used. It is also worth noting that low-carbon liquid fuels need hydrogen as one of the feedstocks, so standing up a sustainable aviation fuel industry not only builds that industry but also provides an uptake opportunity for our hydrogen production industry, which is in this bill. Instead, to be prepared for the future means we must commit to clear and specific incentives that will ensure this crucial but nascent low-carbon liquid fuel industry flourishes. But the benefits of the LCLFs are not just limited to emissions reduction. Low-carbon liquid fuels will also support our farmers who will grow the feedstocks that will enable us to develop a strong supply chain and help us build a sovereign fuel capacity. With the prospect of an interregional war drawing ever closer and traditional allies such as United States potentially—and I stress potentially—turning inwards, now is the time more than ever to set the stage for a strong and independent Australia that produces its own fuels and can stand on its own two legs. That won't happen without a sovereign fuel manufacturing capacity, not as long as 91 per cent of our fuel is imported from overseas and we hold only 54 days of strategic fuel reserves, which is barely half of the recommended amount suggested by the International Energy Agency. This is only worsened by the fact that this strategic reserve would have to be shared between both our military and civilian sectors. This would have a devastating effect on our economy during a conflict. If we cannot protect our sea lanes of communication that traditional fuels come in on, how do we keep running the economy? While we remain deeply vulnerable to a blockade, which would cut off most of our fuel, supporting fuel security, in my view, is completely non-negotiable, and helping to support and start an independent low-carbon liquid fuel industry would go a long way to ensuring that we secure our sovereignty and our economy at the same time. With all of that said, I do support and am a keen advocate for hydrogen production, which is given tax offsets in this bill. But we also need to bear in mind that it will take years to contribute to our economy and our emission reductions, whereas, as I said earlier, sustainable aviation fuel and biodiesel have ready-to-go markets right here within Australia, right now. While important, establishing and supporting a strong hydrogen industry would take longer and need enormous investment, much more investment than low-carbon fuels, plus commitments to infrastructure developments before it can be used to add value to our economy. As such, to ensure Australia remains competitive on the global stage, we must commit to and incentivise our low-carbon fuel industry. Currently, Singapore, which will likely be the dominant producer in our region, is setting the standard for SAF production. To level the playing field for Australian producers, we must aim to produce SAF at a cost close to Singapore's benchmark; however, achieving that alone will not make our industry globally competitive. The goal must be to close the gap between what is called jet A1 fuel and sustainable aviation fuel. To do this we need to bring the cost of low-carbon fuels, and that is why I will be introducing an amendment to include production tax credits for low-carbon fuels in this bill. 19:28 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Here we go again, with Labor spending lots of money on Redbridge and other research agencies to come up with these really trendy research driven titles that really bear no relationship to what is actually in the bill. Not only does that apply to Future Made in Australia, but one of the things those opposite have assiduously not spoken about is actually what the bill is about—that is, the production tax credits. We heard from Senator Pratt all about Peter Dutton and the nuclear energy issue, supposedly, in Collie, and about everything else except what this bill does and does not do. Future Made In Australia does sound good on the face of it, but this particular bill is about the production tax credits, and that's what I want to spend my time in this place talking about. Sadly, as to this bill, despite all of the rhetoric from those opposite—'This is going to help our critical minerals industry and our rare earths industry; this is going to fix all of the ills that currently bedevil the industries and now make it impossible for an Australian company, even when they find a critical mineral, a rare earth or any other commodity'—those opposite have now made things far worse, including with the Future Made in Australia— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Reynolds, please resume your seat. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 106 ADJOURNMENT Albanese Government, Pensions and Benefits: Cashless Debit Card 106 19:30 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Well, the chaos was immediate when the Albanese government did nothing to stop the alcohol restrictions from being lifted in the Northern Territory in 2022. There was no social impact assessment, no transition plan, just a process that said, 'Here's $300 million to clean up. How do you want to spend it?' They did the same when Labor took away the cashless debit card. Labor and the Greens removed the cashless debit card, and the impact was immediate. Think back to the audacity of the Prime Minister—to spend less than 24 hours in Alice Springs, on a Monday, when take-away alcohol is not sold, and tell Australians: 'It's okay'! Well, you didn't fool a single local. And it's not okay. There was more disregard, too, when Minister Rishworth took a 38-minute flight—a RAAF flight—home from Ceduna in October 2022 at a five-figure cost to taxpayers. She couldn't get out of there fast enough. Forty Ceduna businesses directly pleading with her for help instead got radio silence. So much for listening to locals. From Ceduna to Kalgoorlie, to the Kimberley and into Alice Springs, this Albanese government has left people hurt, harmed and hungry. Now, imagine what is going to occur when Minister Rishworth ends income management for the 29,000 people currently receiving those payments in the Northern Territory. Labor talk so much with their friends the Australian Greens about learning from history, but not on this, no; no way. In the Northern Territory, alcohol consumption per capita is around twice the national average. Three thousand five hundred Territorians right now are on the Banned Drinker Register. They're on it—dead giveaway—because they're problem drinkers who cause problems. On the Banned Drinker Register, guess what? You can still buy grog at a licensed premises—you can go in and drink there—but the ban prohibits you from purchasing takeaway. We know alcohol is a driver for violence. Domestic and family violence in the Territory is up 20 per cent, year on year. Even police from my home state of South Australia had to go in when there was a call for help, let alone the several curfews. What a place to live! Sadly, for locals, that's what they live with. Then factor in the NT's gambling problem, which has an estimated cost of $400 million a year. A Labor-dominated Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into compulsory income management did not include a single MP from the NT. Why aren't we hearing from the three Labor MPs from the Northern Territory whose job it is to represent Territorians? Labor had the cheek to stand in this chamber earlier today talking about the need to listen to local voices; yet, after two public hearings in Canberra, and 30 submissions, mostly from the who's who of the Aboriginal service industry, they are still going ahead with this madness. Meanwhile, the Albanese government commits more taxpayers' money to closing the gap and ending disadvantage, while, at the same time, deploying policy responses for further welfare dependence, at far greater social, human and economic cost. Compulsory income management began as a direct outcome of the 2007 Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse and its report, Little children are sacred. It had two primary aims: to stem the flow of cash expended on substance abuse and gambling, and to ensure funds provided for welfare protected the welfare of children because the money was spent on essential items. Well, a coalition government will reinstate the cashless debit card in communities that want it because it makes people safer. We will actively audit organisations in the Aboriginal service industry and be focused on outcomes, not outputs—actions that will help to protect the most vulnerable and do no further harm. In considering the 'senseless, shocking and preventable deaths' in the Northern Territory, Coroner Elizabeth Armitage concluded that responses were 'too narrow, too piecemeal, too small, too ineffective' and also culturally unfit. The time for urgent action is now. It's too late for those victims. History shows that you can make it much worse. Labor made it much worse. Cost of Living 107 19:35 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales What people look for when they come to this place is a bit of hope. They also seek the truth. They need to hear the truth because what we do here matters. I actually said those words in the chamber not so very long ago, and they absolutely hold true today. Australians are doing it tough. Every grocery bill, every electricity statement, every rent notice feels like it's weighing heavily. But, under Labor, we're not sitting idly by. We're taking decisive, practical action because we believe in a fair go for all Australians, not just for a few. Labor's plan is clear. We're easing pressure where it hits hardest. We delivered tax cuts for every working Australian, not just the ones on the highest incomes. Why did we do that? We did it because, when you're struggling, with the cost of living, Labor understands that every dollar counts. We made sure, through our policies and implementation, that you can keep more of what you earn to spend on what matters most to you—your family, your home, your future. These Labor tax cuts came to an average of $1,504 for someone earning $73,000 a year. Every dollar counts. Every dollar matters. The coalition have said at times that these tax cuts will be reversed. Is your tax cut actually safe, or is it under attack by Minister Dutton? He says he's got to find $350 billion of cuts. He didn't want to give you that tax cut in the first place. The question is: are you really willing to risk it—Mr Peter Dutton and a cash grab from you and your family to build a nuclear plant that might come on line in 2040, that he wants to spend $600 billion Australian taxpayer dollars on—because no-one who invests in anything wants to invest in that white elephant? His way is not the Labor way. That's why we have reduced the costs of essential medicines, for example, so that no-one has to choose between their health and putting food on the table. General patients now pay less, and concessional patients will benefit from capped pricing that will bring real relief. This isn't just a policy; this is something we've done. It's dignity restored at the pharmacy counter, because Labor understands that you're doing it tough and that you don't need a handout but just a bit of help to get through—and we're getting through. We want Australians to be healthier and less financially stressed. We want Aussies to be able to take the medicines they need and the dosages they need. That's why we did this. Labor's energy bill relief is another thing that's reaching millions of Australians—$300 for every household and $325 for small businesses. Think of every roof and every business you fly over. This is immediate and tangible support, showing that we absolutely understand and are doing something about the stress that happens for Australians when power bills arrive. For students burdened with HECS-HELP debt, we've slashed indexation, cutting debts by up to 20 per cent. That's real money back in the pockets of young Australians investing in their futures. When the Liberals talk about budget repair and cutting public servants, they mean cutting the very services that make life livable for ordinary Australians. I'm not sure Peter Dutton knows what a public servant does, but let me tell you. Public servants under Labor ensure that veterans' support claims are processed. He wants to take 1,000 of the workers out. A public servant disburses emergency grants of up to $900 to those who've lost homes and livelihoods during natural disasters like the one in North Queensland right now. They're public servants. Peter Dutton wants to cut 36,000 of them. That will hurt you. Yes, these things are on Mr Dutton's secret chopping block. Each way you slice or dice it, you're in for the cut with Dutton. Don't risk it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator O'Neill. I remind you to refer to others in the other place by their correct titles. Climate Change, Health Care 107 19:40 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I speak today for the increasing number of Australians who have to endure relentless heatwaves, impacting not only their safety and wellbeing but also the capacity of our hospital systems to meet an ever-increasing demand. 2024 was again our hottest year on record, yet this Labor government has continued to subsidise, extend and approve new fossil fuel projects. Not only does the burning of fossil fuels impact our water and food resources, but air pollution from these industries kills more people than smoking. For many people, it is increasingly making their living conditions unlivable. Over summer, Perth has struggled through 25 days over 35 degrees, with back-to-back heatwaves breaking records yet again. In WA, we are seeing temperatures of over 45, cooking large areas of our state. The poor folks of Geraldton hit a whopping 49.3 degrees Celsius for a second year in a row. It may be difficult to imagine from the cool corridors of parliament, but many Australians without access to aircon in their homes or in their workplaces experience these summer temperatures as incredibly stressful times. For those experiencing poverty or homelessness, these conditions can be downright dangerous. Older Australians, disabled people and those with chronic health conditions are also at risk of exacerbated health challenges. Climate hazards like heatwaves and bushfires are putting further pressure on our emergency departments and our hospitals. A study from Curtin University in Perth found a strong link between bushfire smoke and hospital admissions for heart and lung problems, with those in disadvantaged areas at much higher risk. In December, paramedics in Perth responded to the largest number of heat related emergency calls they've received in the last five years, leading to over 1,000 hours of ambulance ramping in a week at Perth hospitals. Our hospitals are already strained to capacity. Thirty per cent of patients remain waiting in emergency eight hours after their arrival. In WA, on average, it takes over 14 hours for 90 per cent of people to be admitted to ED. This is not down to a lack of compassion, skill or willingness from healthcare workers to support our community; this is down to a poor state of resourcing, a lack of planning and bad decision-making. This is why the Greens recently announced an investment of $30 billion into local public hospitals across the nation and will work to achieve this in the next parliament. We are committed to delivering world-class public health care here in Australia. WA would receive an additional $3 billion for public hospitals over the next decade. I've heard so many nurses and doctors who have reached out to me and expressed how desperately they need our government's support. There is no reason why we cannot make this a reality. It's time for the major parties to stop passing the buck between the state and territory and federal governments, and invest the money needed to ensure everyone can access the best possible health care at our public hospitals. We are dealing with two major parties who are prioritising private industry over our public health systems, who are privatising tax handouts to fossil fuel giants instead of stopping the root of the climate crisis at its source. This must end. Our communities have spoken. There must be no more coal and gas, no more underfunding of our public hospitals. It is not revolutionary to say that Australians deserve a government that prioritises their wellbeing. Small Business 108 19:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania ():  Right now, small business in this country is being absolutely smashed. Tasmania has seen a massive increase in small business going under: 64 closed their doors in the first half of 2024-25. That is up 480 per cent from two years ago. Nationally, business failure rose 50 per cent, with insolvency appointments expected to hit 16,000 this year. The government says it cares, but, when it comes down to it, I don't think it cares less when it comes to small business. Look at how they are stalling on the promise—just a promise—they made to Senator Pocock and me to review the definition of 'small business'. Seriously, we're fighting over that still! Small business is being smothered by red tape, and unfair dismissal laws is one of the worst offenders. Recent data from the Fair Work Commission provides compelling evidence of the scale of the issue. In the 2022-23 financial year, the Fair Work Commission processed more than 34,000 applications related to workplace disputes. Among those were over 13,000 unfair dismissal claims and over 5,000 general protections claims involving dismissal. According to data from the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, an unfair dismissal case typically costs a business over $10,000, with legal costs varying significantly from $5,000 to $20,000. Even if the small business wins the unfair dismissal case—this is the clincher!—most of the time they may still have to cover their own legal costs. How is that fair? This means that many small businesses will give a disgruntled employee a payout even if they are in the right because they want to avoid the legal costs. That is where this country has gone. If you've got a bad employee, you have to pay them out. That's where we are at. That's the situation in which you have left small business—and people like my office. I have even heard of a case where a worker was busted for doing illegal drugs at work, but the employee put in an unfair dismissal claim, and the small business ended up settling to avoid legal costs. That is damning—absolutely damning!—of this government! I got my own taste of the unfair dismissal system recently. I had a member of staff who worked hard for the first three months. Then we took them off probation, and what do you know? The person started showing up late for work, 22 times in a matter of weeks— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, could I caution you. I'm not sure you should be talking about a staff person who could be identified. I appreciate the privilege in this place, but these matters should be— Senator LAMBIE 250026 With all due respect, we have gone over that with the legal side, and there are things we have been told not to say, and we have worked through that. The PRESIDENT 112096 With respect, Senator Lambie, I think this staff member could be easily identified. I have asked you not to continue with that story, but, if you choose to, so be it. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I will then. The worker became dismissive to co-workers, occasionally left the office without providing any reasons for absences and failed to take on constructive feedback to align with reasonable workplace expectations, despite multiple warnings and a performance review. When my office manager had a review with this staff member, she pointed out the late times and also asked why the staff member was painting their nails at the desk. The staff member replied that they had finished their allocated tasks, and, as far as they were concerned, any time saved was their own downtime. Oh goodness me! My office manager did the right thing. By the way, she's about 34 weeks pregnant and she's been going through this, so you can imagine the turmoil it has had on her life over the past three or four months. She was informed by the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, PWSS, of the next steps, which she followed. She followed every direction. The staff member resigned and sent us a nice little email and then three weeks later put in an unfair dismissal claim. Then we found out that PWSS had handed the case to Sparke Helmore Lawyers, the law firm that loves running legal cases against diggers in defence of the DVA. I am shocked that PWSS is even using this law firm, with the reputation that is behind it. My officer's case is pretty cut and dry, and, because I am a senator, these costs will not have to be covered by me. But if I were a small business it would have cost me thousands. Most businesses in Australia are small businesses, and 98 per cent of them have a turnover of less than $2 million. They are struggling to keep their heads above water. Having to pay out thousands of dollars in potentially vexatious unfair dismissal claims is an unfair burden not just to my office but to small business. If the government really care about small business, they need to get this sorted out. The unfair dismissal laws are broken and they have clearly gone way too far. The government needs to fix these laws, keep its promises and help Australian businesses stay in the game. It has gone so far that I am getting legal advice on the damage that has been done in my office by your fair work laws. That's where I'm right at right now. I hope the Attorney-General is listening to this, because, if small business doesn't want to take you on, I will, because the psychological damage that has gone on in my office in the last three to six months has been absolutely overbearing. Think about that. Senate adjourned at 19:51