﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2025-02-10</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Monday, 10 February 2025</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Australia</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Senators Sworn</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in continuing to reform the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians.</para>
<para>On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released on 7 December 2023. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said that its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026.</para>
<para>The NDIS bill was the first legislative step by this government towards ensuring this annual growth target is achieved. Our government will continue to make changes to improve the NDIS, including making sure that it delivers better, more consistent and fairer decisions, that it protects the safety and upholds the rights of participants and that every dollar allocated to NDIS participants reaches them and is spent in a meaningful way that makes a difference in their lives so that people with disability can continue to live with dignity and exercise control over their future through the scheme.</para>
<para>In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate, in addition to the aforementioned review.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the explanation.</para></quote>
<para>Yet another sitting period goes by in which disabled people are denied transparency by this Labor government. Another week goes by in which a minister comes into the chamber and refuses to provide the public with documentation of the agreement—the secret deal—between the Commonwealth and the states and territories that is driving the devastating cuts that we are seeing to disabled peoples' supports—the supports they need to literally live.</para>
<para>There is absolutely no denying that these cuts are occurring. My office is inundated at the moment by families and advocates reaching out to us and by participants calling us in desperation because their vital supports have been cruelly slashed. It is absolutely unacceptable that, when there are so many corporations and billionaires getting away with paying absolutely no tax or far less tax than it would ever be reasonable for them to pay, the government comes for disabled people, their families and the supports that they need to live a good life.</para>
<para>Labor is very clearly content to put disabled people and our families through hell. They do not care enough to show us the financial framework that underpins the cuts that they are making. In fact, they first tried to deny that the documents, which they have now hidden for over a year, even existed. When they were forced to admit the documents existed, they continued to run an absolutely ridiculous argument that to release them would prejudice the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, as though transparency and accountability should take a back seat to whether a few ministers in government feel a bit embarrassed. It's ridiculous.</para>
<para>You know what? This secrecy, this lack of transparency and this failure to own up and be honest is creating an environment where the community can't even celebrate some good things when they are announced. Disabled people really need, for instance, a well-functioning healthcare system; that is vital. The government was very proud to announce a healthcare and hospitals funding package recently. Yet, if you look beneath the detail of the announcement and the highly confected media releases, what do you find? You find a Labor government which is holding above its head funding to states and territories for their hospital systems. But you only get it—oh, yes, there's a catch—if you agree, as a state or territory government, that you will join with the Labor government in the perpetuation of the complete nonsense that state and territory governments are equipped to provide alternative services to people who've been kicked off the NDIS and that the states and territories can magically set back up the services and supports that they've been systematically dismantling for over a decade because those services were meant to be provided by the NDIS.</para>
<para>Now, if these services and supports, whether they be in WA, New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland or anywhere in between, were ever to exist—remember that we still do not know what a foundational support is; there is no definition and no clarity. If they were ever to be set up, it would easily take, I would say, decades to set these systems back up. Even when they are established, there is no guarantee that they will be transferable so that somebody who currently lives in New South Wales could easily move to WA or anywhere else. It's absolutely ridiculous. These cuts mean that children are going without the services and supports they need and that families are subjected to so much struggle and so much unnecessary pain, and this government can't even own it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does anyone remember the government saying, during the election campaign, that it was going to be a government all about transparency? They were very clear that they were going to be all about transparency. But what we've seen, when it comes to the NDIS, is Senator Steele-John and Senator Reynolds requesting these documents and speaking to the refusal of this government to provide these documents for almost 18 months. To Senator Steele-John's point, they denied that they existed, and now they've had to admit they exist, but they are still hiding them in another show of the lack of transparency and the opaqueness of this government.</para>
<para>Before the election, Mr Shorten, as the then shadow NDIS minister, claimed that the NDIS was perfectly sustainable and that there were no issues whatsoever with the NDIS. In fact, according to him, the Liberal government and Senator Reynolds, as the minister, were somehow behaving like pearl-clutching kabuki players when we were reaching out across the aisle, asking for bipartisan support and being honest and transparent about the state of the NDIS and its sustainability. What have we seen since this government has come to power? They have now recognised that the NDIS is unsustainable, that there are too many participants on the NDIS and that there has been a complete lack of management when it comes to the behaviour of some of the providers—not the participants but the providers. So the NDIS continues to descend into chaos.</para>
<para>There are those in the Australian community that look at the NDIS as this behemoth of spending. They think that there are too many people on it, they think that it's a rort and they think that it's being manipulated. Unfortunately, through that argument, some of the goodwill is being lost in the broader community. But, for the families of participants and for the participants themselves, who rely on the NDIS to provide supports, we know that this is one of the most important driving issues in their lives. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, when we know more and more people who have a disability sit at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, they are being punished even further by this government with its complete uncertainty and, quite frankly, meanness when it comes to treatment of those on the NDIS.</para>
<para>In just a few months, participants who will no longer qualify for the NDIS are supposed to be sent over to this wonderful new world of foundational supports, and, as Senator Steele-John mentioned, we don't even know what foundational supports are. This government can't even tell us what a foundational support is. There are a lot of assumptions within the community as to what they're supposed to be, but no-one actually knows what they are. So where are these families going to go when? It's particularly impacting children. Where is a family going to go to get support when their child is no longer qualifying for the NDIS?</para>
<para>Among the things that were supposed to be in place when the scheme was rolled out were ILC grants. They were supposed to there to develop tier 2 supports so that community groups would be able to support disabled people in their community to more actively participate. My children are all teenagers now, but I remember going to music groups, playgroups and all these other different activities with my children when they were younger, and what these grants were supposed to do was to support these groups to further develop so that they could include children with a disability more easily. Instead, we've seen the ILC grants turning into some sort of political football and not going to the groups that require them or to the groups that have also provided advocacy within the space. In fact, in Tasmania we have seen Autism Tasmania have to close because they were refused ILC grants. I know ILC grants have not been given to Autism Awareness Australia, the leading group for parents.</para>
<para>What we've also seen is this complete uncertainty and kids falling through the gaps. In Victoria, there is a 20-month-old who is blind and for whom the Victorian state government was refusing to provide prosthetics beyond his first pair of them. This little boy will need prosthetics until he stops growing. This family is just one of a growing number of examples who are consistently falling through the gaps. Perhaps the Victorian by-elections will be a wake-up call, at least for their health system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For 18 months, senators in this place have been coming to ask those opposite for the most basic of information on the NDIS. I heartily endorse Senator Steele-John's comments that this government, shamefully, not only have a complete lack of transparency but have basically given a one-fingered or two-fingered-salute to senators and to the over 650,000 Australians now on the NDIS.</para>
<para>Apart from the colossal failure of those opposite to actually deal with the problems, time and time again in this place, when I approached Bill Shorten as the minister and said, 'We have some serious structural issues with the NDIS that we need to fix, and we need to be able to control both drivers of cost: the number of people on the scheme and also the average cost per participant on the scheme,' we heard Bill Shorten say, 'There's nothing wrong with the scheme; you're just making it all up.' He comes into government and says, 'Oh, dear; I never read the budget papers or any of the reports from the NDIS, and the scheme is in trouble.' Instead of saying, 'Oops, we got it wrong,' he just doubled down. He had another review that was completely unnecessary. He said, 'We can't really do anything until after the review's finished,' and 18 months later he said, 'Well, we're not going to make any cuts to the scheme.' Well, that was just a big fat untruth. I'll go through the numbers in a second. They have been cutting on this scheme as if there were no tomorrow, indiscriminately.</para>
<para>What we haven't really heard—and Senator Hughes touched on it—is that foundational supports, as they're now called, are what was called tier 2 supports when the Commonwealth government went into interim intergovernmental agreements with states and territories. The states and territories were always responsible for community based support for those who were not going to be eligible for the NDIS. Don't forget that this was a scheme for Australians who had the most serious and permanent disabilities—those Australians who lived miserable, horrible lives in state and territory facilities and who were denied the most basic human respect and dignity. Those opposite now have a strategy just to get themselves through the next election. No wonder Bill Shorten scarpered off before the election and before his financial fraud was exposed.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd ask Senator Reynolds to reflect on the way she just characterised the former member for Maribyrnong.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just reflect on it. I don't think it was an adverse reflection but be measured in—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was mentioning him by his name. 'Former minister Shorten', then—I'll say that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was the 'scampering away'. But I don't think—I think that was what you were suggesting, Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not a debate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds is persistently referring to Mr Shorten incorrectly. He should be referred to as 'Mr Shorten', notwithstanding the fact that he's no longer serving.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please take that on board, Senator Reynolds.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Former Minister Shorten has left prematurely and left every single NDIS participant and their family with an almighty mess, which is impacting on their lives in the most profound of ways. But the biggest of so many things in the mess that he has left behind, which Labor are now scrambling to make sure doesn't come out before the election, is that they've cut $60 billion out of the scheme. They've forced tens of thousands of participants through reviews. They've delayed plans. They're still hiding budget figures. They commissioned Redbridge and spent an enormous amount of money on how to spin this through.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at what they're actually hiding. Total payments continue to increase due to both increased participant numbers and a higher average cost per participant—the two drivers of cost. That's despite everything they say—this mythical eight per cent, which is what is in the budget. Senator Hughes last week was talking about an $11 billion black hole. Well, I'll tell you what, when you have a look at the fiction of the NDIS figures you see it is far more than that. This is the fact: total payments continue to increase due to both cost drivers. In the first quarter it was $11.5 billion of expenditure. This total payment level is actually on track to exceed last year's expenditure on the NDIS, which has not been budgeted for in this year's budget.</para>
<para>So now the government are desperately talking to the states and territories: 'Can you give us a loan?' They've had 2½ years and there is no agreement with the states and territories on foundational supports. Why would there be? They vacated the field, as Senator Steele-John said, for nearly a decade. Not only are they not going to find the money but it's already a thin provider market. Where are these people going to come from?</para>
<para>Plan inflation also continues to rise, with the annualised inflation level at 12.8, not their mythical eight per cent. This is a fraud on people with disability and on all Australian taxpayers.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>4</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, as circulated.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025.</para></quote>
<para>The reason I am doing this is that it's a matter of priority to deal with the legislation I've referred to—that is why we seek to give precedence to this legislation. By way of context, I point to the fact that, by agreement with the government, this bill was exempted from the cut-off, and normally that is a pretty good sign that the government has determined legislation to be important. That is why it is passing strange that the bill is No. 2 on the list. We fear that the government seeks to hold this important legislation, the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, to ransom in order to somehow expedite the passage of the Future Made in Australia legislation.</para>
<para>In making the case here, I want to read in its entirety the speech on the bill's second reading by the shadow minister in the other place, Mr Joyce. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm not going to yack on for too long. This is pretty straightforward. There has been a review. It has found a potential problem in insurance. You can get a house through the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, under DVA, and DVA acts as the agent. QBE does the insurance, but DVA is the agent. Technically we don't know whether they're allowed to do that, so we've just got to try and fix this up. I've had discussions with the minister. I appreciate that correspondence. I think it is best for us to expediate this. Why? We have had a massive flood around Townsville. There are a lot of people there who have DVA housing. I'm absolutely certain they want to make sure that, at this point in time, their house is insured.</para></quote>
<para>That was the entire contribution of the shadow minister, in the other place. His entire second reading debate contribution in the other place that day took three minutes, from 9.23 am to 9.26 am. We could get this done here, now, in the same fashion.</para>
<para>We have a contested bill, in the form of the Future Made in Australia legislation, and we have a bill that has agreement in the form of the Defence services legislation I've referred to. There is one that is immediate, urgent and retrospective. There is another piece of legislation, the Future Made in Australia legislation, which, at the earliest, commences on 1 April this year. Parts of it don't even commence until the year 2027.</para>
<para>Why are we doing it in this order? I don't know. We think it's important to get this done, especially for those that have been impacted in Queensland, as the shadow minister highlights, but in his words, 'I won't yack on too long'.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  The government will not be supporting this motion. We have outlined our program, through the daily program, that was circulated last week.</para>
<para>We've commenced the Future Made in Australia bill; we've made good progress on it and we want to continue to do that. We have listed it at item 1. Of course, we would like to also deal with Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, after we have completed the Future Made in Australia.</para>
<para>These are the lengths that Peter Dutton's opposition will go to, to not support a future made in Australia. It is quite extraordinary that the opposition are trying to avoid debating today positive legislation—which will be particularly positive in the area of WA—to progress legislation to establish a critical minerals tax incentive. This is the extent that they will go to, to say no.</para>
<para>We do not support rearranging the program; there are no logical arguments to rearrange the program. The Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 can pass, and will pass, this week with the support of this chamber. There is no reason why it should not be dealt with in accordance with the program that's been circulated.</para>
<para>There is a lot of legislation coming up. We want the Administrative Review Tribunal bill to pass. We want the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to proceed. Remember that little baby of yours, robodebt? We've got the keeping the NBN in public ownership bill. We want that to proceed this week. We've got no shortage of legislation to set up a better future for this country, and the opposition, in the time that's allowed for government business, is now wasting time trying to rearrange the program because they don't want to be embarrassed by the position they've taken on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024.</para>
<para>You're embarrassed about your position. You're embarrassed in WA, where there's a lot of interest about getting this bill passed and the support that would be provided for industries. Indeed, the WA Liberal leader, Ms Mettam, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We will always stand up for Western Australia, and we will support this measure. It's something that I will raise with my federal colleagues. We are committed to jobs and industry and new industries in Western Australia and that is my position.</para></quote>
<para>That is not Peter Dutton's position. It's not Senator Cash's position. They don't want new jobs, and they don't want the investment that will come—the new industries in WA—and that is being clearly shown here this morning by their attempt to put it down the list of priorities in the daily program.</para>
<para>We don't agree with that. We don't support that. We want this bill to pass. We think it will mean a very strong future, particularly for industries in critical minerals and in pro-manufacturing that will generate the jobs and industries of the future. We want to back WA, and we want this parliament to send a very strong message about the opportunities that will come from this bill, particularly in WA. I'm astounded that Senator Cash would be part of this stunt to reduce investment and the prioritisation of jobs and industries in WA by playing politics with the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Program</inline>. The <inline font-style="italic">Daily Program</inline> is there. It's been clear about our priorities, and the Senate should allow us to get on to government business today and deal with all of the legislation on the program.</para>
<para>The reality is that, if you were serious, we could deal with all of this today, but we know you're not going to allow that, and now you're trying to delay the inevitability of trying to deal with production tax credits. If you were serious about progressing the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill, you wouldn't be trying to rearrange the program. That's the reality. The actual reality is—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are serious because there are people calling our offices—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Right! Yes! So I hope you tell those people calling your offices: 'You know what? We're going to deal with production tax credits. We're going to vote against it, but it can be done this morning, and then we will get onto that bill.' I hope that's what you will say to the people who are calling your office.</para>
<para>You're seeking to delay. You're uncomfortable with your position. It's anti WA. You shouldn't be playing games like this. If you'd like me to, I'm happy to move a motion to have all of these pieces of legislation dealt with before we go to Closing the Gap at midday today. If you were serious about it, that's what would happen.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So the Greens position can be put on the record, I will go to Senator Hanson-Young, and then I will come to Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens won't be supporting Senator Duniam's motion by leave, as circulated. We came here this morning on the understanding that this was the running order for today, and we would like to progress it in this manner, seeing as this is what the government has proposed.</para>
<para>But, let me say, we have four days of Senate sitting this week. It may very well be the last week before the Prime Minister calls an election, and we would like to see some things pass this week that deliver outcomes for the Australian people. So, if we do indeed get to a point where things are not moving, where we're not getting outcomes and where the government is refusing to work with the Greens and the crossbench, then we may need to come back and have a look at what the Senate actually does want to prioritise.</para>
<para>We are in control of our own destinies here in the Senate, so we know very well that, if indeed things are not moving and the Senate would prefer to deal with other matters, we are prepared to come back and consider that, but for this morning I propose we move ahead with what has been proposed by the government. We have Greens speakers ready to go on this bill and we would prefer to get on with it, rather than wasting more time and more resources.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The reality is that, in the time that we have been standing in here since Senator Duniam moved this motion to bring forward a bill that is so terribly important to our defence community, we could have actually had the whole thing passed. We didn't needed the Manager of Government Business in the Senate to spend her entire five minutes just giving us a filibuster blast about what she thinks.</para>
<para>But there are a couple of things that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate mentioned that I think are worth reiterating. First, she just threatened to guillotine a whole heap of bills in this place before we move to the Closing the Gap statement. I think that just goes to show the kinds of tactics that are likely to be used by the government in order to force things through without the appropriate debate that this place is here to do. The purpose of the Senate is debate, so threatening a guillotine just because we've asked for a bill that we think is really important to our veteran community—a bill that has total bipartisan support, a bill that the shadow minister in the other place spoke on for only a matter of seconds—is, I think, a pretty sad indictment.</para>
<para>The other thing, too, is that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate also made comments about being embarrassed. Well, I can assure you the coalition is not embarrassed about the position that we have taken on every piece of legislation that has been brought through this place. It is our job to have a position. We take a position because we believe it's in the best interests of the Australian public, our community, our businesses and our national security and sovereignty. So we are not embarrassed about the position we've taken on any bill that has come into this place. I will make sure that we put that on the record. I think the only party in this place that should be embarrassed about the positions it's taking is the one opposite. We will let the people of Australia make that decision when those opposite eventually let us know when they're intending to go to the polls.</para>
<para>As my colleague Senator Duniam said, I will not continue this debate, but I would suggest to this place that it would be a very good gesture to the veteran community of Australia if we moved this bill immediately so that we could allow them the certainty that you seemed to think was so important when you sought for it to be part of the cut off.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll make three points. Firstly, please don't play politics with veterans when you are the people who failed to fund veterans affairs so people were left waiting for their entitlements—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Forty-two thousand of them, actually.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Forty-two thousand veterans—let's remember that. Secondly, if the opposition want to give the government extra hours to pass this bill, the FMIA—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you asking for them?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm about to. Thank you for that invitation. The Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate says, 'Are you asking for them?' We will move to have extra hours tonight to finish the defence bill and the FMIA bill with your support. If you are prepared to support it, we will move it.</para>
<para>The third point is that, if the opposition are so keen to get on with the program and get to defence, they've got a couple of options. They can finish FMIA and get to defence. With that, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:41]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>28</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>3</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7297" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's clear that the Albanese Labor government loves bureaucracy and waste. It's everywhere you look. Their Future Made in Australia legislation is only going to make the problem worse. We need to be encouraging and supporting the development and growth of business across this country. During the emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic, the coalition acted as we had to and provided all-important relief to Australians. We ensured that business could continue to operate and everyday Aussies could keep their jobs. We knew that desperate times called for desperate measures. As it turned out, we knew a thing or two, because those measures stood Australia in good stead. They ensured that we were able to weather the storm of the pandemic. In fact, we didn't just weather the storm; we came out of it with record low unemployment rates, low interest rates and the biggest turnaround to the budget bottom line in 70 years.</para>
<para>But what we also knew and said from the start was that those measures were only ever temporary, and the fact is we are no longer in that period of desperation. So, just as that period has gone, so too should those temporary measures and the government intervention that was justified for a moment. Serious action needs to be taken to rein in inflation and to ensure we return to a sustainable budget, yet that's not what the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 does. So it's no wonder that our economy has slipped from being a world leader to being one that is falling behind the pack. Take any measure—interest rates, inflation, productivity or growth. We don't have much to be proud of under Labor.</para>
<para>The truth is the coalition will not stand for subsidising business because of the actions of a poorly run Labor government. While the coalition undoubtedly believes in lower taxation, this policy from Labor doesn't deliver widespread tax relief. The bill introduces various tax offsets for businesses, but it won't actually provide tax relief for businesses for years. Let's be clear; Labor's policies are strangling our manufacturing and resources industries. Australian miners need a change in government if there is any hope for their sector to grow and thrive as it should. Small businesses in Australia don't benefit a cent from this legislation, yet the policy is costing billions of dollars. Simply applying these tax credits would cost a business something in the realm of $100,000 in the first year, and that's according to Labor's own analysis. Then after the first year there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of costs which they would have to foot over the life of operations. It's not cheap for the taxpayer and it's not cheap for businesses. Under this legislation, no-one wins.</para>
<para>There are a number of reasons why that is the case. The red tape that businesses face just to simply access the tax credits is unreasonable. They would have to go through the Clean Energy Regulator; the Department of Industry, Science and Resources; and ARENA—that's all before the business even gets to the tax office. In addition to that, there is the requirement for businesses that want to access the tax credit to meet the community benefit principles. These are the same principles that are littered throughout the Albanese government's Future Made in Australia plan, yet we ask: what are the principles? Right now we don't know, and, worse, we are supposed to be content with the fact that the Treasurer will make them up via regulations. The uncertainty is troubling. It puts the Treasurer at the top of the hierarchy, holding all of the power. They are the ones who get to decide which sector of the economy deserves investment.</para>
<para>Let's just remind ourselves who we're talking about here. Dr Chalmers spent a whopping six months in the private sector and has never run a business in his life. He is the one who we're supposed to trust with setting the conditions for businesses to operate and seek funding. He and the ever-increasing bureaucracy are who we are meant to put our faith in to set the conditions for businesses to operate and seek funding.</para>
<para>We already know from estimates that some of Australia's key investments like carbon capture and storage, gas, blue hydrogen, uranium or nuclear will not be eligible for investment and have not been considered as part of the Future Made in Australia policy. The situation is made more troubling when we look at the way state Labor governments have approached similar situations. When we look at those state Labor governments we see a surreptitious pathway for social procurement and an entry point for the CFMEU. We all know that this means that, in all likelihood, if the unions don't agree then the business doesn't get the tax credit. We know that this is the kind of conduct which takes union involvement in workplaces permanent and enables corruption. It's exactly what we've seen at a state level, and we don't need more ways for these unions to replicate that behaviour. The fact is this terrible policy, and no business would be blamed if they wanted nothing to do with it.</para>
<para>But it's not just me that has an issue with Labor's Future Made in Australia. It's not just the coalition saying this. The fact is there are myriad other stakeholders and voices who are saying the same things. Take the Productivity Commission, for example. The commission has been clear that the Future Made in Australia policy is not tax reform. The commissioner has also noted that, if we support businesses that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can create an ongoing cost. She warned that it can divert resources away from part of the economy where they might otherwise generate high-value income. This, she said, risked creating a class of businesses that is reliant on business subsidies and there can be very effective in coming back for more. The former productivity commissioner, Gary Banks, described the Future Made in Australia as 'a fool's errand'. Mr Banks was clear that the scheme risks propping up political favourites. I don't know about you, but that's not the kind of Australia that I want to live in.</para>
<para>In addition to the Productivity Commission, independent economist Steven Hamilton believes Future Made in Australia is one of the big problems with industry policy. Mr Hamilton pointed out that this is a return to unlearnt lessons of the past. Even the union backers, like the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, aren't happy about the role of Treasury in the Future Made in Australia, because of what they described as limited expertise.</para>
<para>Future Made in Australia was supposed to be the Albanese Labor government's winning economic agenda. Unfortunately for Mr Albanese, it is going no better than their economic plan in the first term. However, there is hope—and thank goodness, because, honestly, Australians deserve so much better than this. While the Albanese Labor government is preoccupied with keeping themselves at the centre of the economic universe, the coalition's plan will get Australia back on track. The coalition will ensure we cut the waste and restore efficient and effective government. We will play to Australia's strengths and ensure that our mining, manufacturing and agricultural industries go from strength to strength. We will get back to economic basics. That means reining in inflationary spending and dealing with the enormous amount of waste that this Labor government has created. The $13.7 billion that this government has wasted on tax production credits is just the tip of the iceberg. We'll decrease regulation and cut the red tape, the green tape and the black tape that is holding back business and, ultimately, keeping our country's economy from getting ahead.</para>
<para>We'll work to remove the burden of Labor's industrial relations agenda from businesses. We'll make sure that there are lower and fairer taxes for all Australians. We'll make sure our competition policy gives consumers and small businesses, instead of lobbyists and big corporations, a decent chance. Finally, we're committed to ensuring affordable and reliable energy—a world away from Labor's failing plan for a future made in Australia. The coalition is committed to implementing these simple and effective economic settings that will get our country back on track.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to reiterate the Greens' support for the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. As the Greens spokesperson for resources, trade, First Nations and northern Australia, I can say that this is at the cross-section of four of my five portfolios and has my support to continue and build on this important work.</para>
<para>I stand here to congratulate the Albanese government today on this work. I want to place on the record that, in fact, we could go further, and, with the Greens in minority government in the 48th Parliament, this could actually be possible and would make a difference to all Australians. I'm a proud Western Australian senator, and I've lived and worked in our regional areas. In fact, during the early 2000s, I worked and lived in the Goldfields. I have friends and family, like many of you, who work in Western Australia or in other regional areas across Australia in the industry or who have done so previously. So my focus is on the cost-of-living crisis and how we can have a plan for the people and the planet by developing and forecasting a transition plan that enables us to seamlessly ensure that workers are not left behind.</para>
<para>Let's talk about public and private partnerships and their role in Future Made in Australia. What does the government actually mean when it talks about partnership between government and private companies? There is a critical need—and I want to say this loud and clear—to avoid the continuation of the 'billions for billionaires' scenario in this country. We need to be talking about community benefits, and we need to be crystal clear about what we actually mean when we talk about community benefits and how exactly the community will benefit from this. It's all well and good to talk about community benefit sharing, but, without the government or the community holding some type of direct interest in that, the benefits tend to be limited to employment or some tax revenue, and even that is minimal when governments are captured by big business in this country.</para>
<para>First Nations communities and regional FIFO towns are already aware of what this looks like. In some Western Australian areas, we are still failing to provide some of those community benefits, such as basic infrastructure needs like adequate schools and hospitals to service those communities. I hope that this bill actually starts to turn that around and fix what we saw under the previous coalition government.</para>
<para>One thing we can do is amend the sections of the current bill that govern the hydrogen production tax offset, or HPTO, and the critical minerals production tax incentive, the CMPTI. I'd like to foreshadow an amendment to these sections, which has been circulated in my name, to ensure that community benefit rules are actually consistent with and designed to realise the community benefit principles as stipulated in the Future Made in Australia Act 2024. As it stands, the way that these incentives actually work is that they don't have to be measured against the stated desired outcomes. I'd like to thank our friends in the union movement—and I have no shame in saying that—for pointing out this problem during the inquiry into this bill.</para>
<para>I'd also like to foreshadow an amendment to this bill to ensure that a recipient of the production tax credits provides regular public reporting on its performance to actually meet those community benefit principles in the original act that is now law. We could also legislate to ensure that the intended beneficiaries of those principles are able to seek and secure a remedy where there is an actual or potential breach of the principles by the recipients of those tax credits. Future Made in Australia has the potential to help us with the climate emergency. We could have reformed this critical minerals production tax incentive to include a gas phase-out mechanism so that the recipients of the tax benefit would also be incentivised to invest in low and zero emissions processes. Over here in the Greens, we will continue to fight to ensure that we can find a means of doing that.</para>
<para>We look forward to working with the government on how we can legislate in the future to ensure that the growth of the critical minerals processing sector is consistent with Australia's climate targets and obligations. This theoretical mechanism could include tiers or a taper rate so that recipients of the tax incentives would receive a portion of the benefit based on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production. The mechanism could be designed to be more stringent over time so that the sector would be close to zero emissions, or as close as possible, by 2040.</para>
<para>Aside from the Future Made in Australia being able to help us with environmental issues, we have to make sure that it doesn't contribute to or accelerate those climate issues. Across the country, we are experiencing more floods, more fire and, in my home state of Western Australia, more cyclones right now. For that reason, we need to make sure that the critical minerals that are explicitly listed under this bill—and only those—should be eligible for the tax incentive over the life of that scheme. Being such a wide-reaching and important initiative, Future Made in Australia should include an explicit statutory review process to assess the outcomes from the hydrogen production tax offset and the critical minerals production incentive scheme to enable adjustment of the scheme if necessary. I foreshadow an amendment along those lines.</para>
<para>I also want to foreshadow an amendment to schedule 3 to establish mandatory consultation processes and benefit-sharing agreements for projects operating on First Nations land that receive these tax credits. This would align with the intent of the HPTO's community benefit rules. The consultation processes would have to align with the principles of free, prior and informed consent, as described in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill contains provisions for equity partnerships, but it also contains provisions for a large amount of government money ending up in private hands. I can't help but wonder if the balance is, in fact, out of whack.</para>
<para>I hold the First Nations and resources portfolios, as I have already said, and I get to see how these two worlds interact every day—mostly from a negative frame when it comes to the broken cultural heritage laws in this country. This is critical because we need to start thinking about how equity stakes in projects like these can and will actually work. So the red tape, the green tape and the black tape that those in this chamber refer to can all be solved if we have the formula right, giving First Nations people the power to increase their participation in decision-making processes and to benefit directly. Imagine that—First Nations people in this country actually getting themselves out of poverty. Wow!</para>
<para>I have recently learnt that—and this was also part of the First Nations Clean Energy Network work that's being done—in Canada, First Nations people have a 20 per cent stake in the electricity grid. In Australia, their stake is less than one per cent. Future Made in Australia is supposed to supercharge renewable energy in Australia—like it says on the tin—and, if it's going to provide an economic leg-up for First Nations people as we've been told, then that number needs to be a lot bigger. I welcome the extension of the role of Indigenous Business Australia in relation to that and I look forward to seeing how that will come to fruition in the future.</para>
<para>We need big-picture approaches like the Future Made in Australia, but we also need balance to shift more towards community benefit. The idea that more industry automatically means more community benefit is outdated and simply wrong. The era of billions for billionaires, as I have already said, has to end in this country. The literature that occupies the Future Made in Australia bills is all about renewable energy, and we, the Greens, are great supporters of that. But the package does nothing to reduce the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry, and it may have even provided new investment for gas companies if we hadn't continued to push the government. That's what it means to have Greens in power—it will absolutely stop us from creating those backdoor deals.</para>
<para>The literature talks a lot about benefits for First Nations communities and where the equity is in those projects, but there's also a need for the federal government to increase its own equity stakes in projects. That's the only way to ensure that the Australian community gets its share, apart from more equitable tax and royalty schemes, which seem to be in the too-hard basket in this country. We need to make sure that we are increasing the big stakes in our resources projects, just like they do in Norway and Saudi Arabia. Why is Australia shying away from this? We seem determined to give away our stuff for free.</para>
<para>On a day when we're here to talk about the national agenda on Closing the Gap, First Nations people are the ones who are missing out—or, in fact, being blamed for some of the outcomes. The lack of investment is the thing that I've heard about here. We are holding up projects. But, alongside some of the minority Australians who also live and work in some of those regional and remote communities, they are being overtaken by the extractive industry and simply being left to clean up some of the mess, or even worse. These folks are trying to live through an absolute nightmare. Their water is not swimmable. It is not drinkable. It is contaminated. That includes for First Nations people who are trying to hunt for bush food on their land.</para>
<para>The climate conditions are becoming worse. Some places above the 26th parallel in this country, in Northern Australia, will be unliveable in a decade. The climate crisis will be worse, and these communities are so close to the epicentre of these projects. It is why we should bring all this and the rest of Australia who are missing out when government forget these resources belong to all of us. They belong to all Australians, not to just the few who are banking the billions of dollars that they are making off this.</para>
<para>As I said at the start of this speech, I commend the big-picture thinking of this government, leading Australia to have a plan for future. But I also have to point out the problems that are caused by the outdated mindset of thinking that we are just a quarry—that we can continue to dig and ship. In fact, that concept should be dead. In some ways, Future Made in Australia is a lost opportunity, but we must think past the influence of fossil-fuel producers and extractors in this country. Investment will come if we have the right formula and are placing community at the centre of this work. That's the way we should be moving.</para>
<para>Australians are already doing it tough in this country, and we hear that right around the horseshoe here, where people talk up cost-of-living pressures. But do they know what that really means? It's our job to make sure there is a plan in place so that all Australians can see themselves investing in a future plan—in a future that is truly made in Australia. It will be one that will not compromise the environment that they live in, in which we are consistent with protecting people and the planet and doing all we can to ensure that, for people who are doing it tough, we are trying to turn that on its head.</para>
<para>I move the Australian Greens' second reading amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes the importance of benefit sharing and community consultation requirements for resources industries, including adherence to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the principle of free, prior and informed consent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) establish mandatory consultation processes and benefit sharing agreements for projects operating on First Nations land that receive production tax credits,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ensure the bill's community benefit rules align with the community benefit principles as stipulated in the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia Act 2024</inline>, with clear transparency, accountability and reporting mechanisms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) implement a statutory review process to enable assessment and adjustment over the life of these schemes.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I think we need to be very clear here because Senator Cox, a member of the Australian Greens, has just well and truly set out what the bill is about and, more than that, the danger that the Australian Greens governing in minority government with Labor after the next election poses to this country. It is very well known that the coalition will not be supporting this bill, and I will take you through the reasons as to why shortly.</para>
<para>But I have to say for anybody listening into this debate, the Australian Greens, in relation to a bill that affects the mining industry in this country, say this—and this is a direct quote from Senator Cox in this Senate: 'I stand here today to congratulate the Albanese government on this work.' What she means there is 'on this bill'. Then she says this: 'And I want to place on the record that in fact—' and this is the dangerous part for any Australians who think that a minority government may in some way benefit Australia. This is what the Australian Greens have said: 'We could go further and, with the Greens in minority government in the 48th parliament, this is actually possible and will make a difference to all Australians.' Senator Cox then went on to say, yet again, 'having the Greens in power'. I hope that is a wake-up call for all Australians, and I say this to the mining companies back in Western Australia: this bill does not do what you were told it would do and you were in fact, yet again, sold a pup. The good news is they've woken up to that fact.</para>
<para>To anybody listening: this bill will go through, but it will not go through with the support of the coalition. Why? Because we bother to read the legislation, we bother to talk to people and we understand that this is merely going to add more red and green tape to the mining industry—as if they need that! But, worse than that, it will go through with the support of the Australian Greens who, let's face it, would like to see the end of the mining industry in this country.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There you go! I just stated that the Australian Greens want to see the end of the mining industry in this country, and there were Australian Greens in this chamber who said, 'Hear, hear!' to that statement.</para>
<para>Let me remind Australians about the mining industry. It is the backbone of the Australian economy. Particularly in Western Australia, it is what kept us going during COVID-19, when we had to make the very tough decision to close our borders. If you like the living standards that we have had, you probably need to say thank you, in part, to the mining industry in Australia, who have paid billions and billions and billions of dollars in both taxes and royalties to governments around Australia. We, as a government, have been able to utilise those billions and billions of dollars in royalties to provide the services that Australia expects.</para>
<para>The Greens have made it clear—and they will vote with the Australian Labor Party on this bill today—they want to see the end of the mining industry in Australia. But, more than that, they're already starting to make threats to the Australian people in relation to the power they will wield. Mr Bandt has already made it clear that they want a cabinet position in the next minority government—why stop at one, I say, when you could have two or three?—under Mr Albanese.</para>
<para>An honourable senator: That's right! You're so right!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can see now that the Australian Greens are interjecting, 'That's right.' When the Greens and Labor sit next to each other on this bill, I ask all Australians to consider why they would support this bill, given that everything they say and do is to end the mining industry in Australia. Don't kill the golden goose that lays the golden eggs that quite literally sustain the Australian economy.</para>
<para>Let's look at the myths behind this bill, in any event. The production tax credits bill, when you bother to read it and to talk to stakeholders, will not deliver widespread tax relief. It won't do that. In fact, if and when it goes through, it will not provide a cent of tax relief to businesses for years and years. For Australian small businesses, who are being decimated by this government, it will not deliver a cent. In fact, it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars well beyond the 2020s, well beyond the 2030s and into the 2040s. That is a direct cost to the Australian taxpayer—as if you could afford another cost to you at this point in time.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at what Labor's impact analysis says. It says that just to apply for these tax credits will cost $100,000 in the first year. For a business to even apply for these credits, it is going to cost $100,000 in the first year and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual costs over the duration of their operation. So it's a cost to business, but why is this? Firstly, again, read the bill. The government is tying businesses in red tape just to try and access these credits. For example, just to receive these tax credits, a business has to jump through significant red tape with the Clean Energy Regulator, with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and with ARENA, and that's before you even get to the Australian Taxation Office.</para>
<para>Secondly, and far more insidiously, it is that businesses seeking to access these credits—they can now actually read the legislation, and this is in the legislation—will be held hostage to the same community benefits principles that are embedded in Labor's entire Future Made in Australia plan. That's there in this legislation. But what are these? What Labor are trying to hide—but, again, they've woken up to this fact—and what they are leaving open is plenty of options for the Treasurer to act on these with merely the stroke of a pen.</para>
<para>What Mr Albanese is also not telling Australians is that access to the production tax credits—which are wrapping you in more red tape, which have several hurdles that you need to get through before you can apply for them and which Labor's own impact analysis shows will cost you around $100,000 just to apply for—means a company may need a union agreement, a reconciliation plan and social procurement agreements. So, yes, it is correct that Mr Albanese, once the Australian Labor Party side with the Australian Greens—those big fans of mining in this country—to vote this through, can use this policy to allow unions to make further inroads into our mining and resources sector. That is bad news for Australia, but it is also terrible news for my home state of Western Australia.</para>
<para>Businesses have appeared before inquiries into this bill, and they have warned that, by having to include union agreements, First Nations involvement, training requirements, environmental and climate objectives and tax requirements, there is a huge risk to productivity and investment. If there is a huge risk to productivity and investment, that is a huge risk, ultimately, to the lifestyle that we lead in Australia and to the Australian taxpayer. Business groups are now likening this bill to Queensland's best-practice industry conditions, otherwise known as BPIC arrangements, and social procurement rules that—it is a fact—allow the criminal elements of the CFMEU to embed themselves in infrastructure and procurement in Queensland. And, as we know, Queensland Treasury modelling has estimated that BPIC's increases to project costs put them up by 25 per cent.</para>
<para>Unions themselves have been very upfront in relation to what they might do with the community benefits principles once this bill goes through. When asked about the community benefits principles, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that they think all jobs born from the Future Made in Australia investments must be unionised. That is not me talking. That is not industry talking. That is actually the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who are clearly on record stating they think all jobs born from Future Made in Australia investments must be unionised. So, when you hear Mr Albanese talking up his production tax credit policy as a great boost for my home state of Western Australia, keep in mind, in particular, what Mr Albanese is not telling you and what actually is in the legislation.</para>
<para>As I said, a Senate inquiry has looked into this bill, and it has shed even more light on the community benefits principles and the uncertainty surrounding them. In their report, coalition Senators Dean Smith, from my home state of Western Australia, and Andrew Bragg noted that the lack of clarity regarding community benefits principles may significantly increase project costs. How does that help anybody in Australia? In fact, Senator Smith questioned witnesses about their knowledge of a union agreement requirement. This is what Senator Smith said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The AMWU has told this committee, when it was considering the Future Made in Australia Act, that these requirements—the community benefit principles—would require a requirement for a union agreement. Is that your understanding of the community benefit principles, and would you agree with that?</para></quote>
<para>The Minerals Council of Australia would be alive to the risks of this to the mining industry. They have been very emphatic about the risk that these agreements would pose, but they also noted, on top of that, the duplicative administrative burden in their submission to the inquiry. This is what they said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian minerals industry produces critical minerals utilising world leading sustainability standards, including best practice environmental management and community engagement.</para></quote>
<para>They then said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 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.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Bragg and Senator Smith, in their report, also noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Treasury acknowledged during the inquiry hearing that the lack of detail contained within the bill, leads to high compliance costs for businesses—with as much as … $100,000 in its very first year.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The additional engagement processes required by the community benefits principles parallel existing requirements of the planning and approval processes. This is simply adding a further layer of administration and compliance, without any clear benefit.</para></quote>
<para>The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia said that the community benefits principles would provide no benefit whilst providing additional costs to businesses. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Introducing CBPs with separate reporting requirements under the FMA will introduce additional compliance burden and duplication without enhancing the benefits to Australian communities.</para></quote>
<para>There you have it. There is a bill. It will go through the Senate with the support of the Australian Greens. It doesn't do what Mr Albanese told the Australian people it would do. In fact, it does the opposite. There is the additional compliance burden, the additional regulatory cost, which is clearly stated in Labor's own impact analysis. It says you will actually possibly do more to harm our industry, with additional red tape, than you will to benefit it. But I think the most telling part of this is that the bill will go through with the support of the Australian Greens, and they've made it clear that, if there's a minority government in this country, they will make further changes in this regard.</para>
<para>Quite frankly, for a party that is doing everything in its power to destroy the mining industry in this country, God help Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They say good things come in threes, and in Tasmania we have a triple blessing of good things. You might just be thinking of the prize-winning wine that Senator Colbeck spoke of last week, the dangerously good Anvers chocolate and our sensational seafood, and you'd would be right in every way. Our food and wine are second to none. The whole world knows just how good it is.</para>
<para>The world also wants energy that has the same Tasmanian clean and green qualities. So how can we do it? How do you make an energy source that is easy to store, easy to use and safe to ship? For Tassie, it's green methanol— methanol that's made without the use of hydrocarbons. Green methanol is the low-carbon fuel that can replace petrol and diesel in engines, big and small, from motorbikes to tractors and trucks, and bigger things too, like the ships that cross Bass Strait. The engines in these ships can now use lots of different fuels, from natural gas to diesel, and methanol too.</para>
<para>With 365 methanol-powered container ships on order across the world, methanol is the future in shipping. With this shift, methanol is fast becoming an important fuel made and sold around the world. Tasmania can be a player in this growing market. We have a lot in our favour—not just wine, chocolate and seafood but also the three essential ingredients for methanol. To make green methanol, you need lots of renewable energy, lots of water and heaps of biomass. Tasmania is 100 per cent self-sufficient in renewable energy, with a 200 per cent goal for 2040. We have plenty of water and endless biomass from the wood waste from our sustainable forestry plantations—biomass that would otherwise be left to rot or be burned, wasted and lost.</para>
<para>The magic that makes methanol starts with electrolysis, by making hydrogen and oxygen—like we did at school, with wires from a battery and a glass of water. Just like at school, you collect the hydrogen from one wire and the oxygen from the other. The next bit is where the clever stuff starts. The biomass is gasified with a green oxygen to make a syngas, which is then combined with green hydrogen to make green methanol, which can be sold into local and international markets and can make money if the price is right.</para>
<para>Plants that make methanol need easy access to power, water and wood waste and a port to export through. We have two planned green methanol projects in Tasmania—one with ABEL Energy's Bell Bay power project, on the site of the Bell Bay Power Station, where demolition work is underway, and a second with HIF Asia Pacific's project, which is 30 kilometres from Burnie, on the north-west coast. Between them, they will create 500 full-time jobs and many hundreds more during the construction phase. They are jobs that will make a big difference to hardworking communities that have done it tough for many years.</para>
<para>I remember when the pulp mill on the north-west coast closed. The loss of jobs was hard on the community, but the coast also lost some of its identity that day. It was an area that was known for its industry, and I'm not sure the north-west coast ever recovered from that. That's why projects like the HIF e-fuel plant are so important. There's a domino effect on the local community whereby it opens up training opportunities, more money goes to small businesses because more people have better-paying jobs and more kids participate in sport and after-school activities because their parents can finally afford for them to do them. That's what these projects would mean for Tasmania. They can bring new hope to make a real change—the jobs we need in a cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>I know what it's like to land a good job—the real change it makes after years of struggling to pay your bills and the way it lifts a weight from your shoulders. It makes people stand a little taller and smile a bit wider. You see the change when people start to believe in themselves. I want that for the people in my communities. That's why investment in these big projects is so important. These companies have committed millions of dollars to the two projects. Both come with a huge degree of risk in both financing and getting the plants up and running. If they are going to compete in the world market, we need the hydrogen production tax offset in place ASAP. The offset will make the difference.</para>
<para>To see Tasmania realise its potential and to support its community and our export earnings, we must also look at the critical minerals production tax offset—it's another part of this bill that can make a real difference to Tasmanian miners. The Dolphin Tungsten Mine, on King Island, has the largest high-grade tungsten deposits in the Western world, and it's one of the largest tungsten reserves in Australia. Reopened by Group 6 Metals less than a year ago, it still has 2.7 million tonnes of its tungsten reserves left to mine. The processing and refining offsets in the bill might just make the difference for Dolphin to reach its potential.</para>
<para>The opposition doesn't support this bill. Why are the Tasmanian Liberal senators afraid of backing something that will keep companies investing in Tasmania? Once again, they're toeing the party line instead of voting for something that will help the people they're supposed to represent. This bill can renew industry and bring hundreds of jobs to Tasmania—jobs that bring much-needed cash into our families, communities and local businesses. I fully support this bill and what it will bring to Tasmania.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is a very important day for Australia and for our national interests. The passage of the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024will set in place the final legislative building block in the foundations of a future made in Australia. The Albanese government is focused and determined to build a better Australian economy and stronger Australian industries and to create and protect good blue-collar jobs. The world economy is changing. Countries around the world are grappling with how to move to low- and no-emissions industries. They are playing a more active role in shoring up their manufacturing and industrial capability, and those countries are playing a greater role in attracting and creating the vital and significant investment that is needed in these new and changing times. That's because the nature and the scale of the challenge demands it, as does the nature and the scale of Australia's opportunity.</para>
<para>The reason that we in the Albanese government advance Future Made in Australia and, alongside it, the largest pro-manufacturing package in Australian history is grounded in our security—security for Australia in an uncertain world and in our region, which is now the subject of more contest and more competition than at any time in recent history. For Australia to be secure in strategic and economic terms Australians and Australian firms need to have more capability. Australians and Australian firms need to be able to do more things here than simply be exporters of resources and commodities. They need to make more things here in Australia to build on and back our mining and resources sectors.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's intention, unambiguously is to reindustrialise our regions and our outer suburbs by refining value-added Australian metals here and making more complex manufacturing products in Australia, and to include those former manufacturing strongholds in the task of building Australia's future and, in the process, delivering good jobs in new firms and factories in industrial and mining regions and suburbs across Australia. Recent events demonstrate that the world is becoming a more turbulent place where violence and trade coercion and protectionism mean that Australia's interests and our progress cannot be taken for granted. Complacency is our enemy. Does anyone sensibly think that Australia and Australians can be secure and prosper if we don't seek to reindustrialise and diversify our economy?</para>
<para>Our opponents—Mr Dutton's Liberals and Nationals, who will vote against this vital piece of national interest legislation—are complacent, lazy and partisan. For all their fake patriotism, when it really matters, when the security interests of Australia and the good jobs of regional and outer suburban blue-collar workers are at stake, they will as always put the Liberal and National parties' interests first and the national interest a distant second. These are the Liberals and Nationals who weakened our security interest in the Pacific and isolated Australia in the world, who cheered on the decline of Australian manufacturing in the lost decade of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, killing tens of thousands of good Australian jobs in the process, and who now want to undermine the task of national reconstruction in the face of such an obvious national interest imperative. Just when Australia needs politicians to pull together in their interests, you will hear the same old tired, complacent, lazy and reckless lines from these entitled self-centred ideologues. You will hear deliberately misleading slogans like 'Billions for billionaires', gainsaying our national interest for utterly partisan, shallow and self-interested reasons.</para>
<para>Colleagues, this is a simple choice between political interest or national interest. It's a choice between good jobs and economic opportunity in the regions or rust belt decline. Peter Dutton's Liberals and Nationals have become too reckless in their complacency. They are reckless about the security questions that are central to the national interest and central to this piece of legislation. This week's intransigence over A Future Made in Australia is stock standard behaviour for a party that has lost its way. Their only message, whether it's from Senator Cash in her contribution earlier or from Mr Taylor's pronouncements about these questions, is rooted in old ideology of the past. It's basically: 'Pull your socks up and hope for the best.' That's their message for the mining and resources sector. That's their message for the manufacturing sector and for manufacturing workers. That's their message to international investors who want to bring some of the world's best manufacturing capability to Australia: 'Pull your socks up and hope for the best.'</para>
<para>The Albanese government in contrast is focused on backing blue-collar jobs and backing Australian manufacturing in Central Queensland, in the Hunter Valley, in the Pilbara and in Western Australia, in South Australia, in the Upper Spencer Gulf and in Whyalla, in the great industrial regions of Victoria and in northern Tasmania. Australia has a significant comparative advantage that can help us set Australia up for future decades and set up our regional and outer suburban communities for good jobs and a prosperous economic age. In wind and solar, Australia has the world's cheapest and most abundant renewable energy resources, backed by batteries and backed by gas. Australia has every critical mineral that's required and in high demand in this changing global economy—all of the critical minerals in great abundance—like lithium for batteries and the copper that's used in wires in every corner of the world. We have a world-leading mining sector, which is a critical contributor to the global economy and to global supply chains. It is a crucial employer in our regions, one that is vital for our economic and regional security. Australia has a highly skilled workforce and the world-class training institutions to make sure our people are match fit for the opportunities knocking at our door.</para>
<para>With our industrial capability and our business know-how, we have a long history of making great things here, be that aluminium in Gladstone and the Hunter or steel in the Illawarra. Our regional communities are well set up to benefit from this economic change. What all of those communities that I just mentioned need is a government that actually backs them, and that's what Future Made in Australia is about. Strangely enough, our opponents in the coalition love to talk the production tax credit down on the east coast, but, when they go to Western Australia, they go strangely quiet. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia knows how good support for critical minerals would be for Western Australia. In a submission to the bill's Senate inquiry, they called the introduction of this bill necessary.</para>
<para>This is an opportunity that will come only once this decade, a train that will leave the station only once, and it will take Australians and Australian institutions—businesses, investors, governments, unions, workers, communities, First Nations communities and regional communities—working together in the national interest, not wandering around looking for some partisan argument in every corner of the country, to set Australia up for the future. We are in a period in our history when that is what is required.</para>
<para>The Albanese government wants to make sure that communities are hosting new industries and that those communities that host new industries and new manufacturing benefit. That is why a key part of the Future Made in Australia agenda is the community benefit principles. It should be an uncontroversial proposition that, where firms and regions receive investment, regions and regional communities should benefit from that investment. For most Australians, that is not a controversial proposition. But, again, it's something that Peter Dutton's Liberals and Nationals are allergic to. They are allergic to good jobs, allergic to investment in the national interest and allergic to Australian achievement when they're not in government, and I think that's probably what this is all about. Where there are tough times, they're johnny-on-the-spot, but where there is a requirement for Australians to work together, they are strangely absent. You wouldn't want Peter Dutton's Liberals and Nationals to have to be relied upon in the national interest, because they are not up to it, and their intransigence and their opposition to this bill demonstrate it.</para>
<para>The Senate economics committee reviewed the bill and recommended that it be passed. Our Future Made in Australia agenda is all about making Australia indispensable to our partners' net zero transformations. We'll do that by attracting and enabling private investment, not replacing it. Well-targeted public investment is an important and substantial part of our plan, but it is only a small part of what is required. The Minerals Council of Australia understand that. They support the critical minerals production tax incentive, because they say it is a positive step toward attracting investment in the critical minerals industry. We'll continue to consult widely on the design of the community benefit principles to make sure that they meet the needs of regional communities for the benefit of our community.</para>
<para>This legislation is our chance, Australia's chance, to bring these pieces together—our productive workforce, our community needs, our investor community, our critical minerals and government support in the national interest. That's what this legislation and production tax credits are all about.</para>
<para>This bill does three main things. Firstly, it will establish a critical minerals tax incentive worth 10 per cent of the value of relevant mineral processing and refining costs for the production of any of Australia's 31 critical minerals. By adding more value to our critical minerals here before shipping them offshore, we have the opportunity to create tens of thousands of blue-collar jobs, strengthen our regional economies and build Australia's capability in the region.</para>
<para>Secondly, this bill will incentivise the production of green hydrogen—that is, hydrogen made using renewable energy. It's a key energy source to help energy-intensive sectors move away from coal and gas. The hydrogen tax incentive will be worth $2 for every kilogram of renewable hydrogen produced by eligible projects that have reached a financial investment decision before July 2030. The best thing about these incentives is that they will only be paid upon successful delivery—payment by results. It is not a free for all.</para>
<para>Thirdly, it will expand the role and remit of Indigenous Business Australia to help support more investment in First Nations communities. The passage of this bill sets in place the final building block in the foundations of Future Made in Australia. It is the right thing for Australia. It is the right thing for Australia's national interest. I commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question in front of the chamber is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cox be agreed to. So it seems that a division will be required, but I suggest that we defer that division, it being very close to 11.50 am, at which time the Senate will suspend. Senator Smith.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Dean Smith</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just curious to know when we will have the division. Will it be after the suspension, or will it be at the conclusion of the Closing the Gap statements, which could be much later this afternoon, if not this evening?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're correct that it will be later if the preference of the chamber is to proceed with the second reading amendment division. We can do that, noting that it's very close to 11.50.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Dean Smith</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm not familiar with this sort of practice having been undertaken before. There's a division before the chair. There is a suspension coming up, but we are not at the suspension, so I suggest that we proceed to the division in the normal way.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One thing for the convenience of the chamber is that there is an order of the Senate. The order says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The sitting of the Senate will be suspended from 11.50 am till the ringing of the bells to enable senators to attend the Prime Minister's statement on Closing the Gap in the House of Representatives.</para></quote>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'm advised by the clerk that it would suit the chamber to proceed with the division.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I suppose the proposition is a series of propositions. I understand what has been advanced about it being convenient for the Senate, given the small amount of time between when this division was first called for and the 11.50 am hard marker that the order provides for. I'm very disappointed that I didn't get to make the rest of my contribution.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat, Minister. The sitting of the Senate will be suspended from 11.50 am until the ringing of the bells to enable senators to attend the Prime Minister's statement on Closing the Gap.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:50 to 12:45</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>17</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 17th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Minister for Indigenous Australians and also on behalf of the Prime Minister, I table the annual report on Closing the Gap together with accompanying ministerial statements and documents. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the documents.</para></quote>
<para>I acknowledge that we come together on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples on this incredibly significant day, and I acknowledge too the visitors who've come to the gallery and, in particular, members of the Coalition of Peaks who are either here in person or watching from around the country.</para>
<para>Today we table the Closing the Gap annual report and implementation plan.</para>
<para>And I want to be crystal clear.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is ambitious for Indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>Closing the Gap—so that all Australians have the same opportunities in life—will take a collective effort.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister has just outlined, the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is a landmark partnership.</para>
<para>It brings together all levels of Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks.</para>
<para>From the first day I had the privilege of being the Minister for Indigenous Australians, my priority has been collaboration and partnership.</para>
<para>I have worked closely with my cabinet colleagues.</para>
<para>I have reached across the aisle to engage the opposition and the crossbench.</para>
<para>And I have prioritised deepening our partnership with Indigenous Australians and their organisations with the Coalition of Peaks.</para>
<para>And I acknowledge Pat Turner, the lead convenor and my co-chair of the Joint Council on Closing the Gap, who is here today.</para>
<para>As Pat Turner will tell you, at the core of making a difference are the four priority reforms informed by First Nations people and communities.</para>
<para>We know that:</para>
<list>when policies and programs are created and delivered in partnership;</list>
<list>when the community controlled sector is strengthened;</list>
<list>when mainstream institutions are transformed; and</list>
<list>when data and information are shared with community</list>
<para>we will see real, positive changes in the lives of First Nations Australians.</para>
<para>Our annual report and implementation plan shows the progress made across the government and details our plan in the priority areas of economic empowerment, cost of living, mental health and wellbeing, and giving our children the best start in life, health, education and housing.</para>
<para>The foundation of economic security is jobs, jobs, jobs.</para>
<para>We are delivering on our commitment to get rid of the failed CDP.</para>
<para>We launched the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program and received more than 200 employer applications in the first round.</para>
<para>Our jobs program is about the dignity of work</para>
<para>It's about fair pay and decent conditions, including superannuation, sick leave and annual leave.</para>
<para>It's a game changer.</para>
<para>During my recent visits to Alice Springs and Kununurra, I met some amazing young men and women: Ephrem and Tremayne working in maintenance at Lily Lagoon Resort; Nathalia at Waringarri radio; and John, Maxie, Andre, Jared and Darren working in town camps near Alice Springs.</para>
<para>They told me about how proud they are to get up and go to work and how they want to inspire others.</para>
<para>They are proud of themselves and each other.</para>
<para>Some of them are in their first ever job.</para>
<para>And that's life changing.</para>
<para>Our work across government is making a difference.</para>
<para>Last year we built more than 200 new homes in remote communities in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>And we are on track to build an additional 270 this year as part of our 10-year goal to halve overcrowding.</para>
<para>We have delivered significant increases in funding for First Nations legal services.</para>
<para>And we've invested in 27 community-led justice reinvestment initiatives across the country.</para>
<para>We have expanded the highly successful Indigenous Rangers Program to create 1,000 new jobs, including 770 positions for First Nations women.</para>
<para>At our launch in Healesville, Victoria, last year, I met Jessica from the Narrap Rangers group.</para>
<para>She told me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To have First Nations women take leadership of healing Country is really important to us and really important to many women across Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Healthy country means healthy people and it's a part of our identity, it's in our blood, it's who we are and to keep carrying that on, it means everything to us.</para></quote>
<para>We are making great progress on our commitment of 500 First Nations health workers, with more than 300 people enrolled.</para>
<para>We have introduced legislation to expand the role and remit of Indigenous Business Australia to turbocharge First Nations economic empowerment.</para>
<para>Our focus going forward is to build on these achievements and continue delivering action that will improve people's lives, leaving nobody behind.</para>
<para>Last Friday, the Prime Minister travelled to Alice Springs to join the member for Lingiari, my friend and colleague Marion Scrymgour.</para>
<para>They announced a new six-year agreement to fund essential services in remote communities across the Northern Territory, like policing, women's safety, education and interpreter services.</para>
<para>The Remote Aboriginal Investment agreement is with the NT government and Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT.</para>
<para>This is our way of working with a community-led approach.</para>
<para>And Marion Scrymgour is absolutely right about investing in the bush, and I thank her for her fierce advocacy that's secured landmark funding for the people of Lingiari.</para>
<para>Other important measures we are announcing today include:</para>
<list>Strengthening the Indigenous Procurement Policy to crack down on black cladding by changing the eligibility criteria so that Indigenous businesses must be 51 per cent or more First Nations owned and controlled.</list>
<list>Support for First Nations women in business.</list>
<list>And help for more people to access home loans through Indigenous Business Australia.</list>
<para>It's an important measure I'm very proud of, along with our investment in 12 remote community laundries.</para>
<para>We will target remote communities with high rates of skin diseases, and with these laundries we will help stop the spread of preventable infectious diseases, like rheumatic heart disease and kidney disease.</para>
<para>One of my priorities, as assistant minister previously and now minister, has been improving food security in remote communities.</para>
<para>It is unacceptable that people out bush are paying more than double the price as people in urban centres.</para>
<para>Not being able to access fresh, healthy food at affordable prices has such an enormous impact on people's health.</para>
<para>We have been working with the states and territories and First Nations experts on a national strategy.</para>
<para>We know people are doing it tough.</para>
<para>So, to ease the cost of living, we have announced subsidies to reduce the cost of 30 essential items.</para>
<para>To boost education about healthy choices, we are creating more than 100 nutrition worker jobs in remote communities.</para>
<para>Today, we are also announcing measures to target the deeply concerning suicide rates in First Nations communities.</para>
<para>This includes scholarships for up to 150 First Nations psychologists.</para>
<para>We have delivered on our promise to set up the office of the First Nations children's commissioner, which will play such an important role in bringing down the unacceptable rates of First Nations children in out-of-home care and youth detention.</para>
<para>The levels of violence against First Nations women and children are a national shame.</para>
<para>The missing and murdered inquiry and the recent NT coronial inquest into the deaths of four Indigenous women painted a devastating picture.</para>
<para>They are not numbers and statistics; they are daughters, sisters, mothers, aunties, grandmothers.</para>
<para>They are matriarchs of our communities.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is leading a range of important initiatives and making record investments into services that support First Nations women and children experiencing violence.</para>
<para>An important part of our work is in changing men's behaviour.</para>
<para>When I met with frontline services in Alice Springs recently, they made it clear that's a critical step to reducing violence against women and girls.</para>
<para>I'm so proud of what we have achieved in a short time, and I pay tribute to the tireless work of my friend, the former minister, Linda Burney for her contributions over many, many years.</para>
<para>The focus for 2025 is on continuing to improve health outcomes, reduce housing overcrowding, improve food security, keep First Nations women and children safe and increase economic empowerment.</para>
<para>My pride in what we have achieved is only exceeded by my excitement and enthusiasm for the opportunity to do so much more.</para>
<para>We've come a long way, and we certainly have a lot further to go.</para>
<para>It is an opportunity I relish. I invite all people of goodwill to join me in closing the gap so that all Australians have the same opportunities in life.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to make a contribution on the Closing the Gap ministerial statement. Sadly, the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the Gap</inline> report has become a yearly reminder of what we are not doing well in this country. This year's report is no different. It once again shows outcomes falling short of the targets that have been set. The Productivity Commission reporting today shows that only five out of the 19 targets in the national agreement are on track to be met. There have been improvements on 11 of the 19 targets, but on these issues we remain a long way from where we want to be as a nation.</para>
<para>In October 2023 Australians gave government a very clear message about the way in which they wanted these issues approached. Australians want to tackle these issues in a united way. They told us in no uncertain terms that they do not want this country divided along the lines of race, and thus want a united front when it comes to closing the gap. As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price has said many times, these issues should not be approached solely on race but should be looked at on the basis of need. I believe Australians understand that concept and it is their message that they want us to approach these issues in this way.</para>
<para>We need to rethink how we deal with Indigenous disadvantage and we need to find new ways of dealing with it. Senator Nampijinpa Price, with the full backing of the coalition, has, for a number of years now, been calling for a complete audit into government spending on Indigenous Australians and the government programs that supposedly support them. Without such an audit it is impossible to see how we can truly begin to close the gap. If we want to at least start down the road of making a real difference, an audit should be initiated as soon as possible. Sadly, support for an audit has not been backed in this place, or we could have already been on the way to discovering what is working and what is not. What money is being wasted? How could government money be better directed? What programs are working well and should be expanded? What should be rethought and the money potentially directed elsewhere? These questions and many more need to be answered if we are serious about the quest to close the gap. Without such an audit, I fear we will come back to this place year after year, giving the same regretful Closing the Gap speeches we have for many years.</para>
<para>All Australians want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. We all want something done about the scourge of alcohol and drugs and the toll they take on many Indigenous Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote Australia. We see this played out on the streets of Alice Springs or remote communities elsewhere, including in my home state of Western Australia. We know that since the end of the cashless debit card the situation in many towns and communities has deteriorated again. Violence, and particularly violence within Aboriginal communities themselves, is all too often the scourge of alcohol and drugs. It is unsurprising, but desperately sad, that in the Northern Territory alone we have seen over 200 leaders and representatives from the Aboriginal community and from health and research organisations calling on Chief Minister Lia Finochiarro to keep measures that reduce alcohol related harm, which is a departure from the approach taken by her predecessor.</para>
<para>The rates of domestic violence and child sexual abuse, in many communities, are still way too high. More needs to be done to protect these children, who are vulnerable and often trapped in a cycle they unable to break free from. The coalition believe a royal commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities is a vital step, and we've asked the government to support this position. We also believe the cashless debit card should be reinstated. The scourge of alcohol and drugs is causing so many of the other issues we see in many communities, including increased levels of violence and crime. The cashless debit card helps children in these communities get the sort of support from their parents that all children in our nation deserve.</para>
<para>The failures that we see in today's <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> report do not indicate a lack of good intentions or effort by a succession of governments and ministers. Over many years, governments have worked with community groups and other partners in an attempt to close the gap, but year after year we find ourselves in a similar position. That is why we need new thinking—a redoubling of effort but effort put towards the right initiatives. Make no mistake, all Australians want us to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. But Australians also instinctively know that there must be a better way than just throwing billions of dollars at the same sorts of initiatives that we have tried before.</para>
<para>We need progress on improving health, safety, housing, education and employment for Indigenous Australians. It is the responsibility of all of us in this place to work towards achieving those better outcomes. We can set ourselves targets, but unless we can achieve them, or at least go much closer to achieving them, Australians will rightly question our value on this vitally important national issue. We owe all Australians, but particularly disadvantaged Indigenous Australians, better outcomes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I firstly want to acknowledge the lands and the people of these lands past and present. I stand here today with great sadness but not any surprise. Today feels like groundhog day, with the same old conversations and the weak commitments. Every year, we hear the same: 'We must do better.' The report's findings are an affirmation. The sad thing about this report is that it is about people's lives—what they are living every single day. This report continues to tell the story that most of the mob out there already know and, in fact, experience daily. This report reveals that, while 11 of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are seeing improvements on outcomes, only five are on track to be met. Australia is failing all Australians, not just First Nations people, on this. We deserve to be a healed and equitable nation, and this is completely unacceptable.</para>
<para>I listened to the Prime Minister in the other place and his remarks that these must be reminders to learn from our injustices, the mistakes of the past. Here's the news flash, Prime Minister: this isn't about our past; these mistakes are still happening today. This is our lived reality, and this must be the way that we rewrite our history. The reality is what I hear daily about the experiences of community. There is the lack of housing, especially in regional communities, which means they are off country. There is the food insecurity, starting in vulnerability communities, which face huge costs. Yes, listing 30 essential items is a start, but we need to look at how we remove the systemic duopoly that currently exists and reduce those prices not just in remote communities but across the whole of Australia, because Australians are doing it tough. There are the deaths in custody and the locking up of our children, our babies. There is the lack of access to water clean enough even to swim in, let alone to drink. Power is regularly disconnected—up to twice a week in northern Australia. And if you've got aircon or a fridge you can't afford to keep those things connected. You're unable to see a doctor because either there isn't one or you can't afford to see one, and you in fact become so ill that your condition becomes terminal. We are seeing this for so many First Nations communities across Australia, and there is so much sorry business that is attached to that, which has reduced our lifespans.</para>
<para>We are running out of time. The loss of our languages and knowledge from our elders is heartbreaking and in fact quite profound. I welcome the recognition of First Nations women—our matriarchs, the hearts of our families and communities—who are carrying the load. They often manage the lack of food, trying to get kids to school and the need to leave their kids to give birth to children on country. They also experience the absolutely horrific and unacceptable rates of family and domestic violence in this country. We know that First Nations women are 33 times more likely to experience family and domestic and sexual violence. I've listened to the loved ones and stakeholders who told us those stories during the missing and murdered First Nations women and children inquiry. These are in the report that the Greens put additional comments into, which that this government still haven't responded to. It's a wonder that that target is not on track! And it's shameful.</para>
<para>We are experiencing and suffering the continuation of intergenerational trauma. Mr Dutton mentioned 1970, when those kids stopped being removed. I was born in 1976, which wasn't that much later. This is still the profound trauma that exists, and I'm not going to listen to people say, 'Get over it.' There is no justice for our people, and this report just reaffirms this. This has been even worse and will be worse under a coalition government. We have seen the remarks that show how they feel about First Nations people in this country. One of the examples is removing our flags. This week, we will be at the 17th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations breakfast, and yet I'm sure that this place is truly sorry and say that they are learning! Are we, as the PM said, facing up to what is not working and learning from what is? If you ask mob in community these days, they will confirm that what they have been saying for a long time is not being listened to.</para>
<para>The gaps are not closing. We must take a different approach to the way we put in place and support self-determination in our communities. We want to thrive in this country by spirit, by connection to our country and our sea and by preservation of our language and cultural ways. If we do it for other cultures in this country, we should do it for First Peoples. If we don't work together to change those things, it is collusion with the genocide of First Nations people in this country, which will cause further deaths. It will cause the destruction of our country, our cultural heritage and our 65,000-years-old connection to this place. If Australians want equity, then this is the fair go we speak of too.</para>
<para>At the moment, we are not valued, respected or heard for our First Peoples' knowledge and self-determination in decisions that impact us—and it's a wonder the gap is in fact not closing! This report is a necessary aspect of truth-telling in this country, but now we must be prepared to be open to listening, and I'm unsure whether this government is even listening. This government must not continue to paint the picture that government knows best in its approach of doing to communities. There is a clear need to change the system. It is a proud, rich and deeply remarkable story—a story of hope, achievement and survival against the odds—that we must share and that comes from First Peoples. Yet the government is still continuing not to put their absolute support behind formal truth-telling in this country, their commitment to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.</para>
<para>When this Prime Minister talks about giving us a stake in the economy, absolutely, the Greens are continuously advocating for that real, genuine benefits-sharing, stopping black cladding and knowing that that involves shared ownership on our country. It involves free, prior and informed consent. Communities that will see the brunt of fossil fuel extraction and already do in my home state of Western Australia, in the Pilbara, still have such a low OECD rating of poverty when they're less than 10 kilometres away. It is a disgrace, so level up the playing field.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister's hope will not carry First Nations people through, nor will goodwill. A fair go for all is what Australians expect, and I respect that, but what this report shows is that the current form of implementation is not working and has not worked for the successive governments of the Liberal and Labor parties. This is why the Greens have introduced a select Senate committee, which I will be chairing, on measuring the outcomes and reviewing those targets that are going backwards. It includes ensuring that wellness is viewed through the proper lens, an Indigenous lens, and is about mental, physical and spiritual health and wellbeing.</para>
<para>As the portfolio holder of the Australian Greens and the chair of that committee, I will make sure that I am asking all the relevant questions about how we can strengthen the accountability, but I will also make sure that we get these targets back on track. What we know today is they are not being met—they are not even on track to being met—but the attitudes to them are what underpin the criticisms that the Productivity Commission are actually making. We know that, if we continue this trajectory, we will end up with another generation of First Nations children who are locked out of schools, hospitals, universities and workplaces in this country. These are the things that this government could do, but are not doing, to improve the lives of First Nations people: having Medicare in prisons, raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 and supporting our bill that will form Australia's first federal truth and justice commission.</para>
<para>First Nations people have the solutions. They keep saying that. They keep telling governments; it's that the governments are not listening. Every government department, every minister in this place and every member has a role to play. Root causes need to be addressed. Youth need to be in communities, not in prisons, and, without urgent action and without this government doing more, Closing the Gap risks becoming another broken promise to First Nations people. But it's bigger than just another broken promise. This is life or death for many First Nations people across Australia. It is now beyond time to change that and to get the job done.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I first acknowledge the traditional owners of this land on which we gather, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging, and I pay tribute to First Nations colleagues in this chamber and across the parliament. I particularly want to pay tribute to government's First Nations caucus—Senator McCarthy, who provides wise and energetic leadership as minister, as well as former minister Linda Burney, Senator Stewart, Ms Scrymgour and Mr Reid. They are central to the Albanese government's work to build Australia's future —a brighter, more inclusive future—and a stronger and more united nation.</para>
<para>Colleagues, this year marks 17 years since former prime minister Kevin Rudd took such an important step forward in our reconciliation journey by making the National Apology to the Stolen Generations—a profound acknowledgement of past wrongs and a commitment to a future where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples share in the same opportunities and outcomes as all Australians. It was a moment of profound unity in this country. We know that commitment as Closing the Gap.</para>
<para>In realising that commitment, we all know we still have a long way to go. But Senator McCarthy has outlined in detail the ways in which this government is working in partnership with states, territories and peak organisations to close the gap. As Senator McCarthy has said today and on so many occasions, her priority is collaboration and working with others. The government is delivering record funding in health, education and housing, and, just last week, announced more than $840 million to fund essential services in remote communities. We are committed to building on our record investments and to easing cost-of-living pressures in remote communities. We know that, by working in genuine partnership with First Nations people, we can ensure that better outcomes for all are delivered. Minister McCarthy has said our focus is to build on these achievements and to continue to deliver action that will improve people's lives, leaving nobody behind.</para>
<para>So often the discourse on reconciliation has a tone of burden, with little expression of the vast contribution First Nations people have always made to Australia and the contribution they continue to make to Australia every day. This includes their contribution to Australia's place in the world. As foreign minister, I have sought to elevate First Nations international engagement, seeking to close the gap in how Indigenous Australians are included in the effort of advancing our interests in the world. First Nations people were this land's first diplomats. First Nations people were this land's first traders. First Nations people have built enduring economic and cultural ties across our region, and we recognise that these ties to the region are an asset as we seek to rebuild trust and Australia's reputation with our nearest neighbours. That is why I appointed Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia's first Ambassador for First Nations People. The work of the ambassador and his office has reinforced Australia's influence in the Pacific, where traditional leadership structures play such an important role shaping public opinion and government policies. The ambassador has engaged with the leaders in Papua New Guinea, in Solomon Islands, in Fiji, in Vanuatu, in Tuvalu and in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.</para>
<para>Now, I know there are some who seek to diminish the value of these engagements and our approach to the region. I invite them to visit the region and talk to traditional owners and traditional leaders about their views. I invite them to consider whether their domestic political pointscoring is more important than Australia doing everything we can to strengthen our ties across our increasingly contested region. First Nations engagement makes Australia stronger and it makes Australia safer. As the Prime Minister has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is a rich, proud and deeply remarkable story, a story of hope, achievement, and survival against the odds.</para></quote>
<para>And it should be shared.</para>
<para>The Albanese government recognises that First Nations people's success in the world is Australia's success. We know international engagement doesn't support just our strategic and diplomatic objectives in the region; it has economic benefits for First Nations people and Australia as a whole. First Nations businesses can be drivers of economic growth, seizing opportunities for investment, trade and innovation at home and all around the world. That's why the ambassador and his office have been central to securing the first-ever dedicated First Nations provisions in the Australia-United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—an agreement that ensures Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses can expand into new markets. We have also facilitated First Nations trade missions to the United States and other key partners to boost exports and open new investment channels, all of which helps make the Australian economy stronger, more resilient to shocks and more competitive.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has also fought for and secured the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. It is a landmark agreement that for the first time ensures First Nations people's genetic resources and traditional knowledge will have formal legal recognition. Today I can announce to the chamber another achievement: the successful conclusion of the Riyadh Design Law Treaty—a treaty that makes it easier for Australian designers, especially small and medium-size businesses, to protect their intellectual property overseas. Critically, it ensures that Indigenous cultural expressions and traditional knowledge are protected in design law. These are agreements that safeguard Australia's competitive edge, preserve our national identity and help secure our economic future by ensuring that First Nations businesses and designers have greater opportunities out there in the world. These international efforts shine a light on how closing the gap across all our endeavours is so firmly in Australia's national interest. Our greatest asset is our people. As the PM said today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Each one of us is a part of this nation's story.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Each of us adds to its newest chapters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Like anything made stronger by its layers, we draw strength from Australia's extraordinary and profound depths.</para></quote>
<para>The contributions of all our people will be decisive in Australia's ability to be resilient and effective in navigating a world that is more uncertain and more unstable, so closing the gap is more than addressing disadvantage. It is about that, but it is also about building a stronger and more prosperous future for Australia, and what we know is that, when First Nations people are included and empowered, all Australians benefit. We know that an Australia that is stronger at home is stronger in the world.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of the National Party to associate my remarks with those of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Michaelia Cash, on the presentation of Labor's third Closing the Gap statement—an occasion for assessing our nation's progress, or lack thereof, in improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>I know I am incredibly proud to be here in our nation's parliament where all sides of politics have very strong Indigenous women representing territories and states and, indeed, local communities. That was not the case—and couldn't have even been envisaged—when I first arrived nearly 15 years ago. What that tells me is that Australians, no matter where they live, absolutely understand and appreciate the need to send Indigenous Australians to our nation's decision-making body, and that is absolutely how it should be. But I think it is concerning that we have fake fights about flags from Senator Cox and talk of record funding deals, when the lived experience in regional and remote communities for Aboriginal Australians is incredibly difficult. It's shameful. It is something that I, in former ministerial roles, have done my best to overcome, yet it is still here. It is a scourge on all of us, on all sides of politics. Women and children in particular are living in situations that would not be acceptable anywhere else in this country.</para>
<para>The Closing the Gap statement is made in this period of our parliamentary year when we come from all different political persuasions to discuss and debate how this needs to be addressed. I think the way Australians expect us to tackle disadvantage and to address the most vulnerable in our communities so that they get a better go—and they showed this through the Voice referendum—is to do that together so that Indigenous Australians can participate fully in all the opportunities that this great nation of ours can provide. That means addressing the fundamentals: health, education, economic empowerment and safety. If we cannot get the basics right, I'm not sure, Senator Wong, what use there is for an Indigenous ambassador swanning around the Pacific. I can tell you—and I'm sure Senator Nampijinpa Price will go into more detail—that, on the ground, regional and remote communities would like running water, thank you very much! I don't think that's too much to ask in a modern Australia. I apologise to my staff because I have completely gone off my speech.</para>
<para>We've seen another year of division and distraction around Indigenous policy, following the failed Voice referendum from the Albanese government. It failed to unite a nation on something we all agree on: ensuring that disadvantaged and vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders get a fair go in a 21st century Australia. The National Party was the first party to oppose the Voice with a very respectful 'no' because we knew this would just be another bureaucratic advisory body. Thankfully—and thanks to the work of so many, particularly Senator Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine—60 per cent of Australians agreed with us. It was actually a distraction from the real issues: economic development, community safety, health, education and accountability. Senator Nampijinpa Price has been an unwavering advocate for Indigenous Australians and a powerful voice for real change. Jacinta, your work in exposing the Voice referendum and championing practical solutions is commendable because that's what closing the gap is supposed to be about: actual practical change to the everyday lives of those in our community. I want to mention a quote from Senator Nampijinpa Price: 'Indigenous Australians have repeatedly demonstrated our strength, resilience and ability to determine our own futures.' I think that is something we can all agree on working together on.</para>
<para>Since the referendum, what's been most appalling is that the symbolism of it all was exposed. Labor's lack of a plan to actually deal with the very poor outcomes on the ground for remote Indigenous Australians was exposed—no plan, no bold vision. We saw the landslide election of the Country Liberal Party in the Territory because those communities in the Territory want change. They want crime in Indigenous communities dealt with. They want to ensure that locals are involved in decision-making. They want to make sure that private enterprise is at the heart of economic empowerment for Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory. I know that is something that the CLP is absolutely committed to seeing happen, as is Lisa Siebert, the CLP candidate for Lingiari at the federal election. The Prime Minister's statement points to throwing more money at the same problem, and, as we know in this place time and time again, record funding does not shift the dial on this issue. We need a completely new way of looking at it, and we actually have to have a hard, honest conversation with ourselves about how we can do this better, because throwing money and using the same ideas are not actually going to change things.</para>
<para>The National Party have long championed an approach that empowers local Indigenous communities, rather than imposing top-down solutions from Canberra. We believe that regional and remote Indigenous Australians deserve real economic opportunities, not just more government handouts. It is because the National Party, like the Country Liberal Party, actually represents rural and remote Aboriginal Australians. Mark Coulton's electorate, the seat of Parkes, is 16 per cent Indigenous Australians, and so it's not from a lack of experience, understanding or engagement with rural and remote Aboriginal Australians that we come to this place.</para>
<para>I was very proud to be minister that signed the Barkly Regional Deal, but I'm profoundly disappointed that, over five years later, the Barkly deal has been bogged down in bureaucracy, much of the agreement has been delayed, costs are continuing to rise and not enough is happening on the ground. But that was not entirely unique to remote Indigenous programs, and so while time marches on, more remote communities fall behind. The facts now speak for themselves, with only five of the 19 Closing the Gap targets on track. That's not progress; it's actually failure. In remote communities, children are still going to school hungry, if at all. Health outcomes remain dire, and violence continues to plague too many families and communities. We've seen the violence escalating over the past three years, particularly in the NT, in Queensland and in WA.</para>
<para>The government has no opportunity and does not seem to want to actually address this, because it does come down to economic empowerment. Indigenous Australians need jobs, not just welfare. We must support businesses and industries to take real economic opportunities for regional and remote Indigenous communities. We need to talk about royalties in a new, practical way and address law and order. Every dollar needs to be accounted for, and I know Senator Nampijinpa Price, if she gets the great honour to be Minister for Indigenous Affairs in a Dutton-Littleproud government, will absolutely go line by line through this to make sure the taxpayer dollar goes where it is needed and where it is going to affect change and change lives, not just in the present but for generations to come. That is the challenge for each and every single one of us.</para>
<para>The coalition stands ready to work with Indigenous communities. We don't need another advisory body. The time for symbolism is over. We need real solutions and outcomes. The National Party proudly wants to see change, and we hope that a future coalition government will be able to deliver that with Minister Nampijinpa Price at its helm.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the time is approaching 1.30, we will proceed to two-minute statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>24</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Labor Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, is trying to rewrite WA's GST history. On the eve of the election, he is out there with state Labor candidates telling people that Labor will protect the GST in WA. Labor is the fairweather friend to GST reform in Western Australia. Let's just remind ourselves that it was the <inline font-style="italic">West</inline><inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper that said that WA Labor members of federal parliament had not done enough in arguing for GST reform. Indeed, it was the <inline font-style="italic">Sunday Times</inline> who joined the chorus and also said that WA federal Labor MPs had let WA down because of their poor regard, their lack of attention, to the GST debate when it was in full flight just a few years ago.</para>
<para>In fact, it was Roger Cook, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia at the time, who had to say to his federal Labor colleagues that they needed to take more notice of and get real about the GST issue in Western Australia. If that's not bad enough, who can forget that the then Labor Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said that there would be no changes to the GST and that there would be no introduction of a GST floor. Instead, Bill Shorten and Labor were just going to give Western Australia a mere $1.6 billion in extra infrastructure funding. Compare that to the $32 billion in extra revenue WA will receive as a result of the Liberals' GST deal—an extra $32 billion up until 2027-28. As the election approaches, there's only one thing that Western Australians need to remember, and that is that Labor is a fairweather GST friend.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rinehart, Mrs Georgina Hope, AO, Leader of the Opposition</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an extraordinary time in Australian politics, because the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, is clearly under the thumb of the richest billionaire in the country, Gina Rinehart. Ms Rinehart is one of the coalition's largest political donors, donating half a million dollars to Mr Dutton last year. She flies Mr Dutton around the country on her private jet, including flying him across the country to Perth for just one hour to attend her 70th birthday. When Mr Dutton is taking a nine-hour round trip to spend one hour at Gina's birthday party, you know something is seriously wrong. This is the same billionaire who complained that Australian workers are lazy and overpaid, saying, 'Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 a day.' Why not ask whether lowering the minimum wage would make employers hire more people? That's what she said.</para>
<para>Gina wants to pay Australian workers $2 an hour, and, when you look at the Liberals' election platform, you see that Mr Dutton is very happy to oblige. Mr Dutton will repeal the right to disconnect so you can work longer and harder for less. He'll repeal Labor's laws to make it easier for casuals to convert to permanent roles and get better job security. He'll reverse the same job, same pay laws, which have delivered great pay rises for tens of thousands of workers. He'll take that money off them. He'll steal that money out of their pockets and their families' pockets in a cost-of-living challenge. That's just the tip of the iceberg. It's clear you'll be worse under Mr Dutton, because Gina Rinehart wants to cut your pay to line her pockets and Mr Dutton will make it happen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>President of the United States of America</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been less than a month, and already President Trump is turning the rule of law on its head. Mr Trump, of course, is ruling by ignoring laws internationally and domestically. Of course, his plan for taking over Gaza is illegal, let alone immoral. His sacking of thousands of USAID staff is illegal. Granting Elon Musk access to the financial data of millions of Americans is illegal. It breaches the Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and many more. The sacking of millions of workers without rights is illegal. He's even gone so far as to try and blackmail Ukraine, getting them to do what he wants in exchange for US support against Russia.</para>
<para>Then, of course, he's turning his attention to letting his mates off the hook—his criminal mates, let's not forget. He's attacked the ICC officials for daring to hold war criminals to account and he's letting Russian oligarchs off the hook by scrapping the very taskforce that is meant to seize their assets. What does big strongman Peter Dutton say about all this?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, remember to address—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What does strongman Mr Dutton say about all this? 'Oh! He's a big thinker.' Mr Dutton, who touts himself as strong on law and order, is siding with the felon. The man who wants Australians to believe that he is the enforcer of the law is siding with the felon—all beat, no cop. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Waste Management and Recycling: Resources Recovery</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been a pleasure during this term to serve on the committee chaired by Senator Whish-Wilson that is examining renewables and recycling and the circular economy out there in the world. We're looking at the resource that Australia has in its recycling.</para>
<para>Many of us would've seen a gentleman named Rick Ralph around this building promoting the interests of recycling and resources, and today I want to note that there's been a change. He was head of the National Waste Recycling Industry Council; it's now been renamed the Australian Resources Recovery Council. That is to take note of the ability to get resources out of those things and what we're doing. They have more of a focus on using those resources as a transactable commodity. It's a very important change in philosophy.</para>
<para>The industry of recycling and resources contributes $18.9 billion and 95,000 jobs to the economy. For every tonne of recyclables that are recovered, $465 and one extra job goes to the economy. Those are the things that this does. This focuses on getting these resources that people throw away—whether it be glass, metals, concrete, paper, which we're used to doing, and all sorts of food waste and all sorts of green waste—and putting them back into the economy to create things, not putting them in the ground and wasting them.</para>
<para>Realising that this is a resource is a refocusing of the industry. Everyone in this chamber, other than the government side, came together to stop a pseudo tax on this resource by disallowing some fees by regulation at the end of last year. Not throwing away the things we make when we can turn them into productive goods is such a key thing. We have to find more markets for this. We're exporting at the moment. That's something that we don't want to do, because there's an edge for our manufacturers if we can use these resources in our own products. There should be more of that. We should focus on recovering and using this to make the economy better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's lazy accounting is costing students thousands of dollars. There's a simple fix, but the government just doesn't want to do it. Think about your home loan. Interest is based on what you owe the bank, so, when you make payments, you owe less; your interest goes down. But what if the bank held on to your repayments for a whole year before taking them off the mortgage—and if they still charged you interest the whole time? If banks did that, you'd think it was a rip-off, so why do they do it to people with a student debt?</para>
<para>When graduates make HELP debt repayments, the payments aren't counted before indexation, which is like interest, is applied. Your debt keeps growing, even while you're pay it off. It means the system is rigged against people doing the right thing. A graduate on an average income is paying around $2,000 more than they should be—$2,000 more than if the interest was calculated after their repayments were taken off. This is money that could be in their pocket; instead, it's in the government's back pocket.</para>
<para>More and more young people are delaying going to university or putting it off entirely because of HELP debts. That was me when I was 18: a kid on the north-west coast thinking about going to uni and studying nursing. I didn't go. I never even applied, because I knew my family would never be able to afford it. Dreams and ambitions shouldn't be put on a shelf and left to collect dust. I don't want kids in regional Tassie to give up on their dreams because they're scared of debt. There's a way the government can fix this right now. Just count people's payments before charging interest. It's that easy. It doesn't matter what changes Labor or the Liberals make if the system is set up to fail students. It's your money. Your payments should count.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In listening to everyday Australians across my home state of Queensland, one of our highest concerns is the cost of health care. This Labor government increased the Medicare rebate when they first took over. It was a long overdue move which increased the rate of Medicare bulk-billing. In 2025 the effect of that increase has worn off, much like the lustre on this government. According to Cleanbill's 2025 report, nearly 80 per cent of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. When Labor came to power, 26 per cent of GPs in Queensland bulk-billed. In 2025 the figure is projected to be 14 per cent—halved. As a result, the out-of-pocket cost of visiting a doctor has risen by nine per cent.</para>
<para>Any economist can easily make the case for Medicare. As a national insurance policy, it matches medical treatment to the time the person needs it rather than to the time they can afford to pay for it. This optimises health care and gets the person back to the productive economy faster.</para>
<para>In the United States, unpaid medical bills cause 40 per cent of all bankruptcies. One Nation will not accept that happening here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing. This subsidy will be paid for through cracking down on Medicare fraud, estimated to cost $3 billion a year. This figure doesn't include fraudulent loaning out of Medicare cards. Some areas in Sydney have more adults using Medicare cards than they have eligible adults. One Nation will delay the granting of social security, including Medicare, to new arrivals. That announcement will be made separately. One Nation have already announced a policy to reduce overseas student numbers and create more places for Australian children to go to university in areas where Australia needs graduates, which includes health disciplines. One Nation will expand bursaries for students to attend from the bush or to practise in regional and rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation are offering practical solutions to the cost-of-living crisis.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've recently heard a lot from Elon Musk about the fact that he's going to implement a DOGE system in the United States to cut down on bureaucratic waste. This particular idea, the need to cut down on bureaucratic waste, was first mentioned by me in my maiden speech back on 10 September 2019, where I called for a constitutional review, or a federation convention, to look at removing the duplications of roles and responsibilities between state and federal governments. We do not need two environment departments in this country. We don't need two health departments. We don't need two education departments. We don't need two policing departments. Indeed, last week, we again saw the use of the war on terror to implement more laws around violence when, in actual fact, policing is controlled by the state governments in this country. It is just another example of the many duplications of roles and responsibilities that we see in this country. If we really want to get serious about economic reform, I suggest that we have this federation convention sooner rather than later.</para>
<para>This isn't a new idea. I know many people like to make out that this is something that is a recent phenomenon. It's not. Very few politicians—I have been one of them—have called for this particular reform for a very long time. I want to add that one of the reasons we've got governments more interested in control than in serving the people today is that we've had an exponential rise in the bureaucratic class at the expense of front-end workers. We need more teachers. We need more policeman. We need more nurses. What we don't need more of are bureaucrats introducing regulations that are only strangling productivity in this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUKUS</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians, I have good news. At a time when we're being squeezed on our mortgages and in the supermarkets, this news will come as a great relief to everyone. Australia has made its first AUKUS payment to the United States. That's just under A$800 million shipped off to the US. It's not to build our submarines but to upgrade their facilities where they might, one day, choose to build our submarines. That's $800 million not spent on our schools, though this government doesn't seem keen to fully fund them anyway. That's $800 million not invested into Medicare, into mental health or into lifting JobSeeker above the poverty line. That's an $800 million donation to the 50 states that rule over us, the 51st state. And didn't our government lay down like a snake and crawl towards the seat of power at the recent meeting with the American Secretary of Defense, where Richard Marles said the AUKUS deal—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member will address members in the other place by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Defence said the AUKUS deal 'represents a very significant increase of the American footprint on the Australian continent, something we very much welcome'. The government rightly mocks the opposition's uncosted nuclear plan, but, when those power plants finally arrive years later and are billions over budget, at least they will produce energy and some electricity.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> reported last year:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A US official has declined to explicitly guarantee Australia will have full control of the Aukus nuclear-powered submarines …</para></quote>
<para>So we'll pay for the submarines, we'll pay to upgrade American port facilities and we'll pay Americans rather than Australians to build them, but we won't even own them. To paraphrase President Trump, 'This has been the worst deal in the history of deals, maybe ever.'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Payman. I remind you of standing order 185(1).</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United States of America: Environment</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does Donald Trump have a plastic spoon in his brain? As it turns out, very possibly. We know he's been talking a lot about plastic straws lately, so what gives? Donald Trump has said he will reverse Joe Biden's plan for a phase-out of plastic straws—the orange oracle tweeted, 'Back to plastic!'</para>
<para>Now, it might be tempting to dismiss this as just another pathetic culture war, but it's a lot more than that. This statement was a public endorsement of the polluting plastic petrochemical industry and of business as usual, and what's good for this industry is good for the dirty fossil fuel industry, which provides up to eight million barrels of oil per annum to make plastic products. I've been fighting to get rid of plastic straws and other dangerous plastic packaging for nearly 20 years. It's mind bending how much we are now discovering about the increasing harm plastics are doing, especially to human health—maybe Donald Trump should be paying attention.</para>
<para>New research out of New Mexico has found that the average concentration of plastic in postmortem brains increased by about 50 per cent between 2016 and 2024. The average brain could be holding as much as 0.48 per cent of its weight in plastics, which is the equivalent of an entire plastic spoon. The brain tends to have higher concentrations of microplastics than any other part of the body does. We know the health impacts of microplastics are being tied to infertility, blocked ducts, scratched tissue, cardiovascular issues and cancers. I would like to do a quick shout-out to the Minderoo Foundation, over in Western Australia, for all of their fantastic work on human health and plastics.</para>
<para>And it's not just the US where this is an issue. Australia has done very little to phase out dangerous single-use plastics and plastic packaging. This is something we all need to get on with. No-one wants a plastic spoon in the brain, not even Donald Trump. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to inform Australians about changes proposed to electoral laws, especially about the gift that Labor is giving itself in the form of compliance funding, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer. At $30,000 per lower house MP and $15,000 per senator, Labor will get close to $2.7 million. When you add it up for every member of this parliament, it reaches $5.67 million. Don't you love how Labor is just helping itself to more of your money? They conveniently make some changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and then decide their MPs need more of your money to comply with them.</para>
<para>When Labor imposes horrendous compliance requirements on miners, small businesses and farmers, such as the appalling industrial relations legislation rammed through last year, those people get no support to help them comply. Yet, it's the miners, small businesses and farmers which generate real wealth in the economy, in the form of jobs, goods and taxes—not MPs. It's their productivity which drives our economy, and it's the excess of red, green and black tape imposed by Labor which is a drag on this productivity. I'd call it hypocritical, except these days Labor wears hypocrisy like a badge of honour. I'm just going to settle for calling it greedy. Let me tell the Australian public: at the last election, in 2022, the donations to the major political parties paid in electoral funding was $57.4 million. After this electoral reform bill goes through, by the 2028 election, funding for the two major political parties will amount to $140 million. Those are the reports coming through. I will be moving amendments to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. This is absolutely disgusting, and I cannot fathom why they're ripping more money out of the public.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme, Music Therapy</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of late, I've been spending time talking to music therapists who operate within my local community and are genuinely very concerned about their future servicing people through the NDIS. Before Christmas, without notice—in fact, via a leak—they were advised that they would be crossed off the list of those who could provide therapy support for NDIS participants. I want to make the point that these are masters-qualified professionals. They are providing tailored therapies to people who genuinely need it. Just to cross them off the list as the government has done is a genuine failure.</para>
<para>For some of the people these therapies are supporting, music is their only language. For others, music is how they learn to communicate. It can actually enhance the work of a speech therapist to work in tandem with a music therapist. For others, it's how they get their language back. And for some, it helps them regulate and manage their everyday lives. The government clearly got this wrong, but they don't seem to have gotten the message that they should fix it, despite telling the sector that things would continue to operate as they were until a decision from the review was brought down.</para>
<para>There is already evidence that people are having music therapy cut from their programs. Before the inquiry is completed, the government needs to get this one right. This is an important therapy that supports people, and it's important that the government does the right thing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wilson, Cr Digby</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to introduce to the Parliament of Australia Labor's candidate for the great electorate of Lyne, Councillor Digby Wilson. Digby is a grassroots leader looking to take Lyne into the future. Based in Foster, Digby is situated right at the heart of the electorate. He's been a committed volunteer for the Rural Fire Services, St Vincent de Paul and local sports teams. Elected to the MidCoast Council in 2024, Digby served to advocate local issues important to the community, including healthcare, infrastructure and economic development. He's determined to give the region the leadership that the National Party have failed to provide for many years.</para>
<para>Digby Wilson stands for the working people, families and small businesses of the beautiful region in my great state of New South Wales known as the Mid North Coast. At the start of his career, Digby trained as an apprentice technician, where, through his hands-on, blue-collar role, he learned the value of hard work and true dedication to his profession. He continued that professional journey, and it's been defined by the values of community service and collaboration. Digby has demonstrated leadership and integrity throughout his working life.</para>
<para>Labor's commitment to progressing nation-building and support for the needs of young families in those regional areas is central to Digby Wilson's motivation to stand up as the Labor candidate for Lyne. Digby seeks to build on Labor's strong record of delivering real cost-of-living relief in support for regional communities, like those in Lyne. Under Labor, the price of prescriptions has dropped, and bulk-billed GP appointments have increased. As Lyne has the second-oldest age demographic of any New South Wales electorate, Digby is very proud to rely on Labor's progress on— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales: Lunar New Year</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was outstanding to be with the Haymarket Chamber of Commerce on Friday night, as they celebrated the Lunar New Year and the Year of the Snake. Vincent Lim from the Haymarket Chamber of Commerce and Simon Chan from the Chinese Australian Forum do an outstanding job of bringing together a magnificent function to celebrate the community each year. This year the event wasn't held in Haymarket; it was held Chatswood. As I've often said to the magnificent Chinese Australian community around New South Wales, they are the hardest-working and least-complaining diaspora group anywhere in New South Wales. It was such a great pleasure to be there to celebrate their culture on Friday night.</para>
<para>I was joined there by the opposition leader in New South Wales, Mr Mark Speakman; a range of other parliamentarians; and also Scott Yung, who is the Liberal candidate for Bennelong. Scott is an excellent person and he's working very hard to win the trust of the people of Bennelong. He is, of course, a member of the Chinese Australian diaspora, who are amongst the hardest-working and least-complaining Australians. I want to thank the Haymarket Chamber of Commerce very much for their hospitality in hosting their Lunar New Year function.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Firefighters</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Recently, I spent a day in the life of a firefighter at Fire Rescue Victoria's training facility on Wurundjeri country. They say not all heroes wear capes, but now I know they wear fire-resistant PPE. Firefighters do so much more than fight fires; they are often the first responders in medical emergencies, giving lifesaving CPR while waiting for our overstretched paramedics to arrive. They are technical experts who can rescue you from a flood or a car wreckage, from up high or deep in a trench. It is the incarcerated firefighters who, most recently, risked their lives for $1 an hour to save LA from its apocalyptic wildfires. They are on the front line of the climate crisis, where they are at this very moment fighting devastating bushfires in Victoria and Tasmania, and assisting with swift water rescues in Queensland.</para>
<para>The climate crisis is here and it's driving more frequent and severe disasters, like these bushfires and floods. It is our firefighters, whether paid, volunteer or incarcerated, who put their bodies and health on the line to protect community and country. Prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals through their work means that frontline firefighters experience higher rates of cancer and other diseases and are often forced to retire early. Despite all of the above, our Victorian firefighters haven't had a wage increase in five years, and the Victorian government is refusing to come to the table to negotiate a fair deal. Enough is enough. It's time for Victorian Labor to support our firies and pay them what they're worth.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Joyce, Hon. Barnaby</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I read Paul Sakkal's article in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald </inline>with deep concern. The headline read '"Barnaby rule" hides former deputy PM in his seat'. The article said that the Nationals and Mr Littleproud have developed new rules to put Mr Joyce, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, under lock and key for the whole election campaign. Under Mr Littleproud's new rules, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs can, with apologies to Lucky Starr, go to Armidale, Ashford, Barraba, Bundarra, Glen Innes and Gunnedah. He can go to Tamworth, Uralla, Werris Creek, Walcha and Tenterfield. He can go to Guyra, Inverell, Manilla, Quirindi and Bingara. He can go to Attunga, Bendemeer, Dungowan, Duri, Kootingal, Limbri and Moonbi. He can go to Niangala, Nundle, Somerton, Upper Manilla, Woolbrook, Drake, Jennings, Liston, Legume, Bolivia, Sandy Flat, Stannum and Torrington. He can go to Urbenville, Mingoola, Bunna Bunoo, Maryland and Sunnyside. He can go to Emmaville, Deepwater, Ebor, Nowendoc, Kingstown, Kentucky, Yarrowyck and Tintinhull. And, I'm sad to say, after the redistribution, I assume he can go to Muswellbrook.</para>
<para>But there's a list of places the shadow minister for veteran's affairs can't go to: Queensland, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia and literally anywhere else in New South Wales. This is all about the Nationals and the Liberals hiding their true identity from the people of Australia. This morning, on <inline font-style="italic">Sunrise</inline>, Mr Joyce said he believed he was an asset to the Liberals and the Nationals. We agree.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ayers. Order! The time for two minute statements has expired. We will move to question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Minister, while your government was distracted by the Voice, routine business in the portfolio fell away. The Community Development Program will not be replaced this term, Aboriginal Benefits Account grants were paused and grants from Aboriginal Investment NT have spent more time closed than open.</para>
<para>The Productivity Commission, in July last year, highlighted how the government does not even know how many Indigenous communities have access to clean drinking water. Minister, why are practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians not a priority for your government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Price for the question. It is actually incorrect. We have started the remote jobs program across many regions of Australia. In fact, we said, when we came into government, that we would get rid of the Community Development Program, which is what we've spent the last two years doing in terms of a transition. We said that we would do that. We've done that in partnership with the First Nations working group, in terms of remote jobs.</para>
<para>We know that the program that we're putting forward will create meaningful jobs in remote communities. In fact, I've just been having a look the at the programs across in Western Australia and the Kimberley and also in Central Australia, around the Alice Springs town camps. When I visited Kununurra, just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege to meet participants who are already benefitting from this program. I met Nathalia, who's working at the Waringarri radio and doing a terrific job there. She works in all aspects of the station, including presenting a show on staying healthy in the Kimberley, and she's already a role model for her family and community.</para>
<para>I also met Brendan, Efren and Tremain who are working at Wunan Maintenance Services at the tourist accommodation in town, Lily Lagoon Resort. They've employed 17 people there, and they're doing a terrific job. Through these real jobs, we're already seeing what the impact of the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, RJED, will be on individuals, businesses and their communities. Applications are actually open now for round 2 of RJED, and I certainly encourage all eligible organisations from Cape York to the Kimberley and everywhere in between to apply.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, what will the government publish first: how its makarrata commission will be structured or how many Indigenous communities have access to clean drinking water?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Price, for the question. We've certainly focused very much on water security, along with food security, today. In terms of water security, we know that it's important to have good drinking water in our communities. Minister Plibersek has identified a number of communities, and I'm more than happy to provide the names of those communities to you.</para>
<para>We have provided that in terms of the ability to build houses and to live in communities with good drinking water but we know that if we want to roll out our 30 dialysis units of four chairs across Australia, we need to have proper water functioning so that the dialysis units can be used. So I'm pleased to report to the Senate that we have a solid program, and we are building on that program, and, if we get the opportunity for a second term, we will continue to roll those out.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, will there be funding for a makarrata commission in the upcoming budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for her question. In fact, these are questions that I am asked at estimates and they have been responded to, and we have spoken about makarrata. What I've said to the opposition, both in estimates and here in the Senate, is that there is a Senate inquiry currently underway and it's important for us to see the outcome of that inquiry. I have said that on the record here in the Senate as well as at estimates.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women and the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday, the minister announced an investment of more than half a billion dollars to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for Australian women. What will this policy deliver for women, and how will it reduce their healthcare costs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Smith for the question and acknowledge the huge input she has had into the policy that was announced on the weekend. I include all of my colleagues in that, particularly the women members of the federal government—the first majority-women government in Australia's history, which we are incredibly proud of.</para>
<para>This announcement is the result of the work of all women in our caucus and many women around the country. For the last two years the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, has been consulting with the National Women's Health Advisory Council, which she established, on areas of unaddressed need for further consideration by government. With the work we've done on repairing the budget and getting rid of the waste and rorts of the former administration, we have been able to find over half a billion dollars to prioritise women's health in this country. That will make a huge difference for not only hundreds of thousands of women right now but millions of women as these changes go on.</para>
<para>We are seeing the new listing of the most commonly used contraceptive pills, Yaz and Yasmin, which will save hundreds of dollars a year for a woman who's using them. The PBS listing of Prometrium, Estrogel and Estrogel Pro, common menopause hormone therapies, will save women using those treatments up to $290 a year or up to $577 if they have a concession card. These PBS listings will take effect from 1 March, just three weeks from today, meaning women will start to see those savings right away.</para>
<para>This is the first listing of new oral contraceptives in 30 years and first listing of a new menopause hormone therapy in 20 years, and it's because of the Labor government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, this package is what Australian women have been asking for, and I know it will make a real difference to hundreds of thousands of women right now. It's about more choice, lower costs and better care. Minister, how will the centres of excellence and the pelvic pain and endo clinics further assist women?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Smith for the question and for her advocacy, particularly in relation to perimenopause and menopause services across the country. The new investment will expand the network of endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics from 22 to 33. They are incredibly popular, and there will be 11 new clinics in total. I know the one in the ACT already has a waiting list, so these are incredibly needed services.</para>
<para>Existing clinics will receive increased funding to provide care for perimenopause and menopause—again, due to the Senate advocacy work that Senator Smith did—creating a national network of 33 clinics providing support for women with perimenopause or menopause symptoms. We know that these clinics work, because the demand is so high. Since their commencement, there have been 7,452 visitations. We'll also have centres of excellence to make sure of GP training, which is so critical to women receiving the support they need close to where they live. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, these investments in women's health are just part of the priority focus that the Albanese Labor government has placed on addressing measures that support women. How does this package work in with the other investments in cost-of-living assistance for women that our government is making?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith is right; this women's health package is part of a broader piece of work that the Albanese government has prioritised, whether it be in women's safety; in sharing and valuing care and the care economy; in women's wages; in access to paid parental leave; in women's health, with this incredibly important package; or in women's sport. We are coming to support women in every different way that we can, because we know that, when women get a fair opportunity, it's better for the whole economy.</para>
<para>Of course, having investments in Medicare and urgent care clinics is also really important, as is making sure that we see a stop in the fall in bulk-billing that we inherited from those opposite. These have all been an important part of our focus on women, because we know that, when women are supported in the economy, the economy does better overall.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Labor's hesitancy to end mandatory income management in the Northern Territory became obvious when the member for Lingiari spoke in favour of it, as she has done previously. Minister, has the government realised the benefit of mandatory income management and that it should never have promised to remove it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for her question and I invite the senator to refer to Senator McCarthy's contribution earlier today, which went through the approach that the government is taking to closing the gap. I say to those opposite that I know that it is probably a little too hopeful in this period of the electoral cycle, but it is very apparent to me the extent to which there is much less bipartisanship around the statements today than I've seen previously.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a point of order in relation to relevance. The question was quite specific. It was in relation to the benefit of mandatory income management, whether or not the government had now realised that benefit and whether or not they should—it's just a point of order of relevance.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You will recall that Minister Wong referred to Senator McCarthy's answer to previous questions, which did cover off on some of those things, but I will continue listening carefully and, if the minister is not relevant, I will draw her to that point. Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government is delivering a long-term plan to reform income management. First Nations people and other stakeholders have called for a measured approach to reforming income management, and decisions must be made in partnership with them. I'm advised that, over the last two years, the government has consulted with about 4½ thousand community members and 250 stakeholders across 81 communities, and communities have told us that they would prefer a longer transition period to move onto voluntary income management to ensure people are well supported to make this change.</para>
<para>I'm also advised that the government has been working in good faith with the Northern Territory government and that the Prime Minister has had—it might have been the minister, actually; I think this is a brief from her—productive discussions with the Chief Minister. I understand that income management has not changed in the Northern Territory since the previous government, and the same rules around income management apply in the NT as have existed since 2007.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Liddle, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will Prime Minister Albanese allow the Northern Territory's grog ban to lapse? He was distracted by the $450 million voice referendum and, at great human, social and economic cost, ended the cashless debit card. In an interview on ABC on Friday, the Prime Minister said his commitment was to ensure everything he does makes a positive difference, but words are not actions. Will your government end income management for 27,000 Territorians, or is the Prime Minister talking from both sides of his mouth again?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, that's an unnecessarily barbed comment on a really important issue—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and I will answer the issue. What I would say to you—and, if I can just clarify, I'm advised that the information I provided just now was, in fact, information from the Minister for Social Services's portfolio. I'm advised, as I said, that income management hasn't changed in the Northern Territory and the same rules currently apply as have existed since 2007. The Northern Territory government has the ability to refer adults to income management if there are child protection concerns and can refer someone to income management where there are concerns for the care, protection and welfare of the child. Importantly this could include neglect. People under the child protection measure have 70 per cent of their payments quarantined. We're working with them closely in relation to that referral process.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Liddle, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor MPs on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended an end to all forms of income management in 2024. Minister Rishworth's department recently completed consultations on ending mandatory income management in the Northern Territory. Yet the Prime Minister still says there are no plans to stop mandatory income management. Will your government end mandatory income management—yes or no?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said earlier, we've indicated we are listening to communities about how income management can best work for them, and any decisions about the future of income management will be based on genuine consultation. I would have thought that, given what has been said by many—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Liddle</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: the question went to yes or no.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And there was a preamble to the question as well, which the minister is entitled to respond to.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll say it again: we're committed to listening to communities on how income management can best work for them, and any—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, you can't stop interjecting, can you?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: with all due respect to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who loves to make points of order in relation to other people's behaviour, all points should go through the chair, not directly across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong did not make a point of order. She responded to an interjection, which, as you know, if you're on your feet answering questions—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was directly to the senator and not through you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sure, I'll take that point, but it was not a point of order. I remind Senator Wong to make her comments to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It wasn't worth a point of order. It was just a comment, but—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Would you like me to keep going, President, or do they want to keep going?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, you've got 18 seconds.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They don't want to hear the answer? That's fine.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator McGrath, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that comment, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women and Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. I was pleased to see that the Greens-initiated Senate inquiries and the persistent pressure from women across Australia have finally led to the government listing more modern contraceptive pills and some menopausal hormone therapies on the PBS. The Greens have already announced costed policies that would completely remove the financial burden for women and make all contraceptives free, like they are in France, Ireland and Sweden. We've announced costed policies to make all MHT free, like it is in parts of Canada; it's heavily subsidised in the UK. Why do Australian women still have to pay for the cost of existing? Why won't the Albanese government make contraceptives and MHT free?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for the question, and I would like to acknowledge her longstanding work in this area. She has been a strong advocate for improving women's health in this country, and I do acknowledge that. In government, obviously, there is no shortage of ideas or policies that would warrant the attention of government. What we've done with this is consult with women about the areas that they think that the government should invest further in. We've balanced that up with a whole range of other things that the budget has to accommodate, and we have found that these measures—listing of the new oral contraceptives, listing of additional hormone replacement therapies and doing those from 1 March, plus increasing the rebates for insertion of IUD and birth control implants—are saving, again, hundreds of dollars for women with regard to these costs. We've also got a new Medicare rebate of $110 for GP menopause health assessments, which will, I think, encourage GPs to bulk-bill those longer sessions with women. Also—I should have said before—there will be two national trials into how pharmacists can provide straightforward UTI care for people on concession cards, and some other measures that I've already announced.</para>
<para>This is a big package for women's health. While we have costed it, we have also funded it. We're in a position in government to make that change. We've found half a billion dollars that will make women's health care cheaper. It will provide better care and ensure that there are more choices available for women in this country, and we are very proud of this policy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The weekend's announcement, sadly, did nothing to address the affordability and accessibility of surgical abortions. There are still abortion deserts right across the country, especially in rural and regional areas. Women are travelling hundreds of kilometres and paying thousands to get this time-bound health care. It should be provided in public hospitals. Will the Albanese government return to its 2019 policy that demanded hospitals provide abortions as a condition of receiving Commonwealth funding?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for her question. Part of the work that we have done, which is in the area of responsibility we have, is in ensuring that non-surgical medical abortions are available through the dispensing of MS-2 Step. We have seen, since some of those restrictions on health professionals have been removed, significantly improved access for women to non-surgical medical abortions. Obviously, our increased investment in this area in the women's health package, including with encouraging long-acting contraceptive devices, is aimed at ensuring that more women get the protection they need for themselves, so that we're reducing the number of women who would have to seek an abortion.</para>
<para>On the hospital point: we've taken the view that the states run the hospitals and we need to fund the hospitals properly. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you say that providing surgical abortions in hospitals is up to states and territories, but Minister Butler recently demanded that the Queensland government not pause the prescription of puberty blockers for children and that it conduct a review into gender care. Why won't the Albanese government do the same and intervene to demand access to surgical abortion in public hospitals?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think those are two different things. Minister Butler has asked the NHMRC to consider national guidelines in relation to puberty blockers. Hospitals already provide access to surgical termination of pregnancy where they have the workforce and the skill to be able to provide it. We do not operate the hospitals. We do not dictate where workforce for those hospitals goes or the range of services that they provide. There are many services in this country in smaller hospitals that aren't able to provide a full suite of services. That is the reality of operating 700 hospitals across a very, very big country. For example, here in the ACT most abortions are performed by a clinic where they are free for women—and there are a range of different alternatives around the country. But our position has been to fund the hospitals properly, and then the hospital operators are in the best position to determine what services they provide. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Closing the Gap</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The Albanese Labor government today released its Closing the Gap annual report and implementation plan. While there is great progress being made, there is still more to do. What steps is the government taking, in partnership with First Nations communities, organisations and state and territory governments, to deliver real change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank you, Senator Stewart, for your question and for your role and leadership in helping to develop the economic strategy for us. The Albanese Labor government is delivering action and working in partnership with First Nations communities, peak bodies and state and territory governments to close the gap.</para>
<para>One of our key priorities is job creation in remote Australia. We have commenced the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, which will create up to 3,000 jobs in remote communities over the next three years. We've also expanded the Indigenous Rangers Program, creating 1,000 new jobs, including 770 positions for First Nations women. On housing, we're delivering real action. We've built more than 200 new homes in remote Northern Territory communities, working towards our 10-year goal to halve overcrowding. We're ensuring First Nations children have a strong start in life by expanding the Connected Beginnings program to 50 communities, supporting early childhood development for 20 per cent of First Nations children. Already, over 20,000 students are involved.</para>
<para>Additionally, we are taking action to keep families safe. We've significantly increased funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and family violence prevention legal services to assist more women and children escaping domestic and family violence, and we've invested in community led justice reinvestment initiatives in 27 sites across the country. The difference our investments are making on the ground is clear and, yes, of course we need to continue to keep going, as we are with the Australian Family Partnership Program in South-East Queensland, where more than 93 per cent of First Nations babies have been born within a healthy birth weight range, beating the target of 91 per cent.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Stewart, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for that response. The Albanese Labor government's report shows that the government is making significant investments in jobs, food security and housing for First Nations communities. What are the key measures our government will deliver in the year ahead to build on our progress and continue closing the gap?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're continuing to build on our strong foundations, and our focus is on easing cost-of-living pressures in remote communities, strengthening economic empowerment and improving key outcomes for First Nations people. In 2025, we will invest $842 million in essential services in the Northern Territory and end freight costs on 30 essential household items in 76 remote stores, making prices fairer for First Nations remote communities. We are building a nutrition workforce by upskilling 120 local First Nations staff in remote stores and rolling out 12 new laundries in remote communities to improve long-term health outcomes. We are strengthening the Indigenous Procurement Policy to create more opportunities for First Nations businesses, and we're boosting Indigenous Business Australia's home loan capital fund, helping more First Nations Australians buy their own home and build intergenerational wealth. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Stewart, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is clear that the Albanese Labor government is focused on taking action to improve outcomes for First Nations people so that all Australians have the same opportunities in life. How important is it to have bipartisan support to achieve the goals of Closing the Gap?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's incredibly important. Since I took on the role of minister six months ago, something that has been really important for me, personally as well as professionally, is to continually reach out across the parliament and try to find a common path amongst the different thoughts and different views with which we work together on Closing the Gap. We have all signed up to the agreement. As I said in my statement, the previous Prime Minister had put it to the parliament, along with Ken Wyatt as Indigenous Australians minister, and every single government across the country signed up to it. Every single parliament across the country signed up to it. It is imperative that we do try to work together on this.</para>
<para>I am concerned when I hear those opposite talk about cuts and cuts and cuts and not being able to reveal those until after the next election. Where are those cuts going to be— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Standards</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, does the mechanism for the mutual recognition of qualifications between India and Australia give equal merit to an Indian degree in Australia as an Australian degree in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to Senator Roberts for the question. I will see what additional information I can get for you in relation to mutual recognition. I'm hoping that the appropriate portfolio finds some information for me. There are a number of economic agreements and other partnerships where we do have mutual recognition schemes with other jurisdictions, and obviously the safety of consumers remains paramount. I can't recall at this moment whether that is delivered through the mutual recognition schemes themselves or through separate registration schemes for particular professions, for example, such as the health professions, but I'll certainly find more advice for you and provide you with that. I'm assuming it's the health sector that you are most interested in, but maybe you can clarify.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's all degrees. Indian universities have a substantial problem with cheating and with degrees being sold for as little as $3,700. Indian criminals are establishing ghost colleges in Australia. The Australian Skills Quality Authority acknowledged this in 2019. Minister, will there be any attempt to recognise qualifications on the basis of the originating institution or some other system for verifying the legitimacy of the qualification, especially in critical areas such as health services and engineering?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): That covers a number of portfolios, certainly in relation to vocational colleges and so forth. You would have heard the minister and, I think, the representing minister here speak about the importance of better regulating the sector, and some of our forums in relation to international students and international education go to the issue of making sure that here in Australia students can attain high-quality qualifications. But, in relation to—I think you said—engineering and health, again I will see what we can find for you. My recollection is that these arrangements between countries which might give pathways to recognition are one thing, but the requirements of particular professions to ensure that people have the requisite qualifications to be able to provide the relevant services to consumers remain. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I simply need to get the government's logic straight, Minister. Are you saying we don't have the places to train our own graduates because we have 500,000 foreign students occupying those places who will then take their degrees back home, so we have to bring in Indian graduates to get the skills we need? Minister, wouldn't it just be easier to reduce foreign students and educate more of our own children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): The government's view is that you need a vibrant, world-class, high-quality higher education sector. You do that in many ways, including by making sure it is appropriately funded. We do that also by making sure that there is some consideration to the mix of domestic and overseas students. You would have seen that the government has announced caps in relation to international students, and that is in part recognition of the quality of education provided to them as well as to the broader student community. So I think it is important to have both, but I would make the point that this is an important export industry. We are able to earn income for Australians, which we can then ensure is invested wisely. There is a reason Australia is an open and trading nation, and that is that it has grown our economy, but we are seeking to reduce the number of international students over time. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. According to reports in today's <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> paper, Prime Minister Albanese is planning to tell the Australian Industry Group that he strongly values the mining sector in Australia, despite the government spending the last two years attacking it from all sides. Given the Prime Minister is now wanting to appear pro-mining, will he now promise Australians that he will permanently abandon the government's so-called nature positive laws and that they will not be reintroduced after the election should your government be returned?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This legislation will not be reintroduced. I think you would have seen the Prime Minister's views on that. We are committed, obviously, to law reform, which I would point out was the in Samuel review initiated by the former Liberal government, because business and environment groups agree that the current act is outdated and needs reform. Unfortunately, your side of politics and other parts of this chamber are very obstructionist. What we do want is to see greater consensus across business, NGOs and states to ensure that we can deliver laws which deliver faster project approvals and better environmental protection, and that is certainly the view of the government and the approach we will be taking.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the Prime Minister wants to appear pro mining, will he now commit to reversing the environmental minister's decision on the McPhillamys gold mine in New South Wales, which was a project endorsed by local community, the resources sector, the Australian Workers' Union and the New South Wales Labor government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, my recollection is that that is a decision under the law and a decision which is appropriately a decision of Minister Plibersek as the responsible minister, who has certain statutory powers. I think I and others have responded to that. I'm advised, in fact, that the company has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court, so obviously I'm not in a position to comment any further. I would say we have been very clear about our support for the mining industry, which employs many hundreds of thousands of Australians, and the minister has approved some 40 mining projects and has doubled the rate of on-time approvals since coming to government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that it remains your government's ability to reverse the refusal of that mine and that, even if the nature positive laws do not come back in the same form, there is a string of similar laws coming back under a different guise, how can the Prime Minister and your government plan for the AIG tonight that it will be pro mining and get Australian resources back on track?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With respect, that was quite a confused question. What I'd invite the senator to do is, therefore, when we are providing production tax credits for the mining sector, which will particularly but not only benefit WA—and I assume that vote will come up later today—maybe the test for you, Senator, if you were pro-mining, would be for you to cross the floor and actually vote with us for production tax credits for the mining sector. And if you don't, you and your colleagues will be demonstrated for what you are. You're prepared to play politics but not actually to put your money where your mouth is.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tokataake, the Hon. Willie</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of the Hon. Willie Tokataake, Speaker of the Parliament of Kiribati. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Indigenous Australians: Truth-Telling</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Today the Prime Minister spoke about learning from the injustices and mistakes of the past in his Closing the Gap statement. The 2023 referendum on a voice to parliament highlighted the need for truth-telling to combat the misinformation peddled by the coalition, which continues to be a political football in the culture wars of those campaigning for their seats in the 2025 federal election. Minister, why is your government abandoning the important 2022 commitment you made to federal processes for truth-telling and treaties, which are actually able to unite and heal this country?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cox. As I answered in my previous response to Senator Price—but perhaps the Senate didn't hear me—I have said on numerous occasions in regards to our next steps: we have never moved away from the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. What we are waiting for is the Senate inquiry that Senator Cox is a part of along with Senator Stewart and many other senators here. We know that we want to hear what the Australian people have to say through that Senate inquiry, and I'm looking forward to seeing what recommendations come from that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Previously, the government allocated a budget line item for the establishment of a federal makarrata commission, which you previously campaigned for when in opposition. What is your government's plan in relation to the implementation of the outstanding elements of the Statement from the Heart and its relationship to closing the gap for First Nations people?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We campaigned on a lot of issues in the 2022 election. We campaigned to get rid of CDP. We campaigned to go to a referendum, which we did. We campaigned on many things that those opposite still do not support. We have come into this term knowing that the cost of living has been an incredibly important area for all Australians. We've worked on that, while those opposite, mind you—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Cox?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cox</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question, if you can draw the minister to it, was about the allocated budget line item for a federal makarrata.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cox. I will draw the minister back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of the question from Senator Cox, as I said in my previous response, we have not moved away from the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We are genuinely waiting to see the outcomes of the inquiry that was put forward to this Senate by Senator Cox.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Greens' national polling on truth and justice highlights that at least 30 per cent of Australians are not even aware of truth telling and its importance to First Nations people and the history of this country because it's not in our educational curriculum. Will your government vote for the Greens' federal truth and justice bill when its inquiry is finished and it comes into the chamber for voting?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the inquiry has received hundreds of submissions so far. I certainly understand that you've held a number of hearings across the country, and we will, like we do with all reports by senators in this place, wait until your recommendation comes to the Senate. We'll obviously wait to see what Australians are saying to the inquiry.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Floods</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator McAllister. Over the last week, we have seen ongoing flooding and severe weather impacting communities across North Queensland. I know the Prime Minister joined you in North Queensland last week in visiting affected communities. Can the minister update the Senate on the current situation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Green, for your commitment to the people of North Queensland. Last week, I was able to witness firsthand the incredible efforts of our first responders as they helped the people of North Queensland who were impacted by severe rain and flooding—emergency service workers, energy and telco workers, council staff and volunteers. I want to also thank our ADF personnel. They stepped in, assisting by knocking on doors, but they have also done an extraordinary job supporting the recovery, including constructing a temporary bridge on the Bruce Highway at Ollera Creek and resupplying communities using helicopter assets.</para>
<para>Now, I was joined by Prime Minister Albanese, by the Queensland Premier, Mr Crisafulli, and by local mayors in the Queensland Disaster Management Committee, which is a terrific example of collaboration, of political leadership and of people coming together from every level to support our communities in crisis. I want to acknowledge those mayors. They have led their communities, often while managing challenges in their own homes and in their own workplaces.</para>
<para>The situation in North Queensland remains dynamic and challenging. This is not over. We are asking people to think very carefully about their own safety and the safety of their communities. Local conditions could change rapidly. Flood warnings are in place in catchments across the region. It is important that people stay informed of local conditions and follow the advice of authorities. As the situation develops, we will stand by Queensland communities. We will provide practical support in their recovery.</para>
<para>I want to make some remarks too about the national situation. In addition to what is happening in Queensland, we are monitoring a tropical low in Western Australia as well as a number of bushfires that are burning across parts of Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia. I thank all of those involved in recent weeks and months and all those who stand ready to support communities. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Green, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know the Albanese Labor government is working closely with the Queensland government to respond and to support communities in North Queensland to recover and to build back better. Could the minister update the chamber on the support available to affected communities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many Queenslanders have experienced a very difficult week, and they are now facing the daunting task of cleaning up their homes and their communities. Our first priority is people. Senator Gallagher and I have announced that there will be Australian government disaster recovery payments and the disaster recovery allowance for several of the worst-impacted communities. Through jointly funded payments with the Queensland government, we are also activating other measures, including personal hardship assistance payments, and thousands of Queenslanders have already been supported through this hardship support. Many more will continue to access this over the coming days and weeks.</para>
<para>For primary producers, small businesses and not-for-profits, we have activated concessional loans in the hardest-hit local government areas. Local governments are at the coalface of the response. In addition to the local government support for counter-disaster operations, we have established an $8 million community relief fund to support a number of councils. Recovery will take time, and we will be there with Queenslanders.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Green, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know all senators are appreciative of the work that emergency services personnel do in these times of crisis and all the work they do to help communities prepare, respond and recover. With increasingly severe and frequent crises, how has the Albanese Labor government backed frontline workers and worked to improve the capacity of government to support emergency management?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Emergency service personnel around Australia are responding to floods, to heatwaves, to bushfires and to severe weather conditions. I want to acknowledge the work that they do all year round. These are Australians that are rightly proud of their public service, and they should know that they have a government that is proud of them.</para>
<para>States and territories lead in these circumstances, but we want to be good partners to the states and territories. We have increased the national aerial firefighting fleet to include three heavy-lift and multi-use helicopters alongside the large air tanker. We have invested in the national emergency stockpile. It includes resources that states can use when they need them, including emergency housing, large generators, water filtration and purification equipment, water pumps and flood barriers. We're investing in disaster risk reduction through our Disaster Ready Fund to help communities better prepare for future disasters. These are practical measures that we are taking to protect Australians and support the incredible personnel that work in this sector. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Public Service</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, independent analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office has shown that Labor's budget assumes that the Public Service will decrease by more than 20,000 over four years from 1 July 2025 compared to the current level of 209,150.</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators on my right, I can barely hear Senator Hume.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The PBO has calculated that it will cost the budget an additional $11.1 billion to retain these public servants—money that the government has not budgeted for. Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, can you confirm that the government has not yet decided to keep the Public Service at its current level or do you have an $11 billion black hole?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very happy to take this question from the shadow minister for finance. She obviously is so worried about how well Senator Gallagher will answer the question that she isn't prepared to put the question to the minister she shadows. I can understand why. I'm also happy to take a question from the shadow minister for finance about APS job cuts given her policy is that 36,000 jobs will go. That's the policy that she is advocating for. I'm also happy to take a question from the shadow minister for finance from a party that took jobs out of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which left veterans without the support they deserved. There were some 42,000 veterans with unallocated claims that you presided over, because you weren't prepared to fund the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These are just some of the highlights of the way in which those opposite have no credibility when it comes to these issues. Every question from them on this and every utterance from the shadow minister for finance should be taken with a very large grain of salt.</para>
<para>I would make this point: the exact same methodologies are employed to forecast wages and salaries in our budgets as occurred under the former government. Entities make forecasts on how much of their departmental budget will be spent on wages and salaries, and these entity forecasts are aggregated into the budget documents. I know that the shadow minister for finance wants a bit of spooky music to try to get some headlines, but the reality is the big black hole is the one Mr Dutton is presiding over, with his $600 billion black hole for the nuclear fantasy. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber! Senator Hume, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The analysis by the PBO confirms that the government has either been deliberately dishonest in hiding the true cost to retain this bloated Public Service or Labor's budget is simply not credible. The minister states that these figures reflect decisions that have not been taken, but then states that the Public Service will remain at current levels under Labor. Can you confirm that the Prime Minister has decided to keep the Public Service at current levels?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think all of us are a little bemused at which line the shadow minister for finance is actually running. Is she saying the Public Service is too big or too small? It's interesting—they want to have it both ways. What we do know is that Mr Dutton wants to remove some 36,000 jobs, and we know what Liberal governments have previously done when it comes to the Public Service. We also know what's in the budget papers. Either the shadow minister for finance is unable to read the budget papers properly or she is being deliberately misleading about what those budget papers contain. What I'd say to her is that these are the same methodologies that governments past have used in relation to the forecasting of wages and salaries. I'm sorry if you can't understand that, Senator Hume.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, come to order. Senator Hume.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hume</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance. The question was: have you decided to keep the Public Service at current levels? That's it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Withdraw those comments, Senator McKenzie and Senator McGrath.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What I'd say to you is that I think Senator Gallagher responded very clearly and very well on this on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> yesterday with excellent— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, in relation to the size of the Public Service, the Minister for Finance stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I think we've resourced it properly now.</para></quote>
<para>Yet the PBO costing in Labor's own budget confirms that 'the budget will assume a reduction in the APS' that the minister has in fact ruled out. Given the Prime Minister has committed to being honest about his budgets, how does he explain this shoddy deception?</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! On my right. Minister Gallagher, order!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The political exercise by the opposition ignores that the approach to APS wages is exactly the same as it was under nine long years of LNP government. It's calculated in the same way. But if the shadow minister for finance actually is a fiscal conservative, I look forward to her telling Australians where the $350 billion reduction is going to come from—where those cuts are going to come from. We think it's probably health and education, judging by past practice. I look forward to her being upfront with the Australian people about the $600 billion to be spent on the nuclear fantasy. The reality is that we know Mr Dutton has said very clearly that he is going to cut, but what he won't say to Australians is what he's going to cut. We know from past practice that the Liberals always cut health and education.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. When speaking with workers across my home state of New South Wales, I often hear that the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations reforms have helped them deal with cost-of-living pressures. How are our government policies helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn? Why is investing in secure, well-paid jobs so critical to building Australia's future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Sheldon. Since May 2022, the Albanese Labor government has worked hard to lift wages to keep up with cost-of-living pressures. Our workplace relations changes are designed to lift wages, create more secure jobs and ease cost-of-living pressures for working Australians. After a decade of the Liberals and Nationals deliberately keeping workers' wages low, this government sees pay rises and secure jobs as integral to addressing the cost of living. The proof is in the pudding. Wages are rising at the fastest rate in more than four years, with real wages growing for four consecutive quarters 12 months after falling under the coalition. It's a little bit of a worry that the shadow minister for finance doesn't understand the concept of 'real wages', but maybe that's why they deliberately kept real wages low.</para>
<para>Over one million jobs have been created since we came to office, four in five of which are in the private sector. The gender pay gap is at its lowest level ever, with women's average weekly earnings increasing by $173.80 a week under this government. Under our government—under Labor—wages are up, inflation is down and unemployment remains low. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens by changing the law and by changing laws in ways that the coalition voted against every step of the way.</para>
<para>We've seen what the coalition have got in store for the future, and we saw more of it on the weekend. On Sky News on the weekend, we saw Senator Cash doubling down, confirming that the coalition will repeal the right to disconnect and the changes we've made to the definition of casual work. Does that sound familiar? Of course, Senator Cash is on the record saying, 'Those on the coalition side of the chamber will always stand with the employers of Australia.' The fact is that the Liberals and Nationals are for big business, not for the average working Australian. You will be worse off under Peter Dutton and the coalition. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that Senator Cash has said that the right to disconnect is an act of complete contempt and that Mr Dutton would repeal it, if elected. How is the right to disconnect helping end unpaid overtime? Why it is so important that Australian workers retain the right to disconnect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Sheldon. I know the coalition has had difficulty getting its head around the concept of the right to disconnect, so let me again explain what it's about. It's about ensuring that workers are not required to respond to work emails and messages outside of their paid hours of work. So it's about reducing unfair, unpaid overtime. Of course, the right to disconnect is only one of many, many, many changes to the laws that we've made that the coalition voted against.</para>
<para>I think that change seems fairly reasonable to most working Australians. Of course, Senator Hume described adding more rights for workers as 'unreasonable'. Last year I spoke to a teacher here in the ACT, Jacob, who said: 'The right to disconnect actually allows us to have our own personal life. The right to disconnect—what it allows us to do is to make sure we actually look after our wellbeing.' How unreasonable of workers like Jacob to want to look after their wellbeing! Under Peter Dutton, you will be worse off.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the weekend, Senator Cash said that additional rights for workers have sent a chilling effect across the economy, stating that Mr Dutton would seek to repeal them, if elected. Why did the Albanese Labor government legislate more rights for casual workers, and how would casual workers be worse off if those rights were withdrawn?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Sheldon. We do know that Senator Cash is a little bit prone to a little bit of hyperbole. The 'Dark Ages' was Senator Cash, 'closing down Australia' was Senator Cash, 'empty supermarket shelves' was Senator Cash and now 'chilling effect' is Senator Cash. Unfortunately for Senator Cash, as I've said, under Labor, after our workplace law changes, we've seen wages go up, we've seen inflation go down, we've seen unemployment remain low, we've seen employment go up, we've seen productivity rise and, of course, we've seen industrial action low. That doesn't sound particularly chilling to me.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's the Dark Ages!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It does sound a lot like the Dark Ages, doesn't it, Senator Cash!</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's changes mean that casuals working like permanent employees will have a clearer pathway to permanency and the job security that provides. If a worker wants to remain a casual employee, that's a legitimate choice, but we know some workers want more job security and that choice shouldn't be removed by an employer who wants to call them casual when they're really permanent. That's the way the law will stay under Labor. Under the Liberals and the coalition, it will change for the worse. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Earlier today, in debate, I invited the federal opposition to work with the government to make sure that the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 is passed today alongside the FMIA bill. I flagged to the chamber, including the opposition, that, if they were serious about this, we would be circulating an amendment to the program which would have the Senate sit slightly later tonight to finish both bills. We will seek to bring it on—hopefully by agreement, given your previous position—later today. I invite the opposition to enable the change to the program that will enable both bills to be passed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>Today the opposition asked the government a number of questions about its achievements, or lack of, in relation to Closing the Gap, given the significant statements made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, ministers and colleagues across the chamber today. Today's work reinforces this government's place as a government of broken promises. This government came to power in 2022 promising everything to Indigenous Australians and has come close to the end of the parliamentary term delivering almost nothing, with policy confusion, policy paralysis and a genuine concern amongst Indigenous Australians in relation to where this government wants to take them.</para>
<para>It's been interesting to hear, during the debate and particularly in question time, the calls across the chamber for bipartisanship. There have been a number of occasions on which the opposition has gone to the government seeking bipartisan support for elements of policy delivery in this area where it is quite clear things are going wrong. I don't know how many times I've heard the saying, 'If you continue to do exactly the same thing as you've done in the past, you're crazy if you expect a different result,' yet that's exactly what we've seen from the government. Early in the parliament, I myself went to the government when there were clearly things wrong in the way that a number of Indigenous organisations were operating. That was after the ORIC report provided to us had showed that 28 per cent of organisations hadn't lodged their required financial documents for two years. As an opposition, we went to the government seeking the opportunity to have a look at the way those organisations were operating, and we were effectively told to go away. Clearly, there's an issue there.</para>
<para>It's all very well for the government to seek bipartisanship when it's something they want, but bipartisanship, by its very nature, works both ways, and that's not what we've seen from the government in relation to this. We've seen the expiry of alcohol bans in the Northern Territory and then the scrambling to recover ground afterwards. We've seen the allocation of significant amounts of money and the government continuing to talk up how much money it's spending in this area. That's fine; the allocation of resources is important. But what is also important is how they're allocated, how they're delivered on the ground and how they deliver results. Tragically, in that space is where this government has failed.</para>
<para>It has failed philosophically also. The whole concept of Closing the Gap is about ensuring that Indigenous Australians raise their circumstances to those of all other Australians—that they shouldn't need to accept standards that are lower than those of all other Australians. Yet one of the first things that this government did in coming to power and passing its aged-care legislation was to remove the requirement for Indigenous aged-care delivery services to comply with the same governance standards as every other aged-care provider in the country. How do we ensure that Indigenous Australians are lifted to the same standard as everyone else if we don't require the same standard of them as part of what they need to do? This government has completely failed Indigenous Australians, from a number of different perspectives.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll start with Senator Colbeck and the comments just passed. Because our stories are closely intertwined across this country, no matter what our heritage is we are the lucky country, because we have a 65,000-year history that we've inherited by coming into this country. We need to be looking at policies that build a cohesive and coherent community. When those opposite come in here and start saying there are things that aren't working or that nothing has been done, I find it absolutely appalling. You see list after list of the important initiatives in 2024, and I'll go through just some of them in a moment. It really galls me when those opposite say nothing has been done—I will correct that record in a moment—and nothing is planned. I will correct that record as well, because there's more to be done; we all know that.</para>
<para>When they come in here and say there's $350 billion to come out of the budget, we know that the first people who'll get it in the neck will be First Nations communities. It will affect Medicare, health systems, service workers—the people who provide the services that support those communities.</para>
<para>We start talking about policy areas into the future and we start looking at the Future Made in Australia, which has community aspects along with incentives for business to turn around and invest downstream on critical minerals. But what do they do? They ridicule and oppose every initiative that helps First Nations peoples. Whether it's by announcing $350 billion to come out of the budget without the guts to tell us where it is actually coming from—but we know their history; we don't have to guess it. They deny the initiatives that have been done by this parliament.</para>
<para>Quite rightly, comments have been made about the fact that this has normally, traditionally and hopefully been a bipartisan approach to improving what is one of the most disadvantaged—the most disadvantaged in many parts of the country—communities: people that have been on this country for 65,000 years. And yet they don't come with one suggestion, one proposal. They're even opposed to fee-free TAFE when there are tens of thousands of First Nations people who have taken advantage of fee-free TAFE because they couldn't afford to do it before. They didn't have the opportunity. The wraparound services that TAFE provides unleash economic opportunity not only for those individuals but also for the community itself. It means employers have an opportunity to employ more people. It means the skill levels within our community are improved. Along with First Nations peoples, others in the rest of the community have had that opportunity. But those opposite, time and time again, oppose every initiative that helps the community advance in this country, whether it be fee-free TAFE or Future Made in Australia. We say we interconnect. We make it a possibility for everybody in the country to benefit from those investments.</para>
<para>I will go through some of the ones that those opposite fail to name. These are only a few; there are so many. We commenced the new Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program, which will create up to 3,000 jobs in remote communities over three years. We have expanded the Indigenous Rangers Program to create 1,000 new jobs, including 770 positions for First Nations women. We've opened the first of up to 30 dialysis units in regional and remote locations so First Nations people can receive treatment closer to home and on country. We've welcomed over 300 enrolments in the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program. We've invested in 27 community justice investment program initiatives in First Nations communities across Australia. We have expanded the Connected Beginnings program to 50 communities, supporting more First Nations children to thrive in the crucial early years. And of course we've announced the Future Made in Australia and fee-free TAFE, which those opposite are opposed to, a community compact that provides benefit for the economy, for business and for those in community, including First Nations people. We have also said we will reduce the cost of 30 essential products in more than 76 remote stores to help ease cost-of-living pressures and improve food security in remote communities.</para>
<para>With all that, we still have those opposite saying they're going to take money out of community, out of services that provide and rebuild the community. There is one very clear thing: every Australian will be worse off under a Dutton government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to address this very important issue that is closing the gap, the questions that were asked and the answers that were given by various ministers in relation to this point. I take what Senator Sheldon is saying. There are some important initiatives that this government is implementing. But he talks about fee-free TAFE. One thing that Senator Sheldon failed to recognise in his contribution is that what fee-free TAFE is doing is preferencing funding towards, essentially, public service delivery and training, and we've got many Indigenous registered training organisations that are not going to be in receipt of the support of fee-free TAFE, because it has to go to TAFE and not private institutions.</para>
<para>We know the wraparound support that's provided by Indigenous-controlled and run RTOs is actually very profound, particularly when it comes to training and supporting Indigenous people in this country. That's a point that Senator Sheldon failed to mention.</para>
<para>On the issue of one of the questions that came up in relation to income management, there is a long list of disappointments when it comes to the Albanese government. Its handling of the cost of living crisis is certainly towards the top. In Western Australia, my home state, the passing of the legislation to ban the live sheep trade is a big disappointment. There is a long list of disappointments, but one of the great shames of this government was the very first piece of legislation that it brought into this place, which was to abolish the cashless debit card. This initiative was working in communities across Australia. There were four trial sites: the eastern Goldfields and the northern Goldfields, in the Kimberley; Ceduna, in South Australia; and Bundaberg, in Queensland.</para>
<para>The impact of the cashless debit card on each of these communities was quite profound. It was no silver bullet—no-one ever claimed it was—but it was having a significant impact. Because of the government's ideology against this initiative, without listening to those in the community and without engaging with those in the community—we learnt through the inquiry process that the Minister for Social Services and the assistant minister, when they made the decision to abolish the cashless debit card, didn't even visit and never actually spoke to people on the ground. Whom did they listen to? They listened to the academics in the universities of Sydney and Melbourne, rather than listening to the people on the ground in these communities. It is a great shame that that legislation was passed by this parliament and abolished the cashless debit card without them listening to those that are on the ground in these communities.</para>
<para>What's happened now? We've seen those communities recede back to the previous levels of violence and social unrest, and kids are going to school hungry. The Wyndham primary school now has to bring in extra food on a Monday for their breakfast program because kids are going hungry over the weekend, yet, when the cashless debit card was in operation there, they required less food to feed the kids on a Monday because kids were getting a belly full of food. But, because of an ideologically, inner-city driven mindset of this government, we saw the abolition of the cashless debit card. It is a great shame and it is something they should hang their heads in shame over. It's actually impacting upon people's lives. There are women that are frightened for their own lives and their own safety because of the violence that is occurring in places like Laverton and Leonora, in Western Australia; Kununurra, in the Kimberley; and Wyndham. This is happening because of this decision by this government. Last time I checked—and I'm happy to be corrected—the minister, Minister Rishworth, has not been back to these communities since to see the impact of her decision, to see the impact of the decision of this government upon these communities. It is absolutely shameful.</para>
<para>Thankfully a future Dutton led government will restore the cashless debit card not only in these communities but in other communities that might want to see it implemented in their place as a remedy, a solution, to address the harm that is caused by alcohol and drug fuelled violence. We would support that, and that's why you must elect a Dutton coalition government. We're the only ones that are going to act on the needs of the community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was a real mixed bag of questions today from the opposition. There weren't really any gotcha moments, though, I've got to say. Before I begin my response, I want to acknowledge the amazing work done by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, my colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy; by her predecessor, Linda Burney; and also by Senator Stewart. I've found the work that Minister McCarthy has done in trying to close the gap has reinforced the fact that, if she wasn't before, she's a real leader in Indigenous matters.</para>
<para>On Thursday, we'll celebrate 17 years since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, and it's 60 years since the start of the Freedom Ride, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier today. These anniversaries help us to remember the injustices and the mistakes of the past and to focus on what is not working. Unfortunately, as we heard today from the PM, there are areas in which we can improve, and I don't think there's any government that thinks it's perfect. We are seeing improvements on 11 out of 19 targets in the national agreement, but, sadly, only five are on track to be met. We said, when we came to government, that we would make the CDP voluntary to those that wanted it to be voluntary in those areas. Over the past two years, we've been transitioning to that effect. This is being done in partnership with the First Nations working group in terms of areas like remote jobs.</para>
<para>As I said, the Albanese government made an election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card and to make it voluntary in those communities through the SmartCard. We're delivering on a long-term plan to reform income management. Income management has been in place since 2007, and we're committed to working through this matter in partnership with the communities that would be affected by any changes. First Nations people and other stakeholders were the ones that called for a measured approach to reforming income management, and decisions must be made in partnership with them.</para>
<para>We've heard that any reform needs to reflect the complex needs of the participants and to mitigate any disruption to their ability to manage their own money. We've conducted the widest engagement on income management ever undertaken, and we make no apologies on this side for taking a measured approach to this reform. We want to see appropriate supports, tailored to community needs, for any decisions made on the future of IM to be put in place.</para>
<para>There were a couple of questions, as we know, on income management, but the other question that perplexed me somewhat was the question from Senator Hume in regard to Public Service cuts. We know that Mr Dutton has $350 billion worth of secret cuts, and we know that he vowed to cut overall government spending if elected to government. So, on this side, we're actually calling on the opposition leader to reveal details of his planned cuts. Where are the cuts going to come from? Are going to come from Health? Are they going to come from Education? Are they going to come from DVA? Are they going to come from Defence? Are they going to come from the AFP? TAFE, judging by what the previous speaker said, could well be in the firing line, and, as we on this side know, Mr Dutton certainly doesn't like our fee-free TAFE process.</para>
<para>We do know he wants to cut the Public Service. He probably wants to go back to using all those contractors for his mates, getting all those people back into little contract jobs—not something that we would support on this side. Mr Dutton said he would not detail where the spending cuts would come from until after the federal election, so he's saying, 'Trust me.' What a line—'Trust me; I'm a politician'! Come on! Come out and tell us where these cuts are going to come from. It's not good enough. The people of Australia should know what services are being cut and what services they will not be able to access.</para>
<para>The coalition's plan to wind back the Public Service will result in slower processing of government payments, such as pensions, and, as promised, we've reduced the number of consultants and contractors that were engaged by the former government. But what Mr Dutton hasn't seemed to cotton on to—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Bilyk. Senator Kovacic. The clock will be set for three minutes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't think that there are many people who think they are better off today than they were three years ago, so it stuns me to hear Senator Sheldon say that everybody will be worse off under a Dutton government. I don't think that's actually possible. I think that the government have done an excellent job of creating a cost-of-living crisis that most Australians cannot navigate. They are finding it really hard to navigate.</para>
<para>Senator Cadell asked some really important questions around the mining sector, particularly that of my home state of New South Wales. The Prime Minister, on his website, has a statement that says, 'A Labor government and a better future.' I challenge him on that because Australians have not had a better future under this government since they elected it—three years ago.</para>
<para>That's specifically a problem in our regional areas, particularly in mining communities. The Prime Minister is going to be at a dinner tonight, according to the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>, where he is going to talk to the Australian Industry Group. He's going to say to them that he has always valued their constructive engagement, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… even if we sometimes bring different perspectives to the public debate, we all share the same objective, founded on the same understanding …</para></quote>
<para>I contest that that's not true. I think the reason that they've changed their mind in relation to the nature positive laws is because of something called some marginal seats, including Hunter, Paterson and Shortland. The Labor government is set to lose those seats if they don't change and pivot what they're doing. The reality is that it has nothing to do with consultation. It has nothing to do with what they think is right. It's because they want to ensure that they keep those seats—those seats that have some 20,000 mining workers and almost 2½ thousand mining suppliers. Instead of giving them lip service and telling them what they want to hear before an election, despite egregiously not giving proper disclosure or transparency around what happened at McPhillamys, they now pretend that they matter.</para>
<para>The people in those communities need certainty, and they can't get certainty from this government because there is no clarity on what they will and won't do because they themselves often don't know what they're going to do until after they've done it, which is a real problem for our country.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Standards</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to my question today relating to education standards.</para></quote>
<para>The mechanism for the mutual recognition of qualifications between Australia and India recognises an Australian degree awarded to an Australian as being equal to an Indian degree awarded to an Indian, including online study. It's not only degrees. It's everything from school certificates to doctorates, although some further work may be required for occupations having professional associations, like medicine, although there is no requirement to do so. This is despite the level of cheating and selling qualifications that goes on in India. I await the legal challenges to being refused a job based on a degree the employer knows is rubbish but which the government has decreed is equal to an Australian degree.</para>
<para>The agreement allows an Indian visa-holder to apply for any job in Australia for which having a degree makes their chances of success higher. That's almost anything. In other words, the vast majority of these new migrants will not work in their area of qualification, which might be a good thing. One Nation opposes this agreement. Twenty per cent of HECS debts in Australia are for amounts over $40,000. Our children listen to their parents, the media and politicians. They study hard, go to university, get saddled with a near insurmountable HECS debt, and then they head out into the workforce to pay it off only to discover they're competing with an Indian degree of questionable origin that cost a fraction of their own. Of course, Indian graduates can work cheaper than our graduates can afford to.</para>
<para>One Nation will tear up this agreement. We'll offer mortgages through a people's bank to young Australians that include the option of rolling their HECS debt into their mortgage with just a five per cent deposit at five per cent fixed interest over 25 years with the homebuyers own super account allowed to provide the deposit and share in the capital appreciation. While Labor is selling out young Australians, One Nation offers real solutions to young Australians. I note in the seconds I have left that every year $11.1 billion was sent home by foreign students, with Indians being the second largest on the list.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to my question today relating to women's health.</para></quote>
<para>I asked about the government's healthcare announcement, which was made yesterday, which has some really positive features in it. I'm really pleased that, after working on this issue for so many years and establishing not one but two Senate inquiries into women's health, that we're finally seeing some really positive action on this. But there's a big gaping hole in it, and that's what I wanted to quiz the government on in question time today. Unfortunately, I don't feel the wiser as to the answers to my questions, but what we see is that the government's announced that some contraception and some menopausal hormone therapies will be listed on the PBS. People know that that means it'll be cheaper for women to purchase at the pharmacy.</para>
<para>That's really helpful. But what I posed to the minister was, 'Why not just make those treatments free?' Some other countries around the world do that. Why should women bear the gendered cost of our very existence? We've had policies costed at the PBO which show that making contraception and menopausal hormone therapies free is eminently affordable. You could cancel just one nuclear submarine and you'd have a lot left over. These are the choices that governments get to make.</para>
<para>Whilst we welcome those PBS listings, we note that there are some other positive features of the package, but they don't come into effect, sadly, until after the election. Again, we see some pretty good promises, but really it's the delivery now that counts while you are in a position to deliver. The Greens want to be in a position to help you deliver after the next election, and we will keep pushing for women's health to be prioritised.</para>
<para>The key thing that was missing in yesterday's announcement from the government was any improvement on the accessibility and the affordability of surgical abortion. I know nobody is meant to be talking about this. Mr Dutton doesn't want his people raising the issue, and there seems to be some kind of taboo or cultural war going on over women's bodies, but fundamentally abortion is health care, and our public hospitals should be providing it. This is what we learned in the inquiry that I established a few years ago. What we see is that hospitals aren't reliably providing abortion care, for a whole range of reasons. Some of them are nefarious; some of them are due to funding.</para>
<para>We can fix those funding issues. The Greens costed a policy that said, if you simply pay these hospitals so that they can hire the staff, have the equipment and have the facilities, then you should revert back to your 2019 policy of saying, 'Actually, if you want Commonwealth money, you've got to provide the full range of reproductive healthcare services.' That was good policy that the Labor Party had in 2019. I'm really disappointed that they crab-walked away from it. We've been trying to get them to readopt it ever since, and they're not touching it. I think that's a shame.</para>
<para>People expect to be able to go to a hospital and get health care. It shouldn't be the case that, when you need a procedure that is health care and a basic right, for many women around the country it's a postcode lottery. Your local hospital might not provide surgical abortions. You might be in the predicament where perhaps your local GP is a conscientious objector and you're not able to get a medical abortion either. Perhaps your pharmacist is also a conscientious objector. You need both GP and pharmacist for the medical route. Once you pass the window for that, you've got no other option. We had some private providers. They closed because they weren't making enough profit.</para>
<para>Abortion access is a real problem in this country. It's great that it's legal everywhere now. That was something for the states and territories to fix, but affordability and accessibility sit squarely on the shoulders of the Commonwealth government. I was disappointed that yesterday was a missed opportunity to redress that and to actually fix that problem that so many women are facing.</para>
<para>We heard tales of women. One lady who lived just out the back of Townsville had nowhere to go locally to get a surgical abortion. She had to travel hundreds of kilometres—and it cost her thousands of dollars—to have a termination to end an unwanted pregnancy. She was in the fortunate position that she could afford that, but so many people are not. It shouldn't be up to the hospitals whether a woman can have a termination or not. That's a decision for her, in consultation with healthcare professionals and perhaps with the family. The Commonwealth simply saying, 'That's not up to us. It's up to the states,' is the ultimate buck-passing. It's a fig leaf, and we see right through it. We want to work with you to fix this problem. You should go back to having your 2019 policy that would ensure that hospitals can provide to women everywhere the health care that they need, particularly the abortion health care.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move a motion concerning a variation to the hours of meeting and the routine of business.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion concerning a variation to the hours of meeting and routine of business to be moved and determined immediately.</para></quote>
<para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:38]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:42]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That a motion concerning a variation to the hours of meeting and return of business may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</para></quote>
<para>And I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be put on the procedural motion moved by the minister. Senator McGrath, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could the question be put separately in relation to paragraph (b)?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I haven't gotten to that bit yet, Senator McGrath. I'll bear that in mind when the appropriate moment comes. I am now putting the question that the question be put on the substantive question. Then we'll have another question, which is the procedural motion itself, and then we'll come to the substantive hours motion. That's when you may wish to speak to me. The question now is that the question be put on the procedural motion moved by Minister Wong.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:45]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:49]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That today:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the hours of meeting be 10 am till adjournment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 at 8 pm, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 at 9 pm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph (b) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the question for the adjournment be proposed after consideration of the bills has concluded.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the opposition, I ask that we split (b)(i) and (b)(ii).</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You wish to vote differently on the bills which would go into the substantive motion?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What I think I'm going to do, subject to remonstrations from the table staff, is put the question as to whether the chamber agrees to (b)(i). Then, depending on the answer to that, I will put the remainder of the motion. The question is that part (b)(i) be included in the motion.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:54]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The final question is that the balance of the motion—parts (a), (b)(ii), (c), (d) and (e)—be agreed to. The chamber has already agreed that part (b)(i) will be considered.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short five-minute statement.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement of no more than five minutes.</para></quote>
<para>Colleagues, there it is—there's the new parliament. Watch it very, very carefully. This was a test for the government of whether they would work with us to put through a bill, the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill, that is non-controversial and that we said this morning could happily go through the chamber. Instead, we had them playing around and talking for longer than it would have taken to put that particular bill through. Instead, what have they done? Exactly what we thought they would do. They've teamed up with the Australian Greens to do a dirty deal that avoids scrutiny on a bill that directly affects the mining industry in Australia and is going to have a direct impact on their productivity and their prosperity.</para>
<para>What I love, though, is this. We're heading towards, obviously, a federal election. Let's cast our minds back to what happened prior to the last election. Colleagues, do you remember the lectures on transparency? Do you remember the lectures on accountability? Do you remember the lectures on how 'if we are elected to govern'—amongst other things which they clearly haven't delivered—'there will be a new way of doing things in this chamber'? I have to say you got that part of what you said correct. Shame on you!</para>
<para>Colleagues, let's remind everybody listening in to this debate that such is this government's commitment to transparency and accountability that in just 2½ years, from September 2022 to February 2025—guess how many bills the government has guillotined? One hundred and ninety-eight. And guess what? An incredibly important bill that Senator Dean Smith wants to take through committee and ask serious questions on is now going to be guillotined through this place. I have to say I can't wait to find out what they got for the dirty deal. Seriously! How many cabinet positions? When I raised that today in my speech in the chamber, all I could hear from the Australian Greens was, 'Hear, hear!' to cabinet positions and, 'We'd like a few.' Let's start divvying it up. Which cabinet positions do the Australian Greens want in a minority government? They've been pretty upfront about it. I'll give the Greens credit. At least you are being upfront about the fact that, if you are in minority government with the Albanese Labor government, you will at least ask for cabinet positions. That is a good thing. I give you credit. You're being upfront about it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy President, I'd ask that Senator Cash direct her comments through you as the chair. I appreciate having the pen pointed at me—but through you, Deputy President.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for bringing order to the chamber. Senator Cash, please take note.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In a few weeks time, post the election, Senator McKim will be sitting here, and he will probably get precedence over me—good grief! Senator McKim, will you actually be sitting up here as the Leader of the Government in the Senate?</para>
<para>Colleagues, what is more concerning is that this is a bill that deals directly with the backbone of the economy—the mining and resources industry. As we know, Australians rely on the mining and resources industry to ensure the continued prosperity that this country has had. Let's just have a look at what the Greens have said in relation to the mining industry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Last time there was a minority government, the Greens cut climate pollution and delivered world leading climate laws and billions in funding for clean energy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This election, the Greens are on track to win more seats across the country. In the balance of power, we're fighting to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Stop new coal and gas …</para></quote>
<para>How's that going to work for energy prices in this country? It continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">End the billions in handouts to coal, oil and gas corporations …</para></quote>
<para>Again, how is you closing down coal, oil and gas in this country actually going to help? Do you actually care about how much the average Australian pays for energy?</para>
<para>But at least you're being honest about your disdain. Shame on those opposite, the government. On the first day of what could be the last sitting week, at least Australians now have the opportunity to properly understand that this could be their future. If the Australian people think they are doing it tough now, God help Australians if the Greens get what they want and Mr Albanese is governing with them.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, I'm happy to make a few remarks here. As enjoyable and extraordinary as that presentation was—bordering on the delusional—I think it would be in the interests of the Senate if we moved on to the daily program. Considering people are concerned about getting all the work done today, I think it would be beneficial if we moved on.</para>
<para>We know the opposition don't want to deal with production tax credits. We know they're anti Western Australia. We know that this is an important reform to provide investment certainty and support for businesses who are going to be at the forefront of the new industries that need to be created as we move towards a renewable energy future. We're very pleased that the Senate has agreed to deal with these two important bills today. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be put.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:07]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>33</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now put the substantive question that standing orders be suspended.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:11]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>33</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>53</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That general business order of the day no. 83 (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024) be considered on Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at the time for private senators' bills.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Communications References Committee</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reporting Date</title>
            <page.no>55</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Affairs References Committee</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The human cost of experimental child gender treatments in Australia, with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) testimonies from individuals who have undergone puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical interventions, including those who have detransitioned and regret their treatment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the experiences of families who were pressured, misled or denied the right of consent regarding their child's gender treatment, as has been alleged to have occurred in Queensland at the Cairns Sexual Health Service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the extent of psychological and medical harm caused by puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, including the lack of proper long-term safety studies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the role of medical professionals, clinics and activists in promoting and administering these treatments without sufficient oversight or evidence-based safeguards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the failures of the Australian medical establishment and government agencies to provide balanced, cautious and ethical care in line with the more precautionary approaches now adopted in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and other nations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the legal, ethical and medical obligations of the Australian Government to ensure children are not subjected to unproven and harmful medical interventions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the suppression of dissenting medical and scientific voices who have raised concerns about the gender-affirming treatment model;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the influence of activist groups in shaping public policy, medical guidelines, and education regarding gender treatments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the need for a national ban on gender-related medical interventions for individuals under the age of 18;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) the impact of gender policies on women's rights, including the erosion of female only spaces, the integrity of women's sports and the safety of women in shelters, prisons and other vulnerable settings; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) any other related matters.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:19]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>21</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>36</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move government business notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Airservices Australia—PFAS remediation of former fire training ground at Rockhampton airport, Queensland.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Airservices Australia—Aviation rescue fire fighting services NexGen project for end-of-life facilities upgrades—Phase 1A (Queensland and Victoria).</para></quote>
<para>I also table statements in relation to the works.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, if the Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 has not been finally considered by the adjournment on Tuesday, 11 February 2025, then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the bill be listed as the first item of government business on Wednesday, 12 February 2025;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 11.30am; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chamber is that the motion moved by Senator Smith, notice of motion No. 766, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:29]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>31</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Van, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>31</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>58</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 11 February 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all correspondence, including letters, emails, instant messages and text messages between the Treasurer or his office, the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office, and the Treasury relating to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donation to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024, and/or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any policy for a tax incentive to encourage food donations to charities, including any policy based on recommendation 19 of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture report, Australian story: Feeding the nation and beyond (the report), released in November 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any ministerial briefings, minutes or advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer or his office, or the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office, relating to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donation to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024, and/or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any policy for a tax incentive to encourage food donations to charities, including any policy based on recommendation 19 of the report; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) internal Treasury correspondence, including that to and from the Secretary of the Treasury or his office, relating to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donation to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024, and/or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any policy for a tax incentive to encourage food donations to charities, including any policy based on recommendation 19 of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF URGENCY</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF URGENCY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Dean Smith has submitted a proposal under standing order 75:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"The latest Living Cost Index, which shows cost of living is up 19.4% since Labor came to power, confirms what Australians see every day, hardworking families and businesses are struggling under an Albanese Labor Government that has pursued the wrong priorities and made the wrong decisions, demonstrating that Australians can't afford three more years of Labor"</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The latest Living Cost Index, which shows cost of living is up 19.4% since Labor came to power, confirms what Australians see every day, hardworking families and businesses are struggling under an Albanese Labor Government that has pursued the wrong priorities and made the wrong decisions, demonstrating that Australians can't afford three more years of Labor.</para></quote>
<para>Every election is important, and many Australians will know through harsh experience over the last 2½ years that this election is especially important. But, at the outset, I just want to demonstrate that, in 2025, whether it be on 29 March, 12 April or 17 May, the decisions that Australians make at this election are perhaps the most critical that they have had to make in the last three decades.</para>
<para>In 1998, when John Howard was the Prime Minister, Australians were faced with a difficult choice. Having enjoyed the benefits of economic reform and economic prosperity, they were asked to go one step further and to embrace the goods and services tax reform proposed by John Howard and Peter Costello. That was a tough decision. It was a tough election campaign, but the country is better for the decision to re-elect John Howard; re-elect the Treasurer, Peter Costello; and engage in tax reform of the most significant kind this country has ever seen. Indeed, this year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the goods and services tax in our country.</para>
<para>Then again, in 2001, under the stewardship of John Howard as Prime Minister, the country was faced with another important election decision, and that was the primacy of our national security challenges, demonstrated by the Tampa incident and by other challenging issues that were happening throughout the world. Then of course in 2019, miraculously for those of us on this side—pleasantly miraculously—Prime Minister Scott Morrison was re-elected when Australians treated with great caution and, indeed, trepidation the ideas of the then opposition leader Bill Shorten to raise taxes for ordinary Australian families.</para>
<para>Again, they're faced with a difficult but critical choice in terms of embracing a better future. Everyone in this country, even Senator Sheldon, even Senator Chisholm, even Senator Grogan and even Senator Ghosh, would be surprised at how disastrous this government has been after just 2½ years. The government like to talk about everything they have done, but the only measure is the effect of what they have done. The effect of what they have done has been to keep inflation high and to put Australian families under stress through 12 interest rate rises. When families gather around their barbecues and their kitchen tables and think about their future, the parents and grandparents of Australians in 2025 cannot say that the future of their children and their grandchildren is guaranteed for the next three, six or nine years. We know from our own experience, from the International Monetary Fund, from the OECD, from the Minerals Council of Australia and from the chambers of commerce around our country that living standards have collapsed and people cannot be guaranteed of a prosperous future beyond their immediate sights.</para>
<para>Labor's legacy has been to make the country poorer and to make the country less safe. That's the hard choice that Australians are going to face when they go to the ballot box on 12 April, 17 May or 29 March. I say that because apparently I hear that the Prime Minister doesn't like being told when the election will be, so I thought we might just try and push him to a date. Australians are ready to make a decision. They're ready to make a decision about their financial future.</para>
<para>This Labor government promised so much. In Perth, the capital city of my home state of Western Australia, in May 2022 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that things would be better under Labor. I dare him to come back to Perth in 2025 and stand in front of the same audience in the electorate of Swan and tell people that things have been better under Labor and will continue to be better. We know that that is just not true and not the record of this government. Core inflation remains above the RBA band, at 3.2 per cent. Underlying inflation has continued to be outside the band for 12 quarters. Prices are not going down. Prices continue to go up. It is time for a change.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, here we go. The cost of living is, as all of us know, a challenge for many people and a challenge right across our community. But it's a challenge that, in actual fact, you have to put policies in place for, and that's exactly what Labor's done not just to resolve it but also to help people, support people and support the community to get a better outcome than what's happening and what was happening when we took over.</para>
<para>When we came into government, what we were left by the previous government was a whole raft of problems. For every change we put forward to this Senate and to this parliament—every progressive, smart idea and every piece of relief that went to the Australian public—they voted against it. We know why they voted against it and didn't want to give relief to hardworking Australians. They voted against it because they put us in the crisis in the first place. These are the sorts of people who really don't care about the consequences of their policies. If they did care, they'd actually turn around and start saying, 'We were brave enough to say what we stood for.' We know one thing they stand for: $350 billion worth of services being taken off hardworking Australians.</para>
<para>We saw what happened with Medicare when they first got into office in the last round: 'There is nothing to see here.' Nothing was going to happen. Peter Dutton took $50 billion out of Medicare, out of the health system, and tried to do co-payments when they said they'd do nothing. Heaven forbid—this time they said they're actually going to do something, but they won't tell you what that is. You can only go off the history of what they've done, but what they've said is they're going to hit you with a whacking $350 billion worth of services that will be taken out.</para>
<para>That's before you get to the $600 billion nuclear fantasy. Why are they doing it? The factional obligations in their political party, all the twisting and turning, all the differing views and the 22 energy policies meant that they decided to put in an idea about nuclear: 'That way we can all say we support something—not support the country and not have an initiative that makes things better but make sure that the factional deal can be done.' They want to bankrupt this country with the strategy that they've adopted, with a $600 billion bill, and take $350 billion out of services.</para>
<para>Clearly what they also did were the things that they voted against and the policies that they've put forward. There would be over $7,500 of extra cost that would be put on every working Australian if you were to go with the policies that they've turned around and put forward whilst being in the Senate during this term of this government, this Albanese government. There are also other policies and proposals they have put forward, like the extra $1,200 in electricity costs that will come out of energy. Can you imagine spending $600 billion and in 2050 only 3.7 per cent of the energy mix being nuclear? It costs more. It's a deal to make sure that the factions in their party can all get on. It's the 22 policies that they couldn't agree on. They finally agreed on bankrupting the country with a stupid policy that will cost every Australian more.</para>
<para>Then you start looking at the policies that they've adopted right across the board. When we came in, inflation was higher and, of course, was rising, real wages were falling, living standards were declining and people were going backwards. That's what they left. Now we're seeing that inflation is at almost a third of what it was when the election was called all that time ago—only a couple of years ago.</para>
<para>Real wages are growing again. Living standards are rising again. We recorded the lowest average unemployment rate for any government in 50 years, and we've overseen the creation of more than 1.1 million jobs. But the job still has to be done. They're offering for you all to be worse off. They're offering to take $350 billion out of the pockets of hardworking Australians for services that they need to get on. They're the ones that broke the middle class. They're the ones under whom the middle class shrunk. We're the ones that are actually turning around and rebuilding the middle class.</para>
<para>But there's more work to be done. They have one strategy, and the strategy they've always put in place is one that makes sure that we're meaner, we're crueller and we're less reflective about what this community needs to make sure that we get on and help those that want to turn around and take an opportunity to move up in the world and not be held back. They don't care about things like fee-free TAFE that give people the opportunity to be better. They're opposed to it. That's where the $350 billion is going to come from. Things will be worse off under a Dutton government, which will crush the Australian public.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you know who isn't doing it tough right now? Billionaires. While those on low incomes and government support do it ever tougher, billionaires are making bank. Their incomes are increasing at a staggering rate. According to Oxfam, last year Australian billionaire wealth surged by $28 billion. That's $3.2 million per hour. That's 47 people who each made $67,000 per hour every hour last year. The cost-of-living crisis that this lot want to talk about is really an inequality crisis where the richest people hoard money and resources and have the ear of government. The rich get richer, and the poor stay poorer. The major parties talk big about ordinary people, but their solutions are poor. They simply won't take on their rich donors.</para>
<para>The solution is pretty simple. It's not more finger-pointing between Labor and the coalition; it's to tax billionaires to fund a decent life for everyone else. When you look at the cost of living, it's housing that's hitting people the hardest. For anyone in New South Wales, especially those in my home city of Sydney, the scale of the housing crisis cannot be addressed by just trimming the edges. A survey by Everybody's Home shows four out of five renters are spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. That is not a surprise. It's been a year-on-year increase in rent of nine per cent in Sydney—so much so that the median house price in Sydney will set you back $1.6 million. The median wage, meanwhile, is about 67 grand a year. You have Sydney housing costing more than 24 times someone's average salary.</para>
<para>Why is it all happening? It is because the government has given up on providing public housing and defending renters. Instead, they've thrown in their lot with the coalition on negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. These tax handouts collectively push up prices of housing to astronomically high levels and cut out renters. It needs to change.</para>
<para>If we wanted to do one thing we could right now to strike a blow in this place, it would be dealing with cannabis. Bear with me. The Greens have a proposal for legalising cannabis: a system where you could grow some at home—very cost effective, very thrifty—or you could also buy cannabis from a well-regulated legal market. The best cost estimates we have from the PBO say that, even with a cannabis sales tax and GST, the recreational price of cannabis declines once you have a legal market and generates billions of dollars of public revenue. In fact, the recreational price halves in a decade, with almost no increase in overall cannabis use. It's public health control and would lead to less spending on police, courts and jails. It's a cost-of-living measure we should all get behind. Of course it won't fix the housing crisis. It won't jail supermarket bosses for price gouging or make Medicare free. But still—more money, more jobs, safer product and all for 50 per cent off? Sounds like a win all round.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian people are asking themselves, 'Why has my life become so much harder under this government?' It's a fair question to ask. The answer is that the government has spent three years doing two things: designing policies and laws which support the benefactors, the mates, the chums of the government—their fellow travellers—and spending the last part of this term working out how they can funnel cash to their favourite friends through an elaborate set of laws principally known as the Future Made in Australia but not exclusive to that point.</para>
<para>Now, the first part of this term saw, in particular, Minister Jones working out how he could work with the industrial relations minister to design policies and schemes that would support the union movement but also the super funds. And so we have seen pattern bargaining. We have seen same job same pay. We have seen the abolition, the death of casual working in this country. This is all designed to institute a scheme where the unions can clip a ticket. They can clip a ticket through more subscriptions to pay the union bosses, because they hate small business. They always have. Hating small business is in their DNA. And so they've spent the bulk of the time working out how they can lock in laws which kill small business and pay off the people that run their internal elections, that turn up on polling day and that fund their campaigns. That has been the focus of this government. As I say, pattern bargaining, the end of small business, same job same pay—that's in the industrial relations space.</para>
<para>Then you have the superannuation space. There is more and more money going to the super funds and a deathly silence about scandals. We see today that the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, has decided that he would actually agree with the Clerk of the Senate's advice that he must comply with the Senate's orders to provide documents pertaining to the Cbus super fund. Dr Chalmers has been a bit reticent here to engage with the Senate's orders. Maybe because his mentor and great friend, Mr Wayne Swan, is a chair of that fund. Maybe it is because Mr Swan is also the president of the Labor Party. These are questions for the ages, which we won't have answers for right now. But I think it's pretty clear that this is more evidence of the government being the government for vested interests. If this were a scandal at a bank or a supermarket—if the bank hadn't paid its bills or the supermarket were in bed with a corrupt organisation—the government would be all over it like a rash. But they are not. Even though Cbus has not paid its insurance claims and even though Cbus has paid millions of dollars to the CFMEU, you hear crickets—not even a bogong moth—nothing. But if it were a bank or a supermarket, it'd be all you'd hear about.</para>
<para>So the protection racket is not just about favourable policy for their mates; it's also about a code of silence for those that break our laws. When the Nine newspapers broke the story about the CFMEU's latest antics, it was like shock, horror on the government benches. Who knew? Who knew these guys were bad? I think the Australian people are starting to see it for what it is. The government has had no time to solve the problems of today on inflation and housing because it spends all its time thinking about its mates, its best friends. That is what the Future Made in Australia plan is all about. It's another program of largesse, just like the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Reconstruction Fund. All these funds support the overall direction of this government, which is a government for vested interests. They have no time to solve the great challenges of today, which is why small business is dying. It's why inflation is out of control and why housing is unbearable in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation supports this matter of urgency. During 2024 alone the living cost index for wage and salary earners rose four per cent, down from a high of six per cent earlier in the year. The reduction has been caused, in large part, through electricity subsidies. The government is paying your bill for you! The underlying inflation rate is still there, ready to reappear after the next election, when the government stops paying those subsidies.</para>
<para>Rising electricity prices for business are not being subsidised, increasing prices in supermarkets, retail, wholesale and manufacturing. The public see the price rises and don't realise they are, in large part, the result of net zero measures, which One Nation will bring to an end, reducing power bills by 20 per cent immediately, and by much more over forward estimates.</para>
<para>Alcohol and tobacco costs rose due to the five per cent excise indexation and a cash grab the government calls AWOTE, where the more workers earn, the more the government increases the excise. One Nation will freeze all excise increases for three years. Watch for further announcements on this subject.</para>
<para>Insurance and financial services costs rose 13 per cent due to higher premiums for house, home contents and motor vehicle insurance. Insurance companies are becoming increasingly concentrated. Queensland's Suncorp owns AAMI, GIO, Bingle and Shannons among others. Over the last five years Suncorp's cash earnings rose from $59 to $108, and their share price rose from $9 to $17. One Nation will fund the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to ensure insurance companies are not ripping off consumers, including using fraudulent flood and bushfire maps to hike premiums. One Nation will remove the GST on insurance premiums.</para>
<para>Finally, the fall in inflation coming from a small reduction in the petrol price is significant. It proves One Nation's policy to cut fuel excise by 26c per litre, and our other measures, will reduce inflation to make room for an interest rate cut. One Nation means more money in your pocket.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GHOSH</name>
    <name.id>257613</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are facing significant cost-of-living pressures, but there's an incorrect premise in this urgency motion, which is that this is as a result of the policies or the actions of the Albanese government. That's a premise that's simply not supported by the actual numbers on inflation and real wages.</para>
<para>Cost of living in this country is a function of what things cost for people day to day, how much they earn by way of their wages or income and the support that government provides in addition. In relation to those three things, what the numbers actually bear out, once you look past all the rhetoric, is that things are heading in the right direction in terms of inflation. Things are heading in the right direction in terms of the real wages of people in this country. While we are in this cost-of-living crisis, the Labor government is actually supporting people to try and help them get through it. The coalition narrative amounts to, 'We made a huge mess on those three metrics, but you guys haven't cleaned it up fast enough, so you should give us back the keys,' and I think that that's just flawed at its heart.</para>
<para>But let's talk about inflation. I spoke last week about the profligate spending of the Morrison government, but the numbers don't bear out their argument today. I'm going to use two sets of numbers to make that point. The first is headline inflation, not seasonally adjusted, and the second is trimmed mean inflation, and that is going to be seasonally adjusted. That's the way the RBA reports those numbers.</para>
<para>If we go back to March 2022, those numbers were at 5.1 per cent headline and then 3.8 per cent trimmed mean, and then they start to ratchet up. They ratchet up through June 2022 to 6.1 per cent headline and 4.9 per cent trimmed mean, and then they ratchet up again in September to 7.3 per cent and six per cent and then again in December to 7.8 per cent and 6.8 per cent. That's the lag, the inflationary hangover, of Morrison government policies. And then you start to see that inflation moderate, you start to see some of the economic signals slow a little and you see some of the anti-inflationary policies of the Albanese government start to work. That number comes down and down and down until we have, most recently, in December 2024, a number of 2.4 per cent of headline inflation, not seasonally adjusted. That's back in the Reserve Bank band. That's inflation within target—from 7.8 per cent to 2.4 per cent. But, if you want to exclude the most volatile parts of the CPI—that is, trimmed mean inflation—it's down to 3.2 per cent, so we're slightly out of band. But, if you talk about the trajectory, it's been coming down and down. While the government has got inflation under control, we would accept that prices remain really high for people, and that's partly the reason we've been providing all this cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>The other thing I want to talk about is real wages, because that's the other piece of the puzzle. If your real wages are going up, you've got more money to spend, and real wages have gone up in the last four quarters. But where it really hurts—this is where the Morrison government and their policies of trying to suppress wage growth really hurt ordinary Australians—is where you've got inflation high on one hand and real wages going down on the other. If you look at those numbers across that timeframe—I'll show you two or three data points—headline inflation in June 2022 was 6.1 per cent, and real wages fell 3.4 per cent. When costs are going up and wages are going down, that hurts people. When we got to the Morrison hangover's peak in December 2022, it was 7.8 per cent headline inflation, and real wages fell 4.4 per cent. That's the cost-of-living pinch that people feel when the money coming in is going down and the money going out is going up, and we've reversed that. Real wages are now growing again. We've had four quarters of small but promising real wages growth.</para>
<para>What are we doing about the pain for ordinary Australians? There are lots of measures that we've talked about in this chamber for the last year, but I'll focus on two. The first is tax cuts for every Australian—that is, every Australian taxpayer got a tax cut on 1 July 2024. And that was most helpful to the people earning $45,000 or less, who weren't going to get anything before. The second is energy bill relief, which you've heard a lot about. Inflation is trending down. Real wages are growing again, and we are trying to assist Australians with their cost-of-living pressures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ghosh talks about the so-called coalition narrative. I'll tell you what the narrative is: Labor promised the cost of living would be lower if they were elected. That's the narrative. And the narrative from there is Labor didn't do what they promised they would do. They promised a lower cost of living. They haven't delivered that. In fact, the numbers came through last week that show that. If Senator Ghosh wants to use point-in-time metrics that's fine but, last week, the figures came in and they demonstrate that the cost-of-living index shows that, for Australian's hardworking families, it's up 19.4 per cent since they came to power.</para>
<para>Labor promised a lower cost of living; they haven't delivered that. They haven't done what they promised they'd do. It's as if they had no idea of what was going on in the economy before the election. Suddenly, after the election, everything has changed and they can't keep their promises. Of course they promised to lower power prices by $275. Now we never hear the words $275 uttered and power prices are up by more than $1,000, not down by $275—that will never happen—and that's after the cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>They promised higher real wages, yet real wages have gone backwards under Labor. Despite what Senator Ghosh said a moment ago, real wages rose under the term of the coalition. No wonder Australians are angry. They were promised all of these things by Anthony Albanese before the election. Ninety-seven times, he promised a $275 reduction in power prices, and that will never happen. No chance!</para>
<para>He promised lower housing costs. Someone in my community is paying something like $14,500 more on their mortgage than they were before the election. How does that relate to lower housing costs? Rents are up by 17 per cent. How does this relate to the Prime Minister's promises of a lower cost of living if he was elected? Why is it, I'm wondering, that nobody believes the Prime Minister when he makes these commitments and promises now? It's because he didn't keep any of his promises from before the election.</para>
<para>Food is up by 12 per cent. Here's the real absurdity with respect to what is going on with Labor's narrative on food: they're saying that they're going to get a better deal for farmers—to a farmer that means they'll get paid more—but, of course, they're promising lower prices at the supermarket. Tell me how that works.</para>
<para>This is the stuff that we're being fed by this government. They have proven, just as they've done so many times before, that they can't manage the economy. The circumstances in the economy were well and truly transparent, public and open, before the election. They knew what they were dealing with. It's all very well for them to now blame Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison or somebody else and to deflect the blame. It is one thing they're really good at: 'It's somebody else's fault, not ours. We didn't know'. But they made these promises. These are Labor's words coming back to haunt them. They made these promises: a lower cost of living, lower power prices and higher real wages. They made these promises and they continue to break them. Education costs are up 10-plus per cent.</para>
<para>It's all very well for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to think that they know more than the Reserve Bank, as they did before the last budget saying, 'We know something that will bring inflation down.' They offer subsidies for energy to provide a faux inflation rate. They're just not honest with the Australian people, and the Australian people will judge them for that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Dean Smith be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:08]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>28</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>33</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>4</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A letter has been received from Senator Roberts:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for a permanent ban on foreign ownership of residential housing and farmland.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave, firstly, to have this matter of public importance considered as a matter of urgency.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are rightly stunned and confused. Why are foreigners, people from other countries, allowed to buy real estate while Australians are made homeless and sleep on the street? China dominates foreign purchases of Australian real estate, snapping up the most of any country in the world. China snaps up houses and farmland across our country, yet Australians are banned from buying a house in China. Add to that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, the United States and the United Kingdom. The list of countries that grab Australian real estate goes on and on.</para>
<para>Australians are suffering through a housing crisis, a catastrophe. The average mortgage size has never been higher, with expensive repayments crushing household budgets. A house in Brisbane used to cost three times the average income. Now it's 10 times. This combination of high house prices and high interest rates means the average Australian is paying more of their wage on mortgage repayments than a homeowner would in 1990, when the Reserve Bank of Australia's cash rate was at 17 per cent. I'll say that again. As a proportion of income, mortgages are more expensive today than when the RBA had rates at 17 per cent.</para>
<para>The rental market in Australia is broken. Vacancy rates, a good measure of whether it's even possible for people to find a rental, have been at crisis levels for years. The average rent for a house in Brisbane has gone from $467 a week in 2020 to $740. For a unit in Brisbane, rent has gone up from $381 to $587 in the same period, since 2020. What's the government's response to the hurt Australians are feeling trying to get into a house? Labor will keep letting foreigners buy residential real estate.</para>
<para>While the Liberals signal they might do something about it, their proposal doesn't go far enough. Peter Dutton doesn't want to stop foreign ownership of real estate. He wants foreigners to be back here buying up the farm in two years. The Liberals' temporary pause is not good enough. Australia needs a complete ban on foreigners owning houses in this country. The Liberals won't do anything about the houses that are foreign owned right now—they can keep them. In 2017, ANZ estimated that foreigners owned up to 400,000 Australian homes. That's enough for a million Australians to live in, and that number of homes can only have increased since then.</para>
<para>One Nation would implement a true ban on foreign ownership. Under our plan, anyone that owns residential property yet isn't an Australian citizen or permanent resident will be given two years to sell their property back to an Australian. The two-year grace period will ensure there isn't a flood of properties onto the housing market. Let's get Australians into affordable houses while keeping the market sound. When the Liberals would be opening back up purchases for foreigners, One Nation would be completing the greatest transfer of houses out of foreign hands and into Australian hands in history. In this debate, we will hear Labor senators get up and claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent. We'll hear them claim it's foreign investment. That's a lie. It's ownership. And their numbers aren't true.</para>
<para>In that 2017 report I mentioned, ANZ said, based on Foreign Investment Review Board data, foreigners had purchased an estimated 25 to 35 per cent of new Queensland homes. Later in 2017, the government introduced a new annual vacancy fee for foreign owners of residential properties. You won't believe this next coincidence. After the government started charging a fee on foreign owners, the number of foreign owners declaring themselves to the government dropped from between 25 and 35 per cent to one per cent. It was just like magic! When NAB asked real estate agents directly how many foreigners they were selling to, the percentages were in the double digits. That's more than 10 per cent. We know that. It's a fact. The New South Wales government has even recorded foreign purchases at more than double what the federal Labor government claims they are. It doesn't matter what the real number is anyway. One foreign purchase is one too many while Australian families are sleeping on the street.</para>
<para>Foreign ownership is one part of the housing puzzle. One Nation has comprehensive solutions to all of the levers we need to pull to get Australians into affordable houses. These including pausing immigration to reduce demand, abolishing GST on building materials, establishing five per cent fixed rate mortgages, enabling HECS debtors to get a loan and deporting 75,000 illegal residents now.</para>
<para>On foreign purchases and ownership, we are clear. Only One Nation will implement a real, permanent ban on foreign purchases. Only One Nation will force foreign owners to sell their houses to Australians. Only One Nation will extend the ban on foreign ownership to our valuable farmland, to protect our ability to feed Australians first. Only One Nation can be trusted to truly put Australians first.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts asserts that a permanent ban on foreign ownership of residential housing will fix the housing crisis, but the fact is you can't solve a housing crisis without building more homes. It's as simple as that—building more homes. Housing supply is the key to tackling Australia's housing crisis, and that is exactly our government's focus.</para>
<para>The One Nation party would have you believe that foreign investors are causing the housing crisis in Australia, and we've just heard that. However, the truth is that foreign purchases of existing homes make up only a tiny fraction of all home sales each year. There is not a flood of foreign investors buying up all the houses in Australia that are for sale. That's actually the reality—a tiny fraction.</para>
<para>Let me turn to the Albanese government's approach to foreign investment. This government has taken a range of actions to make sure that foreign investment is working in Australia's best interests. We have tripled foreign investment fees for the purchase of existing homes and doubled vacancy fees for foreign-owned dwellings. We've also strengthened compliance measures to ensure foreign-owned properties are being used as intended, either occupied or made available for rent. And, from May last year, foreign persons will only be able to purchase established build-to-rent projects if they remain designated as build-to-rent housing. These changes ensure that foreign investment supports, not hinders, our goal of boosting housing supply. Finally, I'll make this point. The value of foreign investments in residential real estate approvals has actually fallen from $7.9 billion in 2022-23 to $6.6 billion in 2023-24.</para>
<para>I would like to make a few comments now about housing supply. Our approach balances economic growth with housing accessibility. We're building Australia's future and ensuring investments for more housing developments, because, at the end of the day, that is what our Homes for Australia Plan is all about: getting more homes built faster. We know this is a challenge, but it's a challenge that we must meet and are meeting. We're working to build 1.2 million homes over the next five years. Under our ambitious Homes for Australia Plan, we are training tradies, funding more apprenticeships, growing the workforce and making the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in over a decade. We're making sure Australia has the workforce, the resources and the investment needed to build more homes. Building homes doesn't just put a roof over peoples' heads; it creates jobs, stimulates local economies, strengthens communities and creates a home for people who need it. Every home we build supports workers and apprentices who rely on the industry to make a living. If there's more action required on foreign investors, we will consider it.</para>
<para>But let's be clear: those opposite have consistently taken positions in this parliament that would mean fewer homes, not more. The facts speak for themselves. One Nation, along with the coalition, voted to delay the government's Help to Buy housing scheme bill, stalling a key initiative to support housing affordability. They talk tough on housing, but, when given the chance to support real solutions, they vote against them. They complain about housing affordability while blocking the very measures that would deliver more housing supply to Australians. And, when given the chance to support real solutions, they vote against them. The bottom line: action on supply is critical, and more supply means better affordability. That's what we're delivering, and an Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future. That is what we will keep fighting for—more homes more quickly in more parts of the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Let me first say that the opposition welcomes foreign investment in this country. We have been strong backers of foreign investment in this country, but we do need appropriate safeguards, particularly when it comes to critical resources, things related to the defence of our nation, obviously, and residential land. The fact is that, when you're talking about this area, particularly in relation to residential housing, it's Labor's failures on our borders and in our migration system which have driven up housing prices in this cost-of-living crisis. Once again, it is the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, who has led the way and shown the path forward and is driving discussion on public policy in this country, with the Prime Minister following along behind.</para>
<para>The coalition has been very clear that we need to ban foreign investment into existing residential properties for two years until our population growth catches up with housing supply growth. However, as a trading nation, foreign investment is important in our broader economy, with many of our close allies being significant investors, and I will go to one particular example in my home state of WA. It relates to agriculture, which is also the content of this motion.</para>
<para>The Esperance sand plain was opened up by money from what was then called the Chase Syndicate. The Chase Syndicate was a group of US investors based largely, if perhaps ironically these days, out of Hollywood. These were celebrity investors who were rounded up into the Chase Syndicate, and the syndicate came down to open up land in the Esperance sand plain. That first effort failed, largely because they didn't have the expertise of utilising that country in an effective way. So the first Chase syndicate failed. Now, there was a second syndicate that had better luck. Why? That was because they listened to the Australian farmers on the ground about how that land could be effectively utilised. So, with the use of that American capital, that land was opened up.</para>
<para>As Senator O'Sullivan, who's here in the chamber today, knows, that Esperance sand plain is now perhaps one of the most productive parts of the Western Australian wheat belt, and guess what? The original investors, the original Chase Syndicate members, are long gone. Who owns that land and produces for the Australian economy and for the Western Australian economy from that land today? It's Australian farmers, of course, and I know many of them, and I know that Senator O'Sullivan knows many of them. They're Australian farmers who, through the effective use of capital from elsewhere, allowed that land, now in Australian ownership, to be opened up and developed. We see time and time again through Australia's history the importance of foreign capital to the beginning of industries, to the opening up of industries and to the giving of economic opportunities to Australians, and we need to welcome that. We need to welcome that into the future, as we do have extraordinary opportunities in this country that we can seize upon.</para>
<para>Going back to the other part of this motion, which is to do with residential housing, I will say once again that it was Peter Dutton who pointed out that the severe problems caused by Labor's failure to control our borders brought around a million people into this country in just over 12 months, which threw our housing system completely out of whack and made getting into homeownership increasingly difficult, particularly for younger Australians. That is why we have proposed this ban for two years on foreign purchases of residential housing. This is not something that we take lightly. It is a significant step; however, it is reflective of the situation we currently find ourselves in, where the failures of this Labor government are failures repeated over and over again. Whether it comes to the standards of living faced by Australians, the inflation rate in this country, the 12 successive interest rate rises or the smashing of the small business sector, this is a Labor government that has failed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I support this motion because history proves that this motion is correct. We only have to go back to 1850, the time of my forefathers in Ireland, when there was what's known as the great potato famine. In actual fact, it was potato blight. Of course, many millions of Irish people starved while the English landlords were exporting wheat to the UK and on to the world. This is why we must always control our agricultural land. It is always very important that Australia can feed its own population first.</para>
<para>I should qualify that by saying that Ireland had a population that was, off the top of my head, the same as it is today, but their population basically halved within a couple of decades, both through the diaspora and, of course, through massive starvation. It's something we forget about today when we often talk about immigration and all of these issues and foreign ownership, but we shouldn't because a large percentage of Australians came from that Irish diaspora in the 1850s. We also need tighter controls over housing. Currently, foreigners are allowed to buy new home buildings and new units. I have to ask why that is the case when we have so many tens of thousands of Australians that are homeless. It only drives up demand. Last week, though, I read in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline> that what appeared to be an immigrant was allowed to buy housing here, so we need much tighter controls over our real estate agents.</para>
<para>I have raised this issue in estimates before: when you do your tax return today, your PAYG income will be automatically uploaded into your tax return, your interest from your bank account will automatically be uploaded into your tax return and your dividends will be automatically uploaded into your tax return. But what isn't uploaded is the rental income you receive. This is a problem because foreigners are buying rental properties and the real estate agent can collect and then repatriate that money directly overseas. That money never gets declared to the tax office, and that has become a money-laundering issue. Another issue I raised was that money was being laundered through agricultural property. Foreigners were buying land here in Australia. Then they could launder the money out through both asset sales and rental income because real estate agents don't have to get a tax file number or withhold money, as that rental money is paid offshore.</para>
<para>We need to look at the reason why one of the largest growths in immigration is as a result of foreign students coming to this country. That is a direct result of what happened in 1985 when Paul Keating lifted capital controls. He effectively overturned the advice given to the Australian people in the 1937 banking royal commission by none other than Ben Chifley, where he said the central bank must always control a volume of credit in the system. Because Paul Keating lifted these capital controls, foreign debt held by the four big retail banks went from $8 billion to $800 billion in 23 years, from 1985 to 2008. That meant house prices went from four times average earnings to 12 times average earnings, which meant the two parents had to go to work. When we had the GFC in 2008, there was the risk of a housing collapse because a lot of older people lost a lot of money. So, in order to prop up housing, Kevin Rudd, in the Christmas of 2008—December 2008, I remember it well—allowed the parents of foreign students to come here and buy houses in Australia. That then fed the banking industry—which of course, as we well know, is a massive sector of our economy. It was also the start of the rise of the university sector and of foreign students, here—basically to prop up the Ponzi scheme that housing is in this country.</para>
<para>The other thing we need to do if we want to sort out foreign investment in this country is to lift the rate of withholding tax on profits sent offshore. There's a lot of hoo-ha about Donald Trump at the moment introducing tariffs, yet we have had reverse tariffs in this country for decades because the tax on profits sent offshore is much lower than the tax on profits here in Australia. That encourages foreign investors. They get a natural arbitrage opportunity to come into this country and undercut—or 'outbid' is probably a better way of putting it—Australians when it comes to buying assets. Foreign investors can actually repatriate those profits offshore and pay no tax, because our tax treaties, in the name of attracting foreign capital, provide a lower tax rate to foreigners than they do to Australians who retain their profits here. So I fully support this motion. We must make Australia great again and put Australia first.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation is the only political party that is fighting for Australians to actually own their own homes. The dream is to own your own home. This foreign investment, where it's at now, is just ridiculous. I'm pleased to see that the Dutton coalition is now picking up my policy, although foreign investment has only been put on hold for two years. As far as I'm concerned, there should be an unlimited hold on it and those foreign investors in Australia should have to sell up properties. After two to three years, it should be put on the market and sold. I'll tell you why.</para>
<para>Our dollar is down so much. It's basically nearly half—well, it is half—of what it is in the UK and about two-thirds of the euro, and you've got the United States as well. So our dollar is down, and it's not a level playing field for these people from overseas buying properties here in Australia. They're bringing in money that is a lot to us. In buying the properties here in Australia, they are actually increasing the price—supply and demand. If we're 650,000 short at the moment, why are we allowing foreign investors into the country? I'm talking about foreign ownership of our housing. Why is it called 'foreign investment'? It shouldn't be. All you are doing is driving up the price of housing. It's supply and demand. We see a lot of people who are foreigners bidding on this housing. Foreign students should not be allowed to buy housing when they're in Australia doing their university courses here. Why are they allowed to? Stop it.</para>
<para>The farming! Why are other countries—Canada, or even New Zealand and other countries—way ahead of us? They don't allow foreign ownership in their countries. Why are we allowing it here in Australia? I can't understand why, unless it means it's driving prices up so that people have to borrow more. Who makes profit out of that? There's the interest that the banks get, and there's another thing. Do you think state governments want to see their stamp duties go down? I don't think so. Follow the money. Who gets the money from all this? State governments and banks as well. Are we doing any favours for our own people? No, we're not. It was always the fact that people wanted their own home. Now they can't afford it. We see so many people living in poverty on our streets, under bridges, in tents, in cars—families and that type of thing.</para>
<para>The Labor Party say: 'We're giving you this wonderful opportunity. We're going to build 1.2 million homes over five years.' That was brought in two years ago. How many houses have been built? None! Not one! How much has it cost taxpayers so far? There's been up to $50 million in administrative costs and not one house built. Didn't you get a bargain out of that, people? A great bargain for you, isn't it? And they're still crowing like roosters about what they've done about for the Australian people, which is nothing whatsoever.</para>
<para>Then you talk about being able to build it. Between 2022 and 2023 you brought 737,000 migrants into the country. Only 51,605 of them had skills. You said, 'We're bringing them in for their skills.' Did you really? Only 51,605 had skills, and, of those, only 1,800 were from the construction industry. So how much of a lie was that? It's pie in the sky, a dream, that you're telling people out there. You mob couldn't lie straight in bed!</para>
<para>We have to change this. We can do it if you have the will. I don't know why you keep propping up foreign ownership of our housing and farmland. We had one farming property down in Tasmania that the Chinese bought for dairying: 18,000 hectares and about 90,000 head of cattle. They were actually milking it. I think they've gone bust now, but they were selling it up and getting $9 a litre for the milk. They have their minor companies, which write up the cost of everything. Then they don't make a profit, so they're not paying tax in this country either, and they have offshore accounts. You've been really smart, the both of you. How smart have you guys been over the years of your term in government?</para>
<para>You have no idea how people are struggling with the cost of living. All they want is to be able to put a roof over their head, and you are denying them the right of owning their own home. Stop foreign ownership of our housing and farmland.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for this discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Education, Treasury</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement and meal tax deductions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Joint Committee, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Parliamentary Library Joint Committee, Publications Joint Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of various committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings — Joint Statutory Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Brockman</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Participating member: Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Economics Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Participating member: Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Participating member: Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Sharma</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Sharma</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Participating member: Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Participating member: Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Participating member: Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parliamentary Library — Joint Standing Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Brockman</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Publications — Standing Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Brockman</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Senator Blyth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—Participating member: Senator Blyth.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024, Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7298" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7292" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The speech</inline> <inline font-style="italic">es</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">COMMONWEALTH WORKPLACE PROTECTION ORDER BILL 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Every Australian deserves to be safe at work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In recent years, Commonwealth workers have been increasingly subjected to acts of violence and aggression from members of the public.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is unacceptable—and it is why the Albanese Government is introducing the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order Bill 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will strengthen the Commonwealth's ability to protect Commonwealth employees—particularly those on the frontline—through the creation of enforceable workplace protection orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Violence and aggression have devastating impacts on workers and their families—as well as on the experience of Australians trying to access Government services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Services Australia Security Risk Management Review</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The horrific stabbing attack on a staff member at a Services Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Service Centre in May 2023 was a devastating reminder that we need to do more to protect workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government commissioned a Services Australia Security Risk Management Review. The comprehensive review by Mr Graham Ashton made 44 recommendations to deter acts of aggression against Commonwealth workers and to increase safety. The Albanese Government committed_ to implementing every recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Unfortunately, Commonwealth workers and workplaces continue to face an increasing risk of violence from members of the public. Between July 2023 and July 2024, Services Australia staff faced 1,692 serious incidents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill responds to this unacceptable situation and implements recommendation 17 of the Ashton Review, by creating a Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order Scheme</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill establishes a framework to enable an authorised person within a Commonwealth entity to apply to a state or territory Magistrates or Local court, Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) to issue a Commonwealth Workplace Protection Order (WPO)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">in order to protect a Commonwealth worker or workplace from threats of harm and actual harm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Before issuing a WPO, the court must be satisfied that the respondent has engaged in 'personal violence' in relation to a Commonwealth worker or the workplace, and that there is a real risk that the respondent will engage in further personal violence if the order is not made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The definition of personal violence includes acts of violence, harassment, intimidation, threats of harm and other harmful non-physical acts, such as verbal abuse and conduct engaged in over the phone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The court may apply any conditions or restrictions it determines necessary to prevent any future risk of personal violence to a Commonwealth worker or workplace.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Conditions may include no contact with a Commonwealth worker, or no attendance at a Commonwealth workplace.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In circumstances where urgent protection is required, a Commonwealth entity may write to the court to issue an urgent interim WPO to ensure protections are in place as quickly as possible—before a future court date to consider a final order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The definition of Commonwealth worker covers employees of Commonwealth entities as defined by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act (PGPA Act) including Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office, Veterans' Affairs, Australia Post and Ministerial and Electorate Offices. It also includes contractors. This means hardworking security guards, cleaners, and other external staff are also covered.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Commonwealth workplaces include Commonwealth offices, 'pop-up' service centres in shopping centres, Commonwealth service-delivery vehicles, and a Commonwealth worker's residence when working from home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This protects workers who are working on behalf of the Commonwealth, regardless of where they are.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill allows either party to a WPO to apply to the court to vary or revoke a WPO. The court may vary the conditions in the order as well as the length of time the order is in force. This allows flexibility for changing circumstances of either the Commonwealth entity or the respondent. A respondent may also appeal the decision of the court to issue a WPO through standard appeal processes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The safety of Commonwealth workers comes first—but we also want to ensure individuals can continue to access necessary Government services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If an applicant proposes conditions that would prevent the respondent from accessing Commonwealth benefits or services, the applicant is required to provide the court with information about alternative arrangements for how the respondent may access those benefits or services while they are subject to the WPO.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The court is required to consider the personal circumstances of the respondent when determining the conditions attached to a WPO, and ensure that the person still has the ability to access essential public services. In some circumstances, a condition may limit interactions to appointments over the phone. This would allow for ongoing service delivery whilst protecting the physical safety of workers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will allow information sharing between Commonwealth and law enforcement agencies to proactively manage risks to other Commonwealth workers or workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Breaching a condition of a WPO will be a criminal offence punishable by 2 years' imprisonment or 120 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This penalty will act as a deterrent for non-compliance with conditions—whilst protecting workers from threatening behaviour for an extended period of time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will commence 6 months from Royal Assent to allow time to work with Commonwealth agencies and state and territory jurisdictions on implementation—and to provide clear guidance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also requires a review 3 years after commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill builds on the layers of protection the Government has created for Commonwealth workers, including the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code Amendments (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Act </inline>2024. The Act increased penalties for assaults against Commonwealth frontline workers, and implemented recommendation 18 of the Ashton Review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Violence and aggression towards Commonwealth workers and workplaces is unacceptable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government values the contributions made by Commonwealth workers—and this Bill is an important development in protecting Commonwealth workers and workplaces across the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No one should be afraid to go to work—and every worker deserves to come home safe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will protect Commonwealth workers—and ensure members of the community are able to have safe access to Commonwealth Government services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I thank the Minister for Government Services for his strong support in the development of this Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill to the House.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (IMPROVED MEDICARE INTEGRITY AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Today, I introduce the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has a world-class health system that offers affordable, high-quality, accessible health care to all Australians. This is due in large part to the various health benefit schemes—including Medicare and its programs—that help Australians pay for the health care they need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government is committed to protecting and strengthening Medicare—and part of this is improving the compliance framework that ensures the integrity of these rebates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, known as the Philip review, was commissioned by the government to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2023, the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Act 2023 and the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Act 2023 made priority amendments in response to this review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill implements further improvements responding to Philip review recommendations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill implements a measure announced in the 2024-25 budget: reducing the timeframe during which Medicare claims for bulk-billed services can be made from two years to one year. Claims relating to bulk-billed services can currently be made up to two years after a health service has been provided.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This change will improve payment integrity and reduce the number of incorrect and fraudulently submitted claims. This will have minimal impact on patients and practitioners as most claims are already made within 12 months. There will be discretion to accept claims after that time, to ensure patients are not disadvantaged.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, a range of legislative provisions across health portfolio legislation are creating barriers to effective compliance activities, particularly when it comes to deterring and responding to serious non-compliance and fraud.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill responds to these barriers by allowing investigative powers to be used consistently and effectively across Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Changes will also enable powers to be used in the investigation of Criminal Code offences and remove the need for AFP assistance with executing warrants for suspected Criminal Code offences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments will improve investigative powers in health portfolio legislation and ensure they can be put into practice consistently, effectively and proportionately to respond to behaviour that jeopardises the integrity of health benefits schemes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under the <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953</inline>, a pharmacist can request that the Minister for Health and Aged Care exercise a discretion to approve the supply of pharmaceutical benefits at particular premises. This is currently a two-stage process, which can take up to six months. This is frustrating and time-consuming for the applicant and may also delay the community's access to pharmaceutical benefits.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this bill, the two-stage process is proposed to be streamlined and condensed into a single-stage process of up to four months. This will help to reduce a significant administrative burden. And it will provide the community with more timely access to pharmaceutical benefits.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments improve existing powers to obtain information about potential fraud and non-compliance and enable the recovery of amounts if they should not have been paid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Philip Review recommended the 'expansion of powers to ensure all types of serious non-compliance can be effectively dealt with' and 'a reduction in regulation and legislation that hinders compliance activities'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Philip Review concluded there are limitations and restrictions around current compliance processes. For example, if incorrect payments are identified, current provisions don't always enable amounts to be appropriately recovered. This is because some recovery mechanisms rely on outdated claiming processes and requests for hard copy documents. These matters are restricting the ability of the Department of Health and Aged Care to protect the integrity of Medicare programs and payments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes will enable appropriate inquiries to be made about Medicare payments if available information suggests potential non-compliance or fraud. If payments are found to be incorrect, amounts could be recovered.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Changes will also improve the ability of regulators to protect patient safety by removing some restrictions on the admission of information obtained under the Professional Service Review's notice to produce powers as evidence in relevant proceedings, including proceedings for the purposes of the National Law for the health practitioner registration and accreditation scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will remove some restrictions on the admission of information obtained under the Professional Services Review Agency's 'notice to produce' powers as evidence in proceedings, including proceedings under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The existing restrictions will no longer apply in respect of prosecutions related to a failure to produce documents, proceedings to recover debts relating to the Professional Services Review Scheme and some other proceedings related to non-compliance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The restrictions will also not apply in respect of documents produced to PSR under notice and passed onto Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) or a National Board under certain provisions in the Health Insurance Act, or information obtained or generated by Ahpra or a National Board from its own investigation, triggered by documents produced to PSR under notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will enable Ahpra and associated Health Practitioner Boards to use PSR-related material to trigger their own investigation into allegations involving risks to patient safety. This will also allow Ahpra and Health Practitioner Boards to admit evidence in National Law proceedings if it was referred to them under the legislation for the reasons of a significant threat to life or health or non-compliance with professional standards. These changes are required to ensure all appropriate steps are taken to protect patient safety and that the existing requirement to refer the information to Ahpra and Health Practitioner Boards is not frustrated.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes will enhance the Department of Health and Aged Care's capacity to address identified risks to patient safety and manage and address the consequences of non-compliance and potential fraud.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill makes several sensible amendments to the <inline font-style="italic">Therapeutic Goods Act 1989</inline> (the Therapeutic Goods Act).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill enhances the capacity of the government to manage and alleviate the consequences of therapeutic goods shortages in Australia. It allows the secretary of the department to approve the importation or supply of substitutable unapproved products from overseas if the Secretary is satisfied that the approved medicine, biological or medical device may, in the reasonably foreseeable future, become unavailable or be in short supply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill supports compliance and enforcement activities in relation to both unlawful therapeutic goods and unlawful vaping goods.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Specifically, the bill broadens the circumstances in which section 52AAA applies to ensure that forfeiture arrangements can extend to the range of circumstances in which goods may be seized under the Therapeutic Goods Act. Rather than, as currently, only the circumstance where goods are seized under a warrant issued under section 50. This amendment will help deter the trafficking of such goods by sending a strong message to bad actors operating in this space that the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) will take unlawful goods permanently.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill lowers the threshold that must be satisfied before the secretary may give an enforceable direction to a person under section 42YT of the Therapeutic Goods Act. The current requirement is that a direction is necessary to protect the health and safety of humans. The amendment will result in a more balanced approach that a direction must be considered and issued in the interests of public health and safety. This approach ensures the more appropriate availability of such directions to protect Australians from new and emerging public health threats.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill enhances the ability of state and territory officers to monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with the Therapeutic Goods Act and Regulations by allowing for the provision, inspection, copying and retention of documents or information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill also clarifies that section 61, which authorises the release of information in relation to therapeutic goods and vaping goods in certain circumstances, is not a secrecy provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill includes other minor amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act, to keep the Act up to date and to assist with the TGA's important functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill also amends the Therapeutic Goods Act to make minor consequential amendments to support the government's ground-breaking vaping reforms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, the bill amends the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023(the tobacco act) which commenced on 1 April 2024. These amendments clarify the intended operation of the provisions and are amendments that have been identified as necessary in the implementation phase of the legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The measures in this bill will further the government's efforts to strengthen Medicare and will assist in the implementation of our world-leading tobacco and vaping reforms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the bill.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 14 March 2025 and 3 April 2025 respectively.</para>
<para>Ordered that the bills be listed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> as separate orders of the day.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024, Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7277" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7283" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The speech</inline> <inline font-style="italic">es</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN ENERGY REGULATOR SEPARATION) BILL 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill marks a significant step in our commitment to improve regulatory outcomes in the energy sector, by ensuring dedicated governance and accountability structures that are tailored specifically to energy market regulation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The intention of this Bill is to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010 </inline>to separate the Australian Energy Regulator (the AER) from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC), establishing the AER as a non-corporate commonwealth entity with operational control of its staff, resources and governance arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The AER is the independent regulator of wholesale and retail energy markets and energy networks, mainly across southern and eastern Australia, under national energy laws and rules. Its key activities include energy network regulation, compliance and enforcement, and the performance monitoring and reporting of energy wholesale and retail markets as well as network businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Taken together, that is an incredibly important function—as perfectly well expressed in the AER's purpose, which is "to ensure energy consumers are better off, now and in the future".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The AER currently operates as a constituent part of the ACCC. Both organisations are a single Commonwealth entity for the purpose of the finance law. The AER shares staff, resources and facilities with the ACCC—and as a result, the AER Board, which responsible for regulatory functions, does not have direct control over resources and staff, which remain under the ACCC's authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This proposed amendment to legally separate the AER from the ACCC will remove the governance risks that hinder the AER's ability to manage its increasing regulatory responsibilities effectively. It will enable the AER to operate effectively as an independent entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill will not change the key elements of the Australian Energy Market Agreement—such as the role and function of the AER as the independent energy regulator, the composition of the AER's board, the requirement for the Commonwealth to fund the AER, and the administrative law arrangements whereby the decisions of the AER will continue to be subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Energy Laws—which provide the AER with more detailed functions and obligations—will also remain unchanged.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It has to be acknowledged that several independent reviews have recommended an autonomous AER.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2015 the <inline font-style="italic">Review of Governance Arrangements for Australian Energy Markets, </inline>chaired by Dr Michael Vertigan, considered governance arrangements of the Australian energy markets and recommended that the AER should have full management and financial autonomy, which would most effectively be achieved by re- establishing the AER as a stand-alone regulatory body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The 2017 <inline font-style="italic">Independent Review into the Future ofthe National Electricity Market, </inline>led by Dr Alan Finkel, noted the AER's role is highly technical and sector specific, and that by constituting the AER as a separate energy agency we would be mirroring the structures of other energy market bodies and comparable energy regulators in similar countries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">State and Territory Energy Ministers have been consulted on the proposal, and on 19 May 2023, agreed the AER should be established as a standalone Commonwealth entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It would surprise no one to observe that the AER's operational environment has evolved significantly since its establishment in 2005. As the energy market becomes more complex, and with the AER's regulatory functions expanding, the AER needs the authority to manage its own resources and to set its own strategic direction independently from the ACCC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ambitious scale and pace of the energy transition requires the AER to operate with greater financial and operational autonomy. A distinctly separate AER will provide for greater management and financial autonomy, contributing to the overall effectiveness of the AER as Australia's energy regulator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Creating a standalone AER will formalise its governance responsibilities, including for managing its budget, human resources, and risk oversight. This change will allow the AER to better align its internal operations with its regulatory mandate and strategic goals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is essential for effectively managing the energy transition, overseeing wholesale and retail markets, and addressing issues like energy affordability and network regulation. In other words, this change will make sure the AER is better placed to do what we need it to do in the best interests of the Australian community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill supports the broader energy policy of the Government, enabled through the National Energy Transformation Partnership, a framework for Commonwealth, state and territory governments to work together on reforms to help transform Australia's energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One of the priority themes of the framework is strengthening energy governance architecture.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill is a necessary and forward-looking reform that helps achieve this priority theme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to delivering affordable, reliable, and clean energy for all Australians, and the reforms contained in this bill will help make that vision a reality.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">WORKPLACE GENDER EQUALITY AMENDMENT (SETTING GENDER EQUALITY TARGETS) BILL 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I move that this Bill now be read a second time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since the Albanese Government came to office, we have been working every day to drive progress on gender equality.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill we're introducing today is the latest in a series of reforms our Government has delivered for Australian women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reforms that put the needs of women at the forefront of our majority- female Government's work. Each time taking us a step further towards creating a more equal country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our Government is proud that we continue a long legacy of Labor Governments in this work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From the Whitlam Government funding women's refuges, health centres and community childcare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To the Gillard Government introducing our country's first Paid Parental Leave Scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Labor Governments exist to make Australia a better and fairer place.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Advancing gender equality and supporting Australian women is at the centre of that project.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In March, the Government released <inline font-style="italic">Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality </inline>to set a path to achieve our vision for gender equality over the next ten years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And we are making progress towards that vision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This year, for the first time, the individual gender pay gaps of private sector businesses with more than 100 employees were required to be reported publicly, bringing focus to how businesses are working to advance equality within their own workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">More than 11 million workers now have access to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have improved Paid Parental Leave (PPL) to recognise the reality of modern Australian families; expanding it to 26 weeks by 2026, providing greater flexibility for parents in how and when they take leave, and introducing superannuation on government PPL.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have made childcare cheaper, helping more women to juggle family and work and providing young children with the best start in life.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Gender equality is now a central objective of the Fair Work Act, strengthening the Fair Work Commission's ability to consider gender when it makes wage determinations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have funded wage increases in aged care and early education—two sectors long dominated by women workers and which have been undervalued and underpaid for too long.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are funding prac placements in areas traditionally dominated by women, such as teaching, midwifery, social work and nursing, and supporting young women to start their careers with more financial security by reducing their HELP debts and providing fee-free TAFE places.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our Government recognises that improving gender equality is good for Australian women, and good for Australia as a whole—helping to boost women's participation in the workforce, and improving productivity for companies and the economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As I said, we are making progress. But there is more to be done.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, WGEA, has allowed us to track progress and increase transparency on workplace gender equality, including on the gender pay gap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">WGEA reports that the total remuneration gender pay gap is 21.1 per cent for 2023-24, which includes base salary, overtime, bonuses and additional payments. As of May this year, the average full time earnings of women in Australia was lower than the equivalent for men by $231.50 per week. By the time they reach retirement age, women have 25 per cent less superannuation than men.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Women also continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions representing only 22 per cent of CEOs.4 Women hold 20 per cent of Chair positions and 32 per cent of board member positions. One in four organisations have no women board members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is despite research finding a relationship between increasing the proportion of women in the most senior levels, and higher company performance, productivity and profitability. The gender pay gap represents an estimated cost of $51.8 billion a year to the Australian economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our Government wants to work with employers to close that gap and make sure that workplaces are fair, respectful, flexible and safe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We're doing this through increasing accountability and raising the bar for large employers to take action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Building on our 2023 reforms to publish employer gender pay gaps, our Government is now introducing this Bill, the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will introduce a world-first targets scheme to accelerate action on gender equality by large Australian employers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will require organisations with 500 or more employees in Australia to commit to achieve (or at minimum, improve on) measurable targets to progress gender equality in their workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Target setting and action planning are both well-known levers for improving gender equality outcomes in the workplace. Research by Dr.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Leonora Risse, an economist and one of Australia's leading gender equality researchers, found that target setting for gender equality promotes accountability, transparency and organisational confidence.9 The research indicates that taking this kind of data-driven approach is itself a mechanism for change.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Regardless of which targets employers select, the act of requiring them to take targeted action will drive a shift in behaviour by embedding practices that are likely to create positive and lasting cultural change in workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill requires large employers to select targets from a menu of targets, and then make progress towards these targets. The full list of targets and rules for selection will be outlined in an associated instrument to the Act. The intent is that employers will select at least three targets from this menu of targets, which is aligned to the WGEA gender equality indicators.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Employers will then have three years to improve upon or achieve the targets. This will give employers flexibility and time to take action in priority areas for their workplace. By rewarding progress, employers will also be incentivised to set more ambitious targets.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The menu of targets that employers can choose from will focus on: the gender makeup of boards and the workforce; gender pay gap; flexible working arrangements and support for parents and carers; workplace consultation on gender equality; and efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment. These areas align with WGEA's gender equality indicators, the six key areas where workplace gender inequality persists and where progress can be achieved through focused action. The menu of targets is included in the supporting materials to the Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The targets include both numeric targets, such as reducing the gender pay gap or improving gender composition in roles or occupations; and action-based targets, such as introducing a paid parental leave program or enhancing flexible work offerings. The targets will draw on the information that employers currently provide to WGEA against the gender equality indicators.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">WGEA will work with employers to set and achieve targets, helping build their capacity to achieve change. This is already occurring through WGEA delivering education resources and providing direct support to employers to undertake analysis, develop action plans and build internal capability to improve gender equality.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is important to note that these employers—those with 500 or more employees—are already required to have policies or strategies against each of the gender equality indicators. When they select targets, they should already have relevant strategies and policies in place. Setting targets will help focus on action and accountability to achieve those strategies and policies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In creating obligations to set and achieve targets, this Bill seeks to cement Australia's status as a global leader in gender equality. Targets will lead to more ambitious commitment and progress which meets community expectations and is in line with the broader momentum towards gender equality in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No other country in the world requires businesses to commit to gender equality targets. Australia will be leading the way to accelerate action on gender equality in workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill builds on last year's amendments to the Act by continuing to implement the recommendations from the Review of the Act in 2021.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Changes in 2023 led to the gender pay gaps for private sector employers with 100 or more employees being published for the first time. This was a clear move towards greater transparency and accountability for Australian organisations and gave them an opportunity to assess their performance against their peers. It also gave employees and the broader Australian public the chance to see how individual workplaces are performing, helping them to make more informed decisions as employees, customers and stakeholders of these businesses. This is, and will continue to be, a critical step towards closing the gender pay gap and accelerating action towards gender equality. Public sector employer pay gaps will be published for the first time from early 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The inclusion of a gender equality targets scheme further supports the Government's 2022 election commitment to lead a national push to close the gender pay gap by encouraging employers to close these and other gaps in workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our Government wants to be working alongside employers to effect the change we need to see, and in doing so benefitting both employees and employers. Through this, companies will see improved staff retention, productivity, safety and enhanced reputation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite the current high level of transparency in reporting to WGEA, only 68 per cent of organisations have undertaken a gender pay analysis. Of these organisations, 75 per cent took action to close the identified gap. Requiring organisations to set targets can drive real change, as employers will be accountable for improving their results.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the Bill provides the opportunity for employers to make ambitious commitments through the targets scheme, it also ensures that employers are acknowledged for the efforts they make towards making progress against their targets. In addition, it ensures they are not found to be non- compliant if they set ambitious targets and make progress towards them but are not able to meet them within the three-year period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is the intent of the amendments to encourage employers to actively take action within their organisations to improve workplace gender equality and make progress against their baseline. In this way, the compliance provisions recognise the act of setting and making progress on the target as the primary threshold.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The targets menu has been developed by WGEA following consultation with key groups of stakeholders to make sure the menu of targets are genuine and measurable. The targets have been designed in consultation with a range of stakeholders including the business sector, the not-for- profit sector, higher education providers and the women's sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has been up front about our policy position and the intentions behind introducing gender equality targets.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Results against the targets will be monitored through employers' annual reporting to WGEA and their Boards. Information about targets selected and employer progress or achievement will also appear on WGEA's Data Explorer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill raises the bar in the obligations on large employers, who may also be publicly named as non-compliant if they do not set, improve upon or meet the targets without reasonable excuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Large employers will be required to follow the targets scheme to obtain a certificate of compliance from WGEA. The holding of a certificate of compliance is considered as part of the employer's eligibility to contract with the Australian Government through procurement processes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this way, the Government is using its purchasing power to drive gender equality outcomes and boost women's economic equality—effectively using a policy lever worth $70 billion each year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since our election in 2022, our Government has placed gender equality at the heart of our work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We know that many businesses and organisations share our commitment to improving gender equality in workplaces right across the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am heartened by the obvious commitment of employers in Australia, who are already engaging positively with WGEA. We can see this in the response to the publishing of employer gender pay gaps. I encourage employers to see this reform as an opportunity to go further, and work with Government to really shift the dial on gender equality and close the gender pay gap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This reform will also apply to Commonwealth public sector employers with 500 or more employers. This will hold the Government as an employer to the same standard and mean the public and private sector can learn from each other and make progress together.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We look forward to working with employers across the economy on the reforms in this Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Now is the time to accelerate the pace of change. The introduction of gender equality targets will build on the progress to date and position us to close the gender pay gap and improve the lives of Australian women.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Ordered that the bills be listed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> as separate orders of the day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President has received a message from the House of Representatives informing the Senate of changes in the membership of joint committees as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—Mr Caldwell in place of Mr Goodenough.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—Mrs Andrews in place of Mr Goodenough.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works—Mr Willcox, appointed.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Communications References Committee</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not easy to see underneath the waters of Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they're stained by the tannins that flow into Macquarie Harbour. In the main, those tannins come from the beautiful button grass plains inside the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Tannin stained waters are a feature of many freshwater ecosystems in the west and the south-west of Tasmania and also many coastal and estuarine ecosystems in those areas, including Macquarie Harbour and Bathurst Harbour. The other reason it's pretty hard to see when you get underwater in Macquarie Harbour is the effect that salmon farming has on the marine environment. We see this effect right around Tasmania where industrial salmon farming is in operation.</para>
<para>I know very well the effect in a stretch of water that I grew up on, the D'Entrecasteaux Channel, between the mainland of Tasmania and Bruny Island in south-eastern Tasmania. I've dived in those waters repeatedly, and I've watched as marine ecosystems in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel have been absolutely devastated by industrial salmon farms. What were thriving marine ecosystems have turned into aquatic wastelands.</para>
<para>In Macquarie Harbour, if you could see well enough in those tannin stained waters and you could dive in the right places, you would find the maugean skate. That is a Gondwanan species of skate closely related to species of skate that are found only in New Zealand and South America. The maugean skate is now only found in Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania. It used to be in Bathurst Harbour. We believe that that population is now extinct. The one remaining place where this skate can be found is Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania, and the population of adult skates, according to the latest scientific estimates, could be as low as 40 or as high as 120. There are likely to be fewer than 100 adult skates left anywhere on the planet.</para>
<para>The federal environment department has advised the minister to remove fish farms, those toxic industrial salmon farms owned by multinational salmon farming corporations, from Macquarie Harbour. The environment department has advised the minister to do that because those massive, polluting, toxic salmon farms are savagely depleting the oxygen levels in Macquarie Harbour, and that is the main threatening process driving the maugean skate into extinction.</para>
<para>What would you expect a so-called environment minister in Australia to do if the environment department advised them that, in order to save a species from extinction, industrial salmon farms should be removed from Macquarie Harbour? I think any reasonable Australian would say, 'I expect the environment minister to protect our environment; I expect the environment minister to remove those salmon farms and give the maugean skate'—which has survived, by the way, through countless millennia—'a fighting chance of survival.'</para>
<para>But what does Labor do? Are they going to do what's right for the environment, or are they going to do what's right for the profits of foreign salmon farming corporations? You don't really have to ask yourself the question, folks, do you? We all know the answer. When it comes to a choice between, on one hand, giving an ancient species which is being driven into extinction a fighting chance of survival, and, on the other hand, backing in the profits of multinational corporations, Labor, of course, is going to side with the bottom lines of foreign salmon farming corporations. In doing so, they're going to death ride the maugean skate into extinction. That is the choice that Labor has. Faced with that choice, Labor is effectively kicking the can down the road, and Labor is hoping to get through to the next election by just kicking the can down the road. The problem with Labor's approach is the maugean skate quite possibly does not have until after the next election. Any delay in getting salmon farms out of Macquarie Harbour—remember the advice that the environment department has given to the environment minister—is just hammering further nails into the extinction coffin of this Gondwanan species.</para>
<para>The toxic corporate salmon-farming industry in Tasmania is not just driving the maugean skate into extinction in Macquarie Harbour. It has planned a massive expansion of toxic salmon farms right around the Tasmanian coastline, and, in doing so, it is riding roughshod not just over the marine environment but over community after community after community that does not want to see a massive expansion of toxic industrial salmon farms that are polluting Tasmania's waterways, disfiguring our beautiful coastline and poisoning marine ecosystems. They do not want to see a massive expansion of toxic industrial fish farms that are privatising public waters in Tasmania. They do not want to see a massive expansion of corporate, industrial salmon farms in Tasmania, in part because none of those big, foreign corporations that own these salmon farms have paid any tax in the last five years.</para>
<para>Let's be clear about this, Labor and Liberal governments at state and federal levels have written a blank cheque for these foreign multinational salmon-farming corporations and have effectively said to them: 'You pay no tax. That's fine by us. You poison our waterways. That's fine by us. You privatise our waterways. That that's fine by us. You send an ancient species of fish into extinction. That's fine by us. You disfigure our beautiful coastlines. That's fine by us.' The Labor and Liberal parties might say that's fine by them, and they are saying that's fine by them, but the Greens are here to say that is not fine by us. We will stand with local communities right around Tasmania who are fighting against the massive expansion of industrial, toxic salmon farms right around Tasmania that the Labor and Liberal parties back. We will stand for the maugean skate. We will fight to protect our marine ecosystems from being polluted and poisoned. We will fight against the privatisation of coastal waterways. We are shoulder to shoulder with community after community after community.</para>
<para>I've recently been to two really special, massive displays of opposition to the planned expansion of salmon farming—and there are more to come, mark my words. The Labor and Liberal parties ignore this at their peril. I say to the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ms Collins, whose beautiful electorate of Franklin I used to represent in the Tasmanian parliament and whose beautiful electorate of Franklin has a massive stretch of coastline that either is already being poisoned by industrial salmon farming or is under threat of massive expansion of industrial salmon farming—I say to Ms Collins: I challenge you to a debate. She is not only overseeing the logging of the swift parrot into extinction as federal forestry minister but overseeing the salmon farming of the maugean skate into extinction. She is backing in, against the wishes of the Franklin electorate, a massive expansion of fish farms right around not just the coastline of Franklin but the coastlines of Lyons, Bass and Braddon. That's not to mention that the hatcheries upstream in the catchment are impacting on drinking water quality in the city of Nipaluna/Hobart, which is, of course, the electorate of Clark.</para>
<para>So all five Tasmanian electorates are facing massive negative impacts driven by the toxic corporate salmon farming sector, and Ms Collins is overseeing this. So I say to Ms Collins: I'll challenge you to a debate anytime, anywhere. You name the place and the time before the upcoming election, and the Greens will be there. Ms Collins needs to be held to account, not just for backing in the forest industry—the mendicant, carbon-bomb-releasing forest industry that is destroying threatened species' habitat and logging the beautiful swift parrot into extinction—but for her support for a toxic salmon farming industry that is driving the maugean skate into extinction in Macquarie Harbour, and she is backing in massive expansions of fish farms right around the Tasmanian coastline.</para>
<para>These multinational salmon farming corporations have been getting away with it for far too long. They've been getting away with not paying tax. They've been getting away with polluting our waterways. They've been getting away with poisoning marine ecosystems. They've been getting away with privatising large stretches of the Tasmanian coastline. They've been getting away with driving the maugean skate into extinction. But enough is enough.</para>
<para>The Greens are here to say enough is enough. We are here to fight against those foreign salmon farming corporations. We are here to fight with local communities who are fighting to protect their stretch of coastline from privatisation and fighting to protect their marine ecosystems from being polluted and poisoned. I say to people who don't want to see this mass expansion of toxic industrial salmon farms in Tasmanian waters: change is possible. Your votes are powerful. We can stop this, but you cannot keep voting for the two major parties and expect things to change. You have to vote to stop this massive expansion of toxic salmon farms. You have to vote to save the maugean skate from extinction. Vote for the Greens to do those things. Change is absolutely possible, but change has to be voted for. If people want change, they should vote for a party that is here to deliver change. Put the Greens into the balance of power, and we will do everything we can to fight to protect Tasmanian waters from toxic industrial salmon farms and to save the maugean skate. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:04]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>7</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am now putting the motion. The question is that the motion be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:09]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>7</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7297" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that just before the Senate suspended this morning a division was called on the second reading amendment moved by Senator Cox. We will proceed to that division now.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Cox be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:16]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Hughes)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:22]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Hughes)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>7</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>82</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we enter the final moments of the committee stage for this part of the evening, I think it's important to recap what we're being asked to support here. Put most simply, Australian industry suffers from high project costs. Those high project costs are because of high energy costs; those high project costs are because of poor access to land; those high project costs are because of a rigid industrial relations system; and, most particularly, those high project costs that afflict Australian industry, whether it be in the mining and resources industry or the agricultural industry, are because of rigid, unnecessary and, in many cases, duplicative environmental processes. Rather than address, at their core, those contributing factors to high project costs in the critical minerals industry, the government is proposing a subsidy instead. That is this bill in its easiest and most accurate summation.</para>
<para>At this point I think it is very important to summarise exactly why the coalition is opposing this bill. There are five themes that deserve to be re-read. The first is that this is burdensome bureaucracy and inefficient spending. The bill does not provide widespread tax relief to business but instead ties businesses up in complex regulations. We'll come to that in some questions that I have for the minister. Further, businesses must navigate multiple government agencies—including the Clean Energy Regulator, ARENA and the department of industry—before even reaching the tax office, and the estimated compliance cost for businesses starts at $100,000 a year. Those costs are ongoing and will be cumulative.</para>
<para>The second theme is that this bill risks permanent corporate welfare. The coalition supports lower taxes but opposes permanent taxpayer funded handouts for businesses. The bill locks in subsidies for decades, with production tax credits extending into the 2040s. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis demonstrate to us that government intervention should always be temporary, should always be targeted and should be scalable and not a permanent feature of economic policy.</para>
<para>The third theme is that the unclear and politicised community benefit principles deserve much greater interrogation. Again, I look forward to asking the minister questions about the community benefit principles in practice. Companies must comply with unclear and vaguely defined community benefit principles in order to receive the tax credits, and it's worth noting that the full tax credit is not available unless you meet the community benefit principles in full. That's a very important point that industry must be very cognisant of. Secondly, the Treasurer has sole discretion over the community benefit principles—or requirements—creating, we would argue, political risk and uncertainty for business at a time when business, particularly in the critical minerals sector, is looking for greater certainty and less political risk. Finally, critics warn that the community benefit principles could force businesses into— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>83</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 17th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians continue to ask why the vast riches allocated to closing the gap over many years are not producing the intended outcomes. I have been speaking about this, and I've got the report that I put out on 14 June 1996. This is what I was referring to all those years ago—the inequalities in the system. Until we actually acknowledge and question this, nothing will change. Repeated failure to close the gap puts this good will at risk. I have always called for equality among all Australians. Assistance should be based on individual need. A person's cultural background or skin colour should never entitle them to more assistance than any other Australian. I will keep repeating that.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to see here in this chamber my colleague Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and hear her comments that are now starting to draw attention in the coalition—they are actually backing her up—but I didn't get backed up on that years ago, because it was the Howard government that threw me out on making comments on equality for all Australians. I was thrown out of the Liberal Party for saying it. It's quite interesting to see today that Senator Cash has made some comments with regard to this, and it's quite interesting to hear her comments. The Liberals are only now saying it should not be based on race but need. That sounds familiar, and I got thrown out of the Liberal Party for it. So it's good to see that they've finally woken up to themselves, because closing the gap is clearly not working.</para>
<para>I keep calling for equality for all Australians. In part of my comments that I've made here—I've got to go back to this as well. I got involved in politics because of Robert Tickner, who was a minister in the Keating government. This is Robert Tickner's comment: 'On this basis, the ABS 1991 national census included people of Aboriginal descent and people who were accepted as Aborigines by Aboriginal communities.' This means whites who married Aborigines or had adopted Aboriginal life and been initiated qualified not only for the census but also for welfare payments under the more generous Indigenous range of benefits. The then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Robert Tickner, conceded that the growth in census figures for Indigenous Australians in 1991 reflected an increased willingness of people to identify as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin. This uncertainty as to what constitutes an Aboriginal lends itself to welfare abuse, false native title claims and other such injustices.</para>
<para>When government handouts are considerably more generous for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders than non-Aboriginal Australians, it is little wonder that more people are willing to hitch their welfare wagons to the Aboriginal gravy train. He said that, and I said it in 1996. Isn't it amazing. Hasn't the Labor Party done a turnaround in their attitude towards this? How many times have I asked for the identity of Aboriginals? But you won't even do that. As I said, forget about race. It's not about race, culture or your background. It should be based on an individual needs basis. We are all Australians together. Forget about whether you're Aboriginal. It should not come down to that.</para>
<para>Even in this report that I put out, which I've got here, for everything that you go through—whether it's health, education, legal aid or masters degrees—there is a clear difference in what you get if you're an Aboriginal, compared to a non-Aboriginal. Nothing has really changed today at all. If you look at some of these things here, referring back to health, things have to change. Till we acknowledge this, it's only going to get worse.</para>
<para>In what I have pulled up here, I also made comments about the corruption and misappropriation of moneys that is happening, but it falls on deaf ears in this place. What we need is to have a good look at these corporations. A good example of the different treatment is the standards of governance to which Indigenous corporations are held compared to the standards required of non-Indigenous corporations. Non-Indigenous corporations are required to meet the governance standards of the Corporations Act 2001. Indigenous corporations are only required to meet the standards of an act written specifically for them, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006. Many Indigenous corporations can't even meet these softer standards, and the agencies which are supposed to enforce these standards are either disinterested or poorly resourced.</para>
<para>There have been many examples of poor governance in recent years, allowing corruption and nepotism to reign freely while entrenching disadvantage among those who need the most support. Boards of directors at some of these Indigenous corporations are passing illegal resolutions without required quorums or even outside of board meetings without required written agreements from every board member. Many directors are not even aware of their individual obligations, and training in these basic obligations is not mandatory. Many directors are simply appointed to support family members dominating boards, and required declarations of these connections are not adequately enforced.</para>
<para>Even worse is the paternalism which drives these much lower standards. It assumes a much lower level of competence and diminished capacity for Indigenous people, and that makes no sense at all. I've been told about the corruption that's happened, even on councils: a CEO councillor actually signed off on work to be done by his own company, and the work wasn't carried out. Do you want to do an audit? No-one in the wide world does.</para>
<para>Where is the accountability for the billions of dollars that are going into this Aboriginal industry? Under One Nation, we intend to abolish it. There won't be any Aboriginal department. There won't be 3,000 Aboriginal corporations. There won't be all these handouts any more. There will be accountability for taxpayers' dollars. The Aboriginal people will come under the same department as any other people.</para>
<para>As I said, too, you talk about health issues. We hear people in this place talk about the health issues.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Brochure material reads:—</para></quote>
<para>this is going back to when I put this out in 1997—</para>
<quote><para class="block">"An organisation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, controlled By Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People".</para></quote>
<para>It says 'controlled by' them.</para>
<quote><para class="block">In the main, these clinics—which included medical, dental, along with specialist clinics like diabetic, child health, women's health, nutrition, mental health, ante-natal care, and welfare and community development—are exclusively for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Expenditure for 1994-95 was $69.669m.</para></quote>
<para>That's nearly $70 million. Off the top of my head, in the census at that time—1996—there were approximately 356,000 Aboriginals. Now we've got over 800,000 people claiming. Robert Tickner was right: everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Between the 2016 census and the 2021 census, people claiming to be Aboriginal increased by 25 per cent. It's really working, isn't it?</para>
<para>And then you talk about the land.</para>
<quote><para class="block">In 1994 (most up to date figures were available) land was acquired for Aboriginal communities under land acquisition and maintenance and the Regional Land Fund. During that year, 45 properties were bought for $17.3m, of which approximately 30% was spent on pastoral properties.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Aboriginal organisations own (up to 1994) the staggering total of 77 cattle stations (prolific through the Northern Territory and Kimberley region), making those organisations the largest holders of pastoral property in Australia. This figure does not include land owned by individual Aboriginals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The most disturbing thing about this vast land acquisition is that there is repeatedly no accountability or record of it !</para></quote>
<para>What are we going to do about it? These are things that happened 30 years ago, and nothing's changed.</para>
<para>You keep talking about this. You sit in this place, and the only way it will change is if you start treating people equally on an individual needs basis. You talk about there being no water in the communities. If you are in remote communities and you're supposed to be connected to land and that's your culture, why are you relying on the white man's way of life to provide the services when you clearly don't want this? You can't have it both ways. Yes, look after those who are in need, but you also have to look after taxpayers' moneys, which have to be accountable to every taxpayer.</para>
<para>Stop screaming, because all it is is you're playing the victim card, and Australians have had a gutful of it. Start doing something. You've been given the opportunity to run these organisations yourselves, and nothing has happened. They're in worse conditions now as the years go by.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today's formalities have historically occurred on the anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations. I acknowledge that that day is significant for those who may already be here in Canberra or who will be coming to Canberra in the coming days to mark the anniversary. I also acknowledge the new neglected generation of children, who are being left to languish in dysfunctional circumstances simply because of their race. It is an absolute crime, and make no mistake: there will be a day when those children demand an explanation as to why they were allowed to be overlooked in the way that they are.</para>
<para>Today's report contains a lot of information, but it's also important to highlight what is missing. In July 2024, the Productivity Commission highlighted two crucial areas of reform. First, there is the need for an agreed approach to measure the implementation of the four priority reforms. Second, there is the lack of a reliable data source to assess whether Indigenous communities have access to clean drinking water, sewage treatment, and electricity. The recommendations are emblematic of the failings of the current approach, with ineffective governance, poor information and practical necessities not a priority. It was disappointing that neither of these reforms were properly addressed in the list of essential action in the 2024-25 implementation plan.</para>
<para>I turn to the data, the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> annual data compilation report July 2024</inline> showed only five of the 19 targets are on track to being met. It was a grim report, and the data relating to the Northern Territory was especially concerning, as the Territory is home to many of the most marginalised Indigenous Australians. The data was released the same week I attended a funeral for a much-loved young Indigenous man in the Territory who had committed suicide. This report is not just about statistics; every number is a precious life. That's why we must do more to protect them.</para>
<para>Clearly, the current approach is not working. We are now half way through this national agreement, and it is overdue for review because, despite how much closing-the-gap data is used to inform policy and conversation, it is incomplete. The data is lacking, firstly, because it isn't broken down by geographic area, age or sex, so it doesn't accurately tell us, beyond a state or territory level, locations with the highest need.</para>
<para>The data is also lacking on increasing box-tickers—that is, self-identifying Indigenous Australians whose ties to Indigeneity are tenuous at best or non-existent at worse. Wiradjuri woman Suzanne Ingram noted that, in the 2016 census, 40,000 people ticked the Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander box for the first time, the majority of them from eastern states or urban locations. The growth of box-tickers is skewing the data, but this government are too cowardly to call it out for fear of being called racist. Aside from causing data deficiencies, the box-tickers are skewing our policy conversations as opinions of box-ticking elites are often favoured over true Indigenous knowledge holders. This is a serious problem. It's contaminating the data and the policies we create, and marginalised Indigenous Australians ultimately suffer.</para>
<para>I hear from those opposite that they want to end Indigenous disadvantage, but, in reality, Anthony Albanese would prefer to distract everyone with cash splash announcements instead of real solutions.</para>
<para>If they truly want to end Indigenous disadvantage, they must redirect their priorities to things that really matter, like economic independence. The private sector holds a wealth of opportunities for marginalised Indigenous Australians and can be a pathway out of a life of disadvantage. I've seen it in Alice Springs. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has taken time to see it also. I encourage the Prime Minister to do the same. The coalition knows economic independence and private enterprise are vital to enabling marginalised Indigenous Australians to stand on their own two feet. We also know that land councils, especially in the Northern Territory, can be a barrier to economic independence. That is why we will support traditional owners who want to form breakaway, language based land councils. We must encourage those who want to develop their land for things like tourism, cattle stations or mining instead of keeping them dependent on government welfare.</para>
<para>In addition to encouraging economic development, the government must address the bureaucracy that is suffocating meaningful change. Last week I attended a briefing with the Minister for Indigenous Australians. It was disappointing, to say the least, because every question about accountability was met with what can only be described as babushka doll responses. The national framework for Closing the Gap has no single person in charge. On paper, the co-chairs are in charge. Further, government funding is disbursed to myriad departments, despite one agency supposedly being in charge. But ultimately, according to the minister, the cabinet is responsible. It is a system without accountability, which is unacceptable in a system where the buck should stop with the minister.</para>
<para>Another problem is that there are too many bodies in this space for it to be effective. The Coalition of Peaks are somehow meant to represent 80 peak organisations, and then each of those peak organisations can represent hundreds of further organisations. At the briefing, we were told in all sincerity that this was an effective way for grassroots opinions to have a seat at the table. That proposition is absurd. It's no wonder our marginalised are remaining and becoming further entrenched in disadvantage. To tackle the bureaucracy and lack of accountability, the coalition, if elected, will undertake an audit of Indigenous expenditure. The national expenditure on Indigenous Australians has not been accounted for since 2015-16 let alone properly assessed for duplication and effectiveness. Along with a parliamentary inquiry into land councils and statutory authorities, we will finally have a full, honest picture of Closing the Gap policies. We will know what is failing and what has been succeeding, what is being wasted and what is needed and who is being listened to and who is being silenced.</para>
<para>Aside from the bloated and unaccountable bureaucracy, the refusal by the government and Indigenous leaders to confront difficult issues is also hindering progress. One of the biggest areas of concern relates to the sexual abuse of Indigenous children in Indigenous communities. It's worth noting that, in his address today, the Prime Minister has failed to even mention the rates of sexual abuse suffered by Indigenous children. In contrast, the coalition has committed to holding a royal commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. We know that SNAICC is opposed to this, shamefully. That doesn't mean it isn't needed. If we refuse to confront this, we have no hope of tackling the rising rates of youth incarceration and domestic and other forms of violence. Nationally, the rate of Indigenous children subjected to a substantiated child protection notification was 40.5 per 1,000. For non-Indigenous, it was 5.6 per 1,000. The contrast becomes starker when we look at the NT. In the context of 30 June 2023, Indigenous children were subject to child protection notification at a rate of 385.5 per 1,000, compared to 73.7 per 1,000 non-Indigenous children. Further, Indigenous children made up 89.1 per cent of substantiated investigations. The data relating to notifications of sexual abuse specifically is just as confronting. Nationally, the rate of sexual abuse for Indigenous children was 2.8 per 1,000 while, for non-Indigenous children, it was 0.5 per 1,000. In the Northern Territory, the rate of sexual abuse notifications for Indigenous children was 2.2 per 1,000, but for non-Indigenous children it was 0.2 per 1,000.</para>
<para>These numbers are appalling, and this is the only reported data. There is good reason to believe that much sexual abuse in communities goes unreported. So let me be clear: I will not mince my words, and I'm not afraid of being offensive when it is a matter of truth. I say to Indigenous leaders who refuse to acknowledge or believe any further investigation is warranted: you are failing those children; you are the ones causing them harm. If this was occurring elsewhere in our society, a royal commission would be demanded.</para>
<para>There's no question that things need to change. Our data collection must be improved. Box tickers must be stopped. The priorities must be directed to need not race. An audit must be undertaken, and accountability must be taken. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today's Closing the Gap announcement tops off a year of betrayal. Once again, Labor is refusing to address the urgent issues facing First Peoples and confront their own role in harming our communities. They're refusing to address the suicide epidemic, the child removals and the incarceration rates, particularly of children. While there are welcome measures like increased access to affordable food in remote communities, the simultaneous funding for more police in these same communities is appalling, feeding with one hand and imprisoning with the other.</para>
<para>This time last year the Productivity Commission delivered a damning assessment of Closing the Gap, calling for a complete overhaul. A year later, things have only gotten worse. State and federal governments have repeatedly shown they lack any real commitment to justice for First Peoples. Worse still, governments are actively driving harm against us. State governments have doubled down on criminalisation, jailing and removing children, ripping more of our families apart. The latest data shows nearly one in 15 First Nations children are removed from their families. That is 24,000 children, and this number is growing each year.</para>
<para>Victoria is among the worst, with nearly one in eight of our children forcibly removed from their families. Even more troubling, the Northern Territory is moving to dismantle the child placement principle, a key recommendation from the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing </inline><inline font-style="italic">them home report</inline>, pushing to rip apart our children and family culture and kin. This is not just an assimilationist attack; it's part of a continued genocidal effort to cut First Peoples from our cultures, communities and country. In September, Queensland again suspended its Human Rights Act, allowing more children to be locked up in brutal adult police watch houses. Victoria abandoned plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14. The Northern Territory lowered the age back to 10, reintroduced the use of spit hoods on children and relocated all children from Central Australia to Darwin, 1,500 kilometres away from their families, community and country.</para>
<para>Across the country, governments are increasingly locking our children in prisons where their bodies and human rights are routinely abused, yet the federal government remains silent. It looks away. It refuses to raise the age of criminal responsibility beyond 10 for federal crimes or do anything to push states to raise the age. The government is directing money for First Peoples to organisations such as police—$205 million of the announced $840 million Closing the Gap funding package goes to the cops. This doesn't benefit our people. It only means more of our people will be locked up, more of our children will be jailed and more lives will be destroyed. It is money for widening the gap.</para>
<para>The federal government must recognise that much of what our communities face results directly from the violence governments are perpetrating against First Peoples. It is now increasingly clear that the federal, state and territory governments have no real commitment to the Closing the Gap partnership. As an example, in November, Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy, met the state and territory ministers to discuss the crisis of First Nations children being jailed unsentenced. They're not even sentenced. The kids are in jail without even being sentenced. They're often in adult police watch houses.</para>
<para>The latest data shows that 83 per cent of First Nations children in prison have not been sentenced and the majority are never found guilty of an offence. The minister told them to take it up with their Attorney-General. What happened next made it clear that the partnership is broken and that no-one actually cares or listens to the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs because Victoria's Labor Premier, Jacinta Allan, announced a review of bail laws designed to lock up more children. New South Wales Labor Premier, Chris Minns, extended harsh bail laws for children and boasted about jailing more of them. The WA and SA Labor governments passed more punitive laws, and in Queensland it's harder to get bail as a child than as an adult.</para>
<para>This system is killing our kids. In just the past 18 months, two children died in youth detention. Their deaths are directly attributable to a system that criminalises and brutalises instead of offering care and support. We know that children in the Ashley Youth Detention Centre in Tasmania have been strip searched—children being strip searched! They are subjected to isolation. Children are being isolated, beaten and sexually abused in the prison system while a systematic cover-up hid these abuses for decades and continues to hide them. All of your governments are hiding along with them. Similar abuses are documented across the country. It's telling that the National Children's Commissioner has been denied access to children's prisons in Victoria and WA, where conditions are known to be horrific.</para>
<para>Australia spends over $1 billion a year jailing children, yet there is no real commitment to transparency or accountability. The Senate supported my motion to report on prison conditions, addressing issues like self-harm, miscarriages, and stillbirths in custody, yet Labor refused to comply with its democratic duty. Governments continue to cover up the violence and abuse routinely perpetrated within the prison system, and then they turn around and blame us, like you just heard.</para>
<para>When it comes to legal assistance, a fundamental protection against injustice, Labor is failing again. An independent review revealed that the legal assistance sector was underfunded by $1 billion annually and recommended an additional $459 million per year from 2025 onwards. Labor responded with inadequate funding of just $500 million over five years, less than a quarter of what is needed. Aboriginal Legal Services called this a betrayal that does not reflect a government that believes in First Nations justice. Well, obviously, you're not about that at all. And remember, cops just got given $205 million which only increases the demand. Last year, I led a group of 28 crossbenchers in calling for stopgap funding to keep legal services afloat. Labor, again, ignored this.</para>
<para>Many of the problems we see reflected in the <inline font-style="italic">Closing</inline><inline font-style="italic">the</inline><inline font-style="italic">g</inline><inline font-style="italic">ap</inline> report point to breaches of Australia's international human rights obligations. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly called out Australian governments for violating the convention. Legal experts presenting to the youth justice inquiry last week made it clear the federal government has the power to intervene, to enforce minimum standards on the states and to prevent these human rights abuses, aligning this country with our international human rights obligations. But they pick and choose when they want to follow UN obligations, and the federal government denies it has jurisdiction over these abuses. This is a lie.</para>
<para>The government is responsible for upholding international human rights obligations, and it has the constitutional power to do so. It is choosing not to act, hiding behind the fake excuse that this is all just a matter for the states and territories. The external affairs power under section 51 of the Constitution allows the government to implement international treaty obligations across all jurisdictions. This means the government could legislate to ensure compliance with the United Nations conventions that Australia has ratified. These powers have been used to enforce uniform sex discrimination laws across states and territories, under the Sex Discrimination Act. The government could do the same to prevent human rights abuses against children and First Peoples. It simply just won't act.</para>
<para>Self-determination is the only way forward. We don't need more overpaid commissioners for everything. You put up a commissioner for everything. We don't need any more reports being ignored, token advisory bodies that you keep setting up or sham partnerships that governments continue to breach. What we need is for governments to stop perpetrating violence against First Peoples, which drives more intergenerational trauma and dysfunction. We need them to respect our basic human rights.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The story of our nation is often told through our sporting accolades and our great pride in our scientific advancements and academic achievements and through celebrating our unique and wonderful natural environments, but our record on how we treat First Nations Australians is inseparable from our identity in Australia. Our history as a nation will be judged by the actions governments take now to address the inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, giving all of us an equal playing field.</para>
<para>First Nations mob are strong and resilient. Every year, we face numbers that tell a story that is hard to process. They tell the story of a gap between those of us who were born as First Nations people and those who were not. I have been grappling with these numbers since I first heard the statistics as a 15-year-old in a high school classroom. Since that day, I have been driven every day to change those numbers, and that's why I'm a part of the Albanese Labor government—we're building Australia's future, easing the cost of living and delivering record investments in First Nations outcomes to close the gap.</para>
<para>This report tells a story of a Labor government which is creating jobs and building economic empowerment for First Nations communities, easing housing overcrowding and improving safety. Some highlights for me in particular are that, over the last year, we've commenced the new Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, which will create up to 3,000 jobs in remote communities over three years, and we've expanded the Connected Beginnings program, which supports First Nations children to thrive in early years. I've spoken many times in this chamber about how crucial the early years are. With the right support early on, we can set kids up for life.</para>
<para>While Peter Dutton and the opposition want to rip away the opportunity to build your future, we're giving Australians the opportunity to undertake free study, with over 30,000 First Nations Australians enrolling in our free TAFE programs across the country. We've significantly increased funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and family violence prevention legal services, to help more women and children who are escaping family, domestic and sexual violence. We've committed $842 million to delivering essential services for remote communities, including policing, women's safety, health and education in the Northern Territory. We've expanded the Indigenous Rangers program to create 1,000 new jobs, which includes 770 for First Nations women. I'm also heartened by the commitment to expand much-needed services for birthing on country, mental health and nutrition.</para>
<para>The 2025 Closing the Gap implementation plan outlines the strategy for the year ahead. There is so much in this plan that sparks optimism for the future for mob. I was particularly excited to see the commitment to establishing a place based business coaching and mentoring program for First Nations businesswomen and entrepreneurs.</para>
<para>Through my role as the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I've had the chance to learn more about the economic contribution of First Nations people. Australia's First Peoples have been traders, innovators, entrepreneurs and knowledgeholders for more than 65,000 years. We have an unbroken knowledge of invention, innovation and resilience. Our contribution to Australia's economy and local communities is significant and far-reaching—beyond gross domestic product—and it's growing rapidly.</para>
<para>The committee learned that First Nations businesses contribute $16.1 billion in revenue each year and that for every dollar of revenue spent, First Nations enterprises create $4.41 of economic and social value. That's why we are also expanding the role and remit of Indigenous Business Australia to boost First Nations economic empowerment, strengthening the Indigenous Procurement Policy and investing $16.9 million to deliver a First Nations economic empowerment agenda.</para>
<para>At the core of self-determination is the freedom to write your own story. I want to write a story of our mob building on their resilience with their unique knowledge and skills, and taking our place as economic contributors and partners in this country. I am proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government and to work with colleagues, like Minister McCarthy and Prime Minister Albanese, who are writing that story with me and with all First Nations Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I start by recognising that this week is the 17th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. My own mother was an example of that. She has since passed, but she often used to say, 'I will not let my children live vicariously in my trauma,' and she refused to reflect any stereotype.</para>
<para>The first job of any government is to keep Australians safe. The job is to do better, not to do things everyone knows will make a situation worse. The job is to focus on priorities the evidence says you must focus on. Labor, you've made progress in the Closing the Gap targets worse when you removed the cashless debit card. You made progress worse, too, when you watched the now decimated Northern Territory Labor government lift alcohol restrictions. You made it worse with your $450 million failed Voice referendum, because you were completely distracted—along with the leadership in those same organisations on the frontline of Closing the Gap. Those three things almost guaranteed the annual <inline font-style="italic">Closing the </inline><inline font-style="italic">g</inline><inline font-style="italic">ap</inline> report was not going to read well. There are some good stories in there, sure, but you lack a focus on accountability and that has meant it's not a better read.</para>
<para>These annual reports are a continuation of our commitment, shared by all in this chamber, to do better by Indigenous Australians, but it's not on track—still only five targets have been met. There are more targets either going in the wrong direction and not on track or there is no data to determine change. And its representation in this report does not tell us by how much it has changed, if anything, within those targets. We are only expected to believe you.</para>
<para>The report handed down today is more of an election campaign pitch than it is about data that is useful. It is not nearly as comprehensive or informative as previous Closing the Gap reports. Box-ticking Indigenous Australians is most likely skewing the data—that is truth-telling. The data is deficient and accountability is becoming unclear. Who is this agreement actually with? Who is responsible for it? This report is 11 pages shorter, 10 per cent less detailed, than the previous year. How is that possible with so much more to do? It is not a true reflection of what is happening. Even the Productivity Commission says to 'beware of the aggregate'.</para>
<para>Closing the Gap is a national snapshot. In some areas, progress is of course so much worse. Sadly for everyone, the Prime Minister is not prepared to address the foundation issues that matter most in closing the gap. This includes the performance of the frontline organisations—the ones who get the funding and who exist to deliver the services. Every Australian deserves better. Victims-survivors and locals who live in communities—from Cairns to the Kimberley and from Ceduna to Katherine, where these outcomes have gotten worse—deserve better from all of us. They deserve better from the federal government, the state and territory governments, local governments and organisations, and from the individuals themselves.</para>
<para>There remain several targets with no data. How can that be so when family violence is such a driver of poor outcomes across all targets? Worse, there is flip-flopping, doublespeak and dodging from the Prime Minister. 'If things aren't working, we'll change them,' he said. There is no evidence that the Prime Minister is doing that at all, and he continues to refuse coalition calls for an audit. In central Australia, the Prime Minister last week tried to sell an existing funding stream for remote communities as if the $842 million was new money. Some of it is, but the truth is most of it wasn't. Much of that funding already existed in the budget and was a continuation of the Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment agreement, which has been negotiated with the Northern Territory for remote communities since 2016. This agreement is a little different, though; it includes Aboriginal peak organisations of the Northern Territory. I acknowledge the funding in it for family and children centres in 12 communities and additional funding for language and men's centres, but your announcements do not provide detail, and your record of implementation is very poor.</para>
<para>The Albanese government, much like the leadership in those Aboriginal community controlled organisations, was distracted by the Voice referendum from its core business. All of you should have been focused on your day jobs, improving the lives of Indigenous Australians and not being a political megaphone for the Labor Party. In this chamber, Labor and the Greens have repeatedly refused our motions for an audit into the organisations responsible for delivering outcomes for Indigenous Australians. How can you continue to do that given the very public shortcomings of several key organisations under your watch? The most spectacular belong to NAAJA, which exists to provide legal advice to the most vulnerable people in the Northern Territory. Federal funding was wasted on a temporary ice skating rink in Alice Springs in the middle of summer and bus services that run until four o'clock in the morning in some areas. That does nothing for children's safety, nor does it do anything to help those kids get themselves to school.</para>
<para>Sure, you have bipartisan support for Closing the Gap but not for wasteful spending that does nothing to assist the most vulnerable and funding that is actually an enabler of further dysfunction. It was your government that failed to stop the NT Labor government ending those alcohol restrictions. You are wedded to ideology rather than evidence. It has resulted in immediate and horrific impact. There was a 77 per cent increase in family violence in the months that followed. There was increasing crime across the Territory, with more children on the streets than in school, too terrified to go home because of alcohol fuelled violence. In the same financial year the restrictions were lifted, there were some 62,000 hospital admissions in Alice Springs, a town of just 29,000 people. Your inflation, which has been higher for longer, has cost Australians dearly—and none more than those in remote and regional areas, who do it tougher. In October, regulator ORIC stepped in to investigate three community stores in South Australia, my home state, at Amata, Indulkana and Pukatja. Court fines and penalties of $32,000 were imposed for failing to comply with reporting obligations. Add to that legal expenses and all the unnecessary and avoidable costs that no doubt are passed onto already struggling and unsuspecting customers.</para>
<para>You talk of tackling food security but fail to tackle those very obvious things that are right in front of us now. We know the Albanese government removed the cashless debit card in communities that wanted it and now refuses to rule out disbanding income management in the Northern Territory entirely. When you do that, you will again condemn the gap to further widening. You must not end income management. The PM went to the last election promising to end income management, but he knows his experiment resulted in worse outcomes for everyone, so he's now hesitant to do anything until after the election. Tell them you plan to do the same again, only after the election. The consultations on ending income management for 29,000 people in the Territory ended on 6 December last year. We know your Labor stacked parliamentary committee concluded with a recommendation to end income management. You only have to go to the parliamentary website to find that.</para>
<para>To close the gap we must combat the drivers behind violence in Indigenous communities. Alcohol is the most significant driver of them all. The Prime Minister's inaction on alcohol access in the Territory is unforgivable, and the victims of this inaction are vulnerable women and children. Ninety per cent of men incarcerated in the Northern Territory are there due to family violence related offences. Alcohol was the main driver of that violence. The Prime Minister is right to focus on early childhood and education as a vehicle for advancement, but you can't ignore the facts. Aboriginal children are on the streets, not in schools.</para>
<para>I want to refer to a distressing element of the <inline font-style="italic">'Help Way Earlier!'- transforming child justice for safety & </inline><inline font-style="italic">wellbeing</inline> report released by the National Children's Commissioner last year. It told some truths about what children thought. They said that being in custody was safer than living in their own homes. It's a truly appalling state of affairs. It is time to get Australia back on track with practical action for Indigenous Australians that deals with evidence and not emotion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too would like to make a contribution. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri elders and knowledge holders who've paved the way for those present here today, those following proudly in their footsteps and those yet to come, as owners and custodians of country. I acknowledge Whadjuk country as my home base where I live, care for and maintain continuing reciprocal relationships with all who share this land.</para>
<para>Today the government released its list of the 2025 investments to address the Closing the Gap targets. On the surface these measures look very promising: cheaper groceries in remote stores, business support for Indigenous entrepreneurs and home loan assistance. These are welcome, but they're nowhere near enough. We know that only five of the 19 targets are on track. While the government tinkers at the edges, the reality for First Nations communities remains dire. Housing is in crisis. Incarceration rates remain shamefully high. Food insecurity is a daily struggle. Children are being taken from their families at record rates. This is not closing the gap. This is barely opening the door.</para>
<para>Let's break it down. The Prime Minister has promised to 'cap the prices of 30 essential products in 76 remote stores', ensuring people pay city prices for basics like milk, bread and apples. It sounds great, right? But let's ask the real question: why are food prices so high in the first place? It's because remote communities lack infrastructure. I've travelled around WA, and I know that freight costs are astronomical. There is no reliable investment in local food production or supply chains. First Nations communities have been calling for community owned food co-ops, better transport subsidies and an end to the price gouging by monopolistic retailers. Yet the government offers only a short-term price cap. What happens when the cap expires?</para>
<para>The Prime Minister boasts about boosting Indigenous homeownership, but what about the tens of thousands of First Nations people living in overcrowded, unsafe and dilapidated public housing? What about the communities with no running water, electricity or functioning sewerage systems? This government has promised new laundries in 12 remote communities, as if access to a washing machine is the solution to third-world conditions in our own country. People don't need a tokenistic upgrade to a laundry facility. They need proper housing, clean water and liveable infrastructure. Where is the massive job-creating investment in First Nations led housing programs? Where is the commitment to long-term community controlled housing solutions? This is a government that will spend billions of dollars on nuclear submarines, but when it comes to First Nations housing all we get is a handful of washing machines.</para>
<para>Yes, the government is strengthening the Indigenous Procurement Policy and offering business coaching. But let's be clear, coaching does not replace secure, well-paid jobs. We know that the Community Development Program, CDP, is the discriminatory work-for-the-dole scheme that has punished First Nations jobseekers with fines, welfare suspensions and exploitation. This policy has failed and it has been proven that it has failed, yet it remains untouched. Issuing empty statements and promises will not replace CDP with real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions. Where is the investment in First Nations led industries, land and water management and renewable energy projects that create sustainable employment? Instead of relying on handouts from government contracts, First Nations communities deserve real economic self-determination.</para>
<para>This government is offering scholarships for First Nations psychology students and funding for domestic violence services. These are important steps, but they don't touch the biggest threats to First Nations people's health and safety. Where is the plan to raise the age of criminal responsibility? Right now, children as young as 10 years old—and disproportionately First Nations kids—are being locked up. The government knows that this is a human rights violation. It knows that it contradicts the Closing the Gap targets, yet it refuses to act.</para>
<para>Where is the commitment to First Nations led health organisations—to expanding Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and to tackling rheumatic heart disease, diabetes and chronic illness in Indigenous communities? The government is extending the Stolen Generations redress scheme, which is long overdue, but where is the commitment to Treaty? Where is the national truth-telling process?</para>
<para>The Uluru statement called for a Voice, treaty and truth. This government abandoned the Voice, and now it is silent on the rest. We have had decades of reports, inquiries and promises, and still, First Nations people die younger, are locked up at higher rates and live in poorer conditions than almost any other group in this country.</para>
<para>In my home state of Western Australia, leaders from First Nations communities have told me about the challenges affecting their communities. One of the key issues is health, as I mentioned earlier. At Edith Cowan University, research found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… conditions like respiratory diseases (including asthma), heart and circulatory diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney diseases and some cancers are more common among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than among non-Indigenous people in WA—</para></quote>
<para>specifically.</para>
<para>At the last census, WA had the second highest per capita rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander homelessness, at 381 per 10,000 people. The employment rate of Indigenous Australians in regional areas was dire—as low as 32 per cent in very remote areas, compared to the 58 per cent that we see in major cities. The measures announced by the Prime Minister tinker around the edges but fail to address the structural causes of Indigenous disadvantage.</para>
<para>This Senate should not be patting itself on the back for the short-term fixes that are before us. It should be demanding systemic, transformative change because justice delayed is justice denied, and First Nations people have been waiting for far too long. I urge this government to do better.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>91</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7297" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the earlier part of the committee stage of this bill, I was using the opportunity to put on the record the themes which not just explain but justify the coalition's opposition to this legislation. We touched briefly on an explanation of the burdensome bureaucracy and inefficient spending. We talked briefly about the risks of permanent corporate welfare. I was also talking to the theme of the unclear and politicised community benefit principles, and it's this third point which I think is the most alarming. As I said in my second reading contribution, I hope that industry, in their enthusiasm for this initiative, pay very, very close attention to the real-time and practical application of these principles.</para>
<para>Fourthly, and importantly, we believe that this is selective tax relief and market distortion. The bill does not apply equally to all businesses. We argue that only select industries with strong political lobbies will benefit. It also excludes major sectors such as carbon capture, gas, blue hydrogen, uranium and nuclear power, despite their strategic importance to Australia's energy future and, importantly, it is absent of any of those coalition business initiatives that we have talked about. Our opposition also goes to the lack of transparency and economic viability. We argue that key decisions will bypass the National Interest Framework, raising concerns about lack of accountability in major funding allocations. We argue that it is the Treasurer and bureaucrats, not industry experts, who decide which sectors receive funding, leading to political interference.</para>
<para>Finally, the Productivity Commission and the Treasury themselves have not endorsed major elements of the plan, warning that it could divert resources from more productive sectors. On that point, I think it is very important that I share with the chamber this quote from the Productivity Commissioner herself. Danielle Wood has warned that this policy risks 'creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies', not an industry sector able to stand on its own two feet.</para>
<para>To re-emphasise what I think is the most critical point in this, I say that, in wanting to support industry, the government has chosen the wrong path. This is demonstrated by comments made by the Minerals Council of Australia. As early as April last year it talked about Australia's investment pipeline and the significant tens of billions of dollars that is being lost to Australia every year. In its statement at that time, the Minerals Council of Australia highlighted this fact:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The problem facing the industry is not a shortage of potential projects, but rather the challenging investment environment that has been created by poor policy settings.</para></quote>
<para>It also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's mining sector is grappling with unprecedented cost pressures, burdened by restrictive policies that are impacting the global competitiveness of our current operations, and thwarting investment in new projects.</para></quote>
<para>It went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the biggest bang for taxpayers' bucks is simply creating an operating environment that is conducive to growth, and attractive for investment; by lowering the cost of doing business in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>That's the key point. The key measure of success for this legislation will be: does it lower the cost of doing business in Australia? We would argue that it leaves all of the most significant cost pressures—a rigid industrial relations system, duplicative environmental processes and poor access to land—unchanged. We think that this particular initiative is not only poorly designed but will not have the anticipated benefit.</para>
<para>I might just use this opportunity to formally move the amendment that is standing in my name, which is on sheet 3275, and to speak to that amendment. I seek leave to move the coalition's amendment.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 14 (after line 33), after subsection 421-45(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) However, the HPTO community benefit rules must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) specify the condition that, for a company to be entitled to a *hydrogen production tax offset for the income year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an enterprise agreement (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>) must apply to both the employees of the company and an employee organisation (within the meaning of that Act); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the company must establish and maintain a reconciliation action plan; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the company must conduct consultation relating to the environmental impact of the company's activities, unless that consultation is already required by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the company must conduct consultation with First Nations communities, unless that consultation is already required by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify that the amount of a company's hydrogen production tax offset for the income year will be reduced in the circumstance where the company does not comply with any of the conditions mentioned in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iv).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 61 (after line 13), after subsection 419-145(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) However, the CMPTI community benefit rules must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) specify the condition that, for a company to be entitled to a *CMPTI production tax offset for the income year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an enterprise agreement (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>) must apply to both the employees of the company and an employee organisation (within the meaning of that Act); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the company must establish and maintain a reconciliation action plan; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the company must conduct consultation relating to the environmental impact of the company's activities, unless that consultation is already required by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the company must conduct consultation with First Nations communities, unless that consultation is already required by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify that the amount of a company's CMPTI production tax offset for the income year will be reduced in the circumstance where the company does not comply with any of the conditions mentioned in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iv).</para></quote>
<para>The amendment seeks to establish much-needed clarity and structure around the community benefit principles and to mitigate what we argue are very obvious risks—risks that were identified at the Senate committee stage, risks that we believe have not yet been mitigated. This amendment amends the bill to ensure that the community benefit rules made in relation to both the hydrogen production tax offset and the critical minerals tax offset cannot specify (1) that an enterprise agreement within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 must apply to both the employees of the company seeking a tax credit and an employee organisation; (2) that a company seeking a tax credit must establish a reconciliation action plan; (3) that the company must consult on the environmental impact of its activities, unless that consultation is already required by Commonwealth, state or territory law; and (4) that the company must consult with First Nations communities, unless, again, that consultation is already required by Commonwealth, state or territory law. To avoid any doubt, the amendment also provides that a company's share of the production tax credits cannot be reduced where these conditions are not complied with.</para>
<para>This amendment is aimed at mitigating against key concerns raised by the coalition in the second reading debate and coalition senators' dissenting report following the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. As the bill stands, the community benefit principles are unclear, leaving companies to comply with vaguely defined criteria if they are to receive a tax credit. This uncertainty threatens confidence in this sector of the Australian economy, which is absolutely contrary to what the government says this bill does.</para>
<para>The community benefit principles are also liable to politicisation. The Treasurer has sole discretion over these community benefit principle requirements to be determined by regulation. There are genuine concerns that businesses may be forced into union agreements to qualify—that, in short, no union agreement means no tax credit. On that particular point, I invite the minister to clearly, categorically state that a company without a union agreement will not be penalised and will be in full receipt of this tax benefit. Further, businesses seeking to access these credits cannot be held hostage to the same principles that are embedded in Labor's entire Future Made in Australia plan.</para>
<para>Finally, the community benefit principles risk unnecessary and harmful duplication on environmental and Indigenous regulations and consultation. Although this applies nationally, it was raised as a particular concern for Western Australia, given the already significant regulatory standards in place in my home state, with the result being unwelcome delays and decreased competitiveness. Failure to comply with the community benefit principles will lead to a penalty in the form of a reduction in the tax credits available. To assist the minister, I think this goes to point 151 in the government's documents, but we'll come to that further in the committee stage.</para>
<para>At this point I think it's worth reiterating stakeholder views, primarily those of the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Minerals Council of Australia made it very clear and noted concerns over duplication and regulatory burden in its inquiry submission. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian minerals industry produces critical minerals utilising world leading sustainability standards, including best practice environmental management and community engagement.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>This view was echoed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which submitted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>The risk here is abundantly clear, and the government and officials know the risk. It is that, in enforcing the community benefit principles, they are, in fact, obviously, creating and adding layers of bureaucracy in areas where regulation may currently already exist. We would argue that, rather than duplicating those regulatory requirements, those existing requirements should be repealed, and it is worth noting that, in asking the Treasury: 'Will the stock of regulation that sits around mining and resources projects be reduced as a result of the introduction of the community benefits principles?' no-one could give me a clear answer, and when an official can't give you a clear answer, the answer to that question is a no.</para>
<para>I also look forward to raising some questions that have been provided to me by the shadow minister for resources, Senator McDonald, if time allows. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The principal purposes of the bill are to lower costs for businesses, to make Australia a more competitive destination for particular categories of Australian manufacturing—this will be underpinned by the national interest principles that were in the first tranche of legislation—and to rebuild manufacturing in Australia. Senator Smith said that this does nothing to lower the cost of manufacturing. It precisely lowers that cost, because, for eligible businesses, it provides a tax credit that specifically lowers their costs. As you indicated in your contribution, there is a very strong level of enthusiasm from industry.</para>
<para>In relation to the community benefit principles, the principal purposes of the legislation are to encourage investment in manufacturing in Australia, to reward successful businesses who manufacture here with a production tax credit and to incentivise manufacturing production here in Australia. From the government's perspective and view, I would have thought it was uncontroversial that Australians would expect that, where support is provided, some community benefit would flow from that. The act sets out six community benefit principles: boosting investment in local communities; boosting investment in supply chains and skills; broadly, providing good jobs. They are uncontroversial matters. What the bill sets out is that, led by the Treasurer, there will be a process of consulting with industry, and with communities more broadly, to set the rules, which will be set in a disallowable instrument that will come before the Senate in due course.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Has the government quantified the exact financial extent to which this bill will lower the costs for eligible projects, in particular in Western Australia, but also across other states and jurisdictions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. It's in the bill. The number is $2 per kilogram of hydrogen that is produced and, for critical minerals production tax credits, 10 per cent of the cost of their operations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Perhaps I should have put the question this way: has the government been able to quantify the economic benefit to be achieved through this tax credit, given the near unanimous views of stakeholders that the tax credit, in itself, is not the transformative element that is required to support industry; instead, that the transformative element is reform to rigid industrial relations laws, duplicative environmental processes and poor land access arrangements?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The benefit of the production tax credits and, I have to say, the incentives offered more broadly in the other Future Made in Australia package measures is that firms that otherwise would invest in production processes in other countries will invest in the Pilbara, in the Kwinana strip, in Central Queensland and in our great industrial regions, like the Hunter Valley, Portland and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, and Northern Tasmania. These are firms that otherwise would have invested in the Middle East, China or other locations that are competing hard for foreign investment in manufacturing capability. That is the first set of advantages: very substantial investments in Australian manufacturing capability that will transform Australia's economy in the future.</para>
<para>Secondly it of course doesn't just have an economic rationale, while that is very important. It's seeking to secure Australia's future comparative advantage, which I know is a view that's not shared by the coalition. So, yes, it's about securing Australia's future comparative advantage but it's also about making sure that Australia is economically resilient and that we're diversifying the products and services that Australia exports to the world in our national interest. So there are a broad range of benefits and an overwhelming national interest imperative. I'm frankly shocked that, when questions go to our security and our future economic resilience, Mr Dutton and Mr Taylor's message to the people of Western Australia and to manufacturing workers and manufacturing firms is: we're not with you.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is backing manufacturing unashamedly, and you and your colleagues are basically sending the message 'don't bother knocking' to international investment and talking Australia's capability down. I'd hate for international investors to be listening to what Senator Smith has got to say about the capabilities of Australians and the competitiveness of Australian industry, but it's a common feature of the coalition talking points—talking Australia down and trying to push investment offshore.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it's just worth noting that the party that I represent, the Liberal Party, is in fact the party of development in Western Australia. It's the home of people like Sir Ross McLarty, Sir David Brand, Sir Charles Court, later Richard Court and Colin Barnett. So the Liberal Party's legacy in terms of pro-industrial development and indeed downstream processing in Western Australia is that it's owned by us; it's not owned by the Labor Party. But, just to go to your point, Senator Ayres—in your opening remarks you again talked about Australia's security interest. You talked about the rapidly changing geopolitics in some of your earlier remarks. If the international environment and security considerations are so paramount, why is it that this tax credit is not available for two years?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I suppose, with the greatest respect, that what the question really reveals is a lack of understanding about the investment timelines of these kinds of projects. They're not small projects; they're very substantial manufacturing projects. Treasury estimates suggest that Australia will produce an additional amount of more than 2½ million tonnes of refined critical minerals output over the life of the policy. By 2039-40, the critical minerals production tax incentive will have supported estimated production of around 10 million tonnes of refined critical minerals. This is a substantial reindustrialisation of our economy. It is value-adding.</para>
<para>Our mining sector is very important for the Australian economy. It's very important for our industrial capability. Our mining capability is leading edge. Often people position our interest in future manufacturing and mining as if they are somehow mutually exclusive. The truth is it is absolutely in Australia's interest that we add more value here and capture more of the value here in Australia to build a stronger Australian economy, a stronger industrial capability, and that's what the critical minerals production tax incentive will deliver. Of course, there will be substantial economic benefit flows in supply chain terms and other terms from that kind of investment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What is the timeframe for setting the rules, and when will the rules be provided to the parliament by way of the delegated legislation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, these projects have very substantial lead times. The Treasurer will no doubt provide the disallowable instrument that I referred to, as soon as he can, to a future parliament, but we won't be rushing the process of engaging with industry. We'll be making sure not only that we've got the design right but that industry supports it and that it's a platform for the kind of investment that this bill will facilitate.</para>
<para>The only thing that will stop that process happening is the election of a Dutton government. Mr Dutton and the crowd over there have committed to tearing this legislation down, ripping this investment up. They are the greatest sovereign risk that Australian manufacturing faces. They're the show that pushed the car industry offshore. They had that character Mr Constance—who's now, as I understand it, the Liberal candidate for Gilmore—whose sole achievement in public office as a minister in New South Wales was to send thousands of good Australian jobs, in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra in particular, offshore. He is a stone-cold job killer who wants to be in the parliament again, with that kind of legacy. Australian manufacturing will be threatened only if the election returns a Dutton government, which would tear down this very important package for our national future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In its prebudget submission, at page 24, the Minerals Council of Australia specifically talks about the application and making of rules around the community benefits principles. It states that its proposed actions, or reforms, are first to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Remove the duplication of existing and separate legislative frameworks of industrial relations and taxation from the Community Benefits Principles—</para></quote>
<para>and second to—</para>
<quote><para class="block">Review the intent of the Community Benefits Principles to ensure proponents and host communities are encouraged to develop sustainable localised approaches based on the needs of the host community.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">However, the government's Community Benefits Principles in the FMIA (PTCOM) Bill cannot be used as an excuse to embed greater policy reach; and they should not create more costs to project proponents through regulatory duplication.</para></quote>
<para>It then goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Community Benefit Principles would place an unnecessary burden on project proponents by duplicating existing legislative measures. For example, managing tax affairs and mandatory pay and conditions already have existing legislative frameworks and their inclusion in the principles will create inefficiencies and duplicative costs.</para></quote>
<para>How has the government mitigated those risks identified in the Minerals Council of Australia's prebudget submission dated 31 January this year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's why we've got an adult government that looks forward to engaging with the Minerals Council of Australia about the broader questions of design in terms of the community-benefit principles. We don't wander around the country looking for an argument with industry organisations, trade unions, local government, or states and territories; we think that pulling people together, not having a glass jaw about criticism and not having to agree on every issue are the way to get the best outcome for Australia and Australians. I'm very pleased that you've quoted from the Minerals Council. In the Senate inquiry, they were very deliberate about what they said. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The MCA supports the critical minerals production tax incentive because it is a positive step towards attracting investment in the critical minerals industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We support the bill because the bill is going to help to reduce the cost of production for people that develop facilities downstream.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… we've got member companies that have existing downstream facilities—they've already invested—so they will benefit from the critical minerals production tax incentive when it commences on 1 July 2027. We've got a lot of other members that are mining the mineral-obviously, that's not eligible for the critical minerals production tax incentive—and they're in consideration of whether they will go to downstream processing as well. This will assist with the decision-making.</para></quote>
<para>We've got the Australian mining industry out there making it absolutely clear that they support the bill. We've got manufacturers making it absolutely clear that this will make the difference. This will make the difference for Western Australia in particular. It is a source of embarrassment that your side of politics persists in talking Australia down—this carping negativity, this nastiness about Australian manufacturing on the east coast and dead quiet in Perth. Mr Dutton and Mr Taylor are silent as the tomb in the Pilbara but big on the yabber on this when they're over here on the east coast, hoping that people in Western Australia, Central Queensland and the Hunter don't hear them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I was on the Senate committee inquiry, so your revelation about the attitude of the Minerals Council of Australia is not news to me, but I think what you and the government choose to ignore is what I would characterise as at the heavily caveated points made by organisations like the Minerals Council of Australia, AMEC and others. What they are saying is that the transformative effect, if it is to be achieved, is not through the tax credit but by tackling these other imposts which escalate project costs. That is what they are saying. What we are saying is: not only are those project costs undeniably increased as a result of rigidity in the industrial relations market, duplicative environmental processes and poor access to land; in addition to all of those additional project costs, which the government is not interested in tackling, the government is now adding a layer in the form of the community-benefit principles. In evidence to the committee, Treasury officials would not concede or acknowledge that there would be any reduction in any other regulation that is already covered or that is proposed to be covered in the community-benefit principles. So I totally understand how industry is excited about a tax credit. Why wouldn't they be? That is the normal style of operating a business when the government puts a lucrative financial offer in front of it. What we're saying is that the approach is wrong because it doesn't tackle—it doesn't even seek to go near tackling—the key contributing factors to high project costs for manufacturing and minerals processing in this country.</para>
<para>More than that, not only do you not want to tackle those fundamental issues; you're now adding on top of that the community benefit principle rules, which eligible companies must get through before they get to the tax credit. The explanatory memorandum makes it very clear at 1.51 that, if an organisation should fail or not meet the community benefit principles, or if a company does not comply with specified requirements in the rules, the offset that a company is entitled to for an income year is reduced by a proportion. Not only are you adding to the regulatory burden, which everyone says is too great and driving up project costs; you're then adding a set of new regulations in the form of the community benefit principles, and, if an organisation doesn't comply with them, they get penalised. That is what we're objecting to.</para>
<para>This is not transformative. This does not go to the heart of the issue of high project costs faced by Australian industry. That's the key point here. To be fair, in all of the comments from the Minerals Council of Australia, AMEC and others, support for the tax credit—we don't dispute it is clear—is heavily caveated by their view and proposition that more needs to be done on other issues. In this bill, recognition of that is completely absent. Indeed, in its broader policy agenda, much of what the government seeks to do exacerbates the problem; it doesn't improve it. Minister, if a company does not have a union agreement that satisfies the Treasurer, will their tax credit be reduced, or can it be reduced?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think you've misrepresented the position of industry. What industry is saying is, 'Pass the bill.' Your team had a decade in office to tackle all the problems you say are there. And what happened? Wages in these sectors fell. Jobs were forced offshore. There was disinvestment in Australian manufacturing and, indeed, in the energy sector. The community benefit principles, as set out in the act, will be worked through by the Treasurer over the fullness of time in a way that meets the needs of industry in what I would have thought was an uncontroversial proposition and supports investment in the supply chain in local communities and in good blue-collar jobs. That's anathema, I know, to the Liberals and Nationals. That's what the community benefit principles will deliver. They will be there in a disallowable instrument for the Senate to scrutinise.</para>
<para>I have to say—this sudden concern about industry support and assistance comes from a mob who proposed to spend $600 billion in a publicly funded nuclear reactor plan which would deliver four per cent of Australia's electricity needs. Honestly, as I'm sure my good friend Senator Linda White would have said if she had heard this, how much can a koala bear? Honestly, the hypocrisy of that proposition and the gainsaying of the national interest—you should front up in Western Australia and say the same thing. I look forward to the Senate's support.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time for the consideration of this bill has expired.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Committee of the Whole amendments on sheet 3275, moved by Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [20:04]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>8</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheet 3262, circulated earlier, be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens </inline> <inline font-style="italic">circulated </inline> <inline font-style="italic">amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 37 (line 32), before "Each of", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 39 (after line 19), at the end of section 419-15, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The regulations must not prescribe uranium for the purposes of paragraph (1)(zf).</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [20:11]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>6</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that Senator Van's amendments on sheet 3256, circulated earlier, be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator Van's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 24 (line 27), after "section 421-40" insert "and 421A-25".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Page 67 (after line 3), after Schedule 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2A — Low carbon liquid fuel production tax incentive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Main amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Section 13-1 (after table item headed "losses")</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Section 67-23 (after table item 27)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Before Division 420</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 421A — Low carbon liquid fuel production tax incentive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Table of Subdivisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Guide to Division 421A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-A Tax offset for low carbon liquid fuel produced in Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-B Certification of production profiles</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-C Other matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-1 What this Division is about</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A company may be entitled to a refundable tax offset in respect of low carbon liquid fuel produced in Australia between the start of 1 July 2027 and the end of 30 June 2040.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One requirement for entitlement to the offset is that the company must have created a certificate (called a PGO certificate) that relates to the low carbon liquid fuel. The certificate is created under the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Act 2024</inline> and it must be registered under that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The following types of low carbon liquid fuel are eligible:</para></quote>
<list>renewable diesel;</list>
<list>sustainable aviation fuel;</list>
<list>other kinds of low carbon liquid fuel.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The amount of the tax offset is $1 per whole litre of low carbon liquid fuel for renewable diesel and $2 per whole litre of low carbon liquid fuel for other kinds of low carbon liquid fuel (though this may be reduced in certain circumstances).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision 421A-A — Tax offset for low carbon liquid fuel produced in Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Table of sections</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-5 Company entitled to refundable tax offset for low carbon liquid fuel produced in Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-10 Amount of low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-15 Initial reconciliation period for registered PGO certificate</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-20 Correction notice for registered PGO certificate</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-25 LCLFPTO community benefit rules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-5 Company entitled to refundable tax offset for low carbon liquid fuel produced in Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A company is entitled to a *tax offset under this section (the <inline font-style="italic">low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset</inline>) for an income year in respect of a litre of low carbon liquid fuel produced in Australia during the income year if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the income year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) starts on or after 1 July 2027; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ends before 1 July 2040; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is a *registered PGO certificate that relates to the litre of low carbon liquid fuel and which states:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) that the litre of low carbon liquid fuel was produced at a particular facility that is specified in a *production profile, in accordance with a particular *production pathway that is specified in that production profile; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) that the greenhouse gases emitted in relation to the litre of low carbon liquid fuel calculated after undertaking an emissions lifecycle analysis is less than or equal to the amount determined by the Clean Energy Regulator under subsection (4); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at the time when the litre of low carbon liquid fuel was produced, the production profile mentioned in subparagraph (b)(i) of this subsection was certified in relation to the facility and the production pathway under Subdivision 421A-B; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the *initial reconciliation period for the PGO certificate has ended (see section 421A-15); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) no *correction notice for the PGO certificate is in force (see section 421A-20); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the company satisfies the requirements in subsection (2) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (c), when a production profile is certified, or a certification of a production profile is revoked, under Subdivision 421A-B, the certification or revocation may have retrospective effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: The low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset is a refundable tax offset (see section 67-23).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The company satisfies the requirements in this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the company is a *constitutional corporation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the company was the person who created the *registered PGO certificate under the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Act 2024</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the company created the PGO certificate in the course of carrying on an enterprise in the indirect tax zone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) at each time when the company carries on that enterprise in the indirect tax zone during the income year, either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the company is an Australian resident and has an *ABN; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the company is a foreign resident and has a *permanent establishment in Australia and an ABN; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the company is not an *exempt entity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) if *LCLFPTO community benefit rules under paragraph 421A-15(1)(a) of this Act apply to the company for the income year—the company meets the conditions specified in those rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In subsection (2), <inline font-style="italic">carried on in the indirect tax zone</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">indirect tax zone</inline> have the same meaning as in the *GST Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Clean Energy Regulator must, by legislative instrument, determine an amount for the purposes of subparagraph 421A-5(1)(b)(ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-10 Amount of low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a company is entitled to the *low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset for an income year in respect of one or more litres of low carbon liquid fuel, the amount of the offset for the income year is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for low carbon liquid fuel that is renewable diesel—$1 in respect of each whole litre of low carbon liquid fuel; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for sustainable aviation fuel—$2 in respect of each whole litre of low carbon liquid fuel; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) for other kinds of low carbon liquid fuel—$2 in respect of each whole litre of low carbon liquid fuel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) LCLFPTO community benefit rules under paragraph 421A-15(1)(b) apply to the company for the income year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) circumstances specified in those rules exist for the company;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then the amount of the *low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset is reduced by the proportion specified in those rules for those circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-15 Initial reconciliation period for registered PGO certificate</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The <inline font-style="italic">initial reconciliation period</inline> for a *registered PGO certificate is the period that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) starts immediately after the end of the financial year (the <inline font-style="italic">registration year</inline> for the certificate) in which the certificate was registered; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ends at the time specified by subsection (2) or (3), whichever is later.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person is given a statement under section 60 of the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Act) 2024</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the statement relates to PGO certificate activity (within the meaning of that Act) in connection with the *registered PGO certificate in the registration year for the certificate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then the time specified by this subsection is the latest time by which such person is required, under section 61 of that Act, to give the Clean Energy Regulator a declaration in relation to such a statement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If more than one person is given such a statement, different people may be required to give the Clean Energy Regulator declarations by different times. The time specified by this subsection is the latest of those times.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person is given a statement under section 60 of the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Act) 2024 </inline>(the <inline font-style="italic">Guarantee of Origin Act</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the statement relates to PGO certificate activity (within the meaning of the Guarantee of Origin Act) in connection with the *registered PGO certificate in the registration year for the certificate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) after the end of the registration year, and at or before the time specified by subsection (2) of this section, the person gives the Clean Energy Regulator declarations and information of the kind mentioned in paragraph 61(b) of the Guarantee of Origin Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the declarations include a declaration that particular information stated in the registered PGO certificate is not accurate or complete;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then the time specified by this subsection is the latest time at which the Clean Energy Regulator may decide, under section 62 of the Guarantee of the Origin Act, to correct the registered PGO certificate in response to declarations and information given by a person as mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If more than one person gives the Clean Energy Regulator declarations and information as mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection then, for each such set of declarations and information, there will be a last time at which the Clean Energy Regulator may correct the PGO certificate in response to that set of declarations and information. The time specified by this subsection is the latest of those last times.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-20 Correction notice for registered PGO certificate</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Clean Energy Regulator must issue a notice (a <inline font-style="italic">correction notice</inline>) for a *registered PGO certificate that relates to a litre of low carbon liquid fuel if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the *initial reconciliation period for the PGO certificate has ended;and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the PGO certificate states that the greenhouse gases emitted in relation to the litre of low carbon liquid fuel calculated after undertaking an emissions lifecycle analysis is less than or equal to the amount determined by the Clean Energy Regulator under subsection 421A-5(4); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Clean Energy Regulator is satisfied that the condition in paragraph (b) is not met.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The *correction notice must state that the Clean Energy Regulator is satisfied that the condition in paragraph (1) is not met.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The *correction notice is in force until it is revoked under subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Revocation of correction notice</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Clean Energy Regulator may, in writing, revoke a *correction notice for a *registered PGO certificate that relates to a litre of low carbon liquid fuel if the Clean Energy Regulator is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the *initial reconciliation period for the PGO certificate had not ended at the time when the correction notice was issued, and that period has still not ended; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the PGO certificate does not state that the condition in paragraph (1)(b) is met in relation to the litre of low carbon liquid fuel; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the condition in paragraph (1)(b) is met in relation to the litre of low carbon liquid fuel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Copies of correction notice and revocation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the Clean Energy Regulator:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) issues a *correction notice under subsection (1) for a *registered PGO certificate that relates to a litre of low carbon liquid fuel; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) revokes such a correction notice under subsection (4);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then the Clean Energy Regulator must give copies of the correction notice or the revocation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) each person who is, at the time the correction notice is issued or revoked, the *holder of a *registered production profile that specifies the facility at which the low carbon liquid fuel was produced;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other matters</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsection (1) and paragraph (4)(c) do not impose a duty on the Clean Energy Regulator to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) seek information about whether the conditions in subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) and (ii) are met; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consider whether the Clean Energy Regulator is satisfied that those conditions are, or are not, met.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The issuing of a *correction notice for a *registered PGO certificate does not have any effect on the content or status of the PGO certificate under the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Act) 2024</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-25 LCLFPTO community benefit rules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make the following rules (the <inline font-style="italic">LCLFPTO</inline><inline font-style="italic">community benefit rules</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) rules that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) apply to companies within a specified class for an income year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specify conditions that must be met for such a company to be entitled to a *low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset for the income year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) rules that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) apply to companies within a specified class for an income year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specify circumstances that, if they exist for such a company, will reduce the amount of the company's low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset for the income year by a specified proportion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For subparagraph (b)(ii), different proportions may be specified for different circumstances (see subsection 33(3A) of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In making the *LCLFPTO community benefit rules, the Minister must have regard to the community benefit principles (within the meaning of subsection 10(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia Act 2024</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) When having regard to those principles, the Minister is to treat the *low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset as if it were Future Made in Australia support (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia Act 2024</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This section does not apply if the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia Act 2024</inline> has not commenced.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision 421A-B — Certification of production profiles</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Table of sections</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-30 Application for certification</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-35 Certification of production profile</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-40 Revocation of certification</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-45 Requests for further information etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-30 Application for certification</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The *holder of a *registered production profile for low carbon liquid fuel may apply to the Clean Energy Regulator for the profile to be certified:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in relation to a particular facility, and a particular *production pathway, specified in the profile; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) from a particular time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The time specified in the application, as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b), must not be later than the start of the day when the application is made (and may be any time before the start of that day).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The application is taken not to be made unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is in a form (if any) prescribed under subsection (5); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it is accompanied by any information, documents or other materials prescribed under subsection (5); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection—it is accompanied by an eligibility statement for the *registered production profile that relates to the facility and the *production pathway.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), an <inline font-style="italic">eligibility statement </inline>for the *registered production profile that relates to the facility and the *production pathway is a statement by the *holder of the profile to the effect that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, if the profile is certified, a company will be entitled to the *low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset for an income year in respect of one or more litres of low carbon liquid fuel produced at the facility in accordance with the production pathway.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Clean Energy Regulator may, by notifiable instrument, do any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) prescribe a form for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) prescribe information, documents or other materials for the purposes of paragraph (3)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-35 Certification of production profile</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Certification</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Clean Energy Regulator receives an application for a *registered production profile to be certified in relation to a facility and a *production pathway from a particular time (the <inline font-style="italic">start time</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Clean Energy Regulator is satisfied that a condition prescribed under subsection (3) (if any) was met at the start time, and has continued to be met since that time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Clean Energy Regulator must, in writing, certify the registered production profile in relation to the facility and the production pathway; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the instrument of certification must state that the certification has effect from the start time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Exception</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">failure to provide information etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, the Clean Energy Regulator may refuse to certify a *registered production profile under subsection (1) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Clean Energy Regulator has given the *holder of the production profile a notice under section 421A-45(1) that relates to the application for certification, requesting that the holder give the Clean Energy Regulator specified information, documents or other materials before a specified time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the holder of the production profile does not comply with the request before the specified time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conditions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the Clean Energy Regulator may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) by legislative instrument, determine a condition for the certification of a *registered production profile in a specified class of *registered production profiles; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by written notice given to the *holder of a *registered production profile, determine a condition for the certification of the *registered production profile.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Notification of certification</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Clean Energy Regulator certifies a *registered production profile with effect from a particular time (the <inline font-style="italic">start time</inline>), the Clean Energy Regulator must notify the following of the certification:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person who applied under section 421A-30 for the certification;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person who was the *holder of the production profile at the start time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) each person who was a holder of the production profile at any time between:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the start time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the time when the instrument of certification is made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">No duty to seek information about eligibility statement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) This section does not impose a duty on the Clean Energy Regulator to seek information relevant to assessing whether the eligibility statement for the *registered production profile is incorrect that goes beyond:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) information possessed by the Clean Energy Regulator at the time when the Clean Energy Regulator received the application for certification of the registered production profile; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) information that was contained in, or that accompanied, that application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-40 Revocation of certification</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if a *production profile has been certified in relation to a facility and a *production pathway with effect from a particular time (the <inline font-style="italic">original start time</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Revocation</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">substantive grounds</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Clean Energy Regulator may, in writing, revoke the certification if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on or after the original start time, the registration of the *production profile is suspended, cancelled or surrendered under the <inline font-style="italic">Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Act 2024</inline>; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there is a time, on or after the original start time, when a condition prescribed under subsection 421A-40(3) of this Act (if any) is not met in relation to the facility and the *production pathway; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at the time when the instrument of revocation is made, the Clean Energy Regulator reasonably believes that the eligibility statement for the production profile that accompanied the application for certification(see paragraph 421-60(3)(c)) is incorrect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A revocation under subsection (2) has effect from the time (the <inline font-style="italic">new end time </inline>for the certification) specified in the instrument of revocation, which must be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the certification is revoked under paragraph (2)(a)—the time when the registration of the *production profile was suspended, cancelled or surrendered; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the certification is revoked under paragraph (2)(b)—the earliest time, on or after the original start time, when the condition in subsection 421A-35(3) is not met in relation to the facility and the *production pathway; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the certification is revoked under paragraph (2)(c)—no earlier than the time when the instrument of revocation is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If the certification is revoked under paragraph (2)(a) or (b), the revocation will have retrospective effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Revocation</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">failure to provide information etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In addition, the Clean Energy Regulator may, in writing, revoke the certification if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Clean Energy Regulator has given the *holder of the *production profile a notice under subsection 421A-45(2) that relates to the certification, requesting that the holder give the Clean Energy Regulator specified information, documents or other materials before a specified time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the holder of the production profile does not comply with the request before the specified time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A revocation under subsection (4) has effect from the time (also the <inline font-style="italic">new end time </inline>for the certification) specified in the instrument of revocation, which must not be before the time specified in the notice mentioned in paragraph (4)(a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A revocation under subsection (4) may be given retrospective effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Consequences of revocation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If the new end time for the certification is the same as the original start time, then the certification is taken never to have been in effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the new end time for the certification is later than the original start time, then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the certification is taken to have been in effect for the period that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) begins at the original start time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ends at the new end time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the certification is taken not to have been in effect after the new end time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The operation of subsections (6) and (7) may affect whether paragraph 421A-5(1)(c) (which sets out a condition for entitlement to the low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset) is satisfied in a particular case.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) If a certification of a *production profile that relates to a particular facility and *production pathway is revoked, that does not prevent:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an application later being made for a new certification of the production profile, including a certification that relates to the same facility and production pathway; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Clean Energy Regulator subsequently issuing such a new certification of the production profile.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Notification of revocation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) If the Clean Energy Regulator revokes a certification of a *production profile, the Clean Energy Regulator must notify the following of the revocation:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person who was the *holder of the production profile at the original start time for the certification;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) each person who was a holder of the production profile at any time between:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the original start time for the certification; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the time when the instrument of revocation is made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-45 Requests for further information etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Request before certification</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Clean Energy Regulator has received an application for a *registered production profile to be certified, the Clean Energy Regulator may, before making a decision about whether to certify the profile under section 421A-35, give a written notice to the *holder of the profile:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) requesting that the holder give the Clean Energy Regulator, before a specified time, specified information, documents or other materials that are relevant to making that decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) stating that, if the request is not complied with before the specified time, the Clean Energy Regulator may refuse to certify the production profile.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Request after certification</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the Clean Energy Regulator has certified a *registered production profile under section 421A-35, the Clean Energy Regulator may give a written notice to the *holder of the profile:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) requesting that the holder give the Clean Energy Regulator, before a specified time, specified information, documents or other materials that are relevant to deciding whether to revoke the certification under subsection 421A-40(2) (revocation on substantive grounds); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) stating that, if the request is not complied with before the specified time, the Clean Energy Regulator may revoke the certification.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision 421A-C — Other matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Table of sections</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-50 Review of decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-55 Information sharing</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-60 Period for amending assessments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-50 Review of decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Applications may be made to the *ART for review of the following decisions made by the Clean Energy Regulator:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a decision under subsection 421A-35(1) to issue a *correction notice;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a decision under subsection 421A-35(4) to revoke a correction notice;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a decision under section 421A-20 to certify a *registered production profile;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a decision under section 421A-20 not to certify a registered production profile (after an application to certify the profile has been made under section 421A-30);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a decision under section 421A-40 to revoke a certification of a *production profile.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-55 Information sharing</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Each of the following regulators:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Clean Energy Regulator;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">may request the other regulator to provide them with information held by the other regulator that is reasonably necessary or convenient for the requesting regulator's administration of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The other regulator must comply with the request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The request could be an ad hoc or standing request, and the information requested could be general or specific.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">421A-60 Period for amending assessments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 170 of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1936</inline> does not prevent the amendment of an entity's assessment for the purposes of giving effect to this Division for an income year if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Clean Energy Regulator:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) issues, or revokes, a *correction notice under section 421A-20; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) makes an instrument under section 421A-40 revoking a certification of a *production profile, with effect from a specified time (which may be different from the time when the instrument is made); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) as a result, there is a change to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) whether the entity is entitled to a *low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset for the income year; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the amount of low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset that the entity is entitled to for the income year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the amendment of the entity's assessment is made during the period of 4 years starting on the day when the Clean Energy Regulator issues or revokes the correction notice, or makes the instrument revoking the certification of the production profile.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 170 of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1936</inline> specifies the periods within which assessments may be amended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Subsection 995-1(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">LCLFPTO community benefit rules</inline> (short for "low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset community benefit rules") means the rules made under section 421A-25.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">low carbon liquid fuel</inline> <inline font-style="italic">production tax offset </inline>has the meaning giving by subsection 421A-5(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">low carbon liquid fuel</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) means a liquid fuel derived from renewable, waste, or other low-carbon sources; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) includes sustainable aviation fuel, renewable diesel, biofuels, synthetic fuels, and fuels produced from captured carbon but does not include fossil fuel-derived liquid fuel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Taxation Administration Act 1953</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 In the appropriate position in Part IA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3M Reporting of information about low carbon liquid fuel production tax offset</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies to an entity in relation to an income year if, according to information the entity gave the Commissioner, the entity is entitled under Division 421A of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline> to a tax offset for the income year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after the second 30 June after the financial year corresponding to the income year, make publicly available the information mentioned in subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The information is as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the entity's name;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the entity's ABN or, if the first information the entity gave the Commissioner indicating the entity's entitlement to the tax offset does not include the entity's ABN but does include the entity's ACN (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001</inline>), the entity's ACN;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the sum of the amounts of the tax offsets that the entity is entitled to under Division 421A of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline> for the income year, where the amount of each tax offset is worked out according to the first information that the entity gave the Commissioner indicating the entity's entitlement to the tax offset.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subsection (5) applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the entity gives the Commissioner notice, in the approved form, that the information mentioned in subsection (3) contains an error; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the notice contains information that corrects the error.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Commissioner may at any time make the information mentioned in paragraph (4)(b) publicly available, in accordance with subsection (2), in order to correct the error.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, if the Commissioner considers that information made publicly available under subsection (2) fails to reflect all of the information required to be made publicly available under that subsection, the Commissioner may at any time make publicly available other information in order to remedy the failure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) An expression used in this section and in the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline> has the same meaning in this section as in that Act.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>105</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:16]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>34</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>6</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7304" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>106</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's be clear: we should all be thanking the Labor Party for us still sitting here at 20 past eight at night when we could have had the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 dealt with at 10.30 this morning. It's a non-controversial bill that absolutely has the support of both sides. We've even had the minister in the other place commending the government for their approach to this bill in a non-controversial, bipartisan manner. And yet it then comes to this place, and we have the Labor Party playing games with it instead of rushing it through in a non-controversial way first thing this morning. It could have been done and dusted, and here we are tonight.</para>
<para>We will be supporting this bill. This bill fixes a problem that was faced. It will sort things out.</para>
<para>We have seen the massive floods up in Townsville, and we know the amount of defence housing up in far North Queensland and in the Townsville area. What we don't want are any question marks over their insurability and the Defence Services Homes Insurance scheme, which is currently administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and provides vital home building insurance to all current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and, can I make it clear, for defence force families, widows and widowers.</para>
<para>It is vital that we get this bill through. I'm grateful that it is non-controversial; I just wish we didn't have to play games.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was a somewhat odd contribution from the coalition, who tried to politicise a non-controversial bill, by pulling it out with an urgency motion earlier in the day. The main complaint being that it would be dealt with at eight o'clock instead of 10 am in the morning. Of all the things to get uptight about, that's not one.</para>
<para>The Greens are going to support this bill, but we're asking for some transparency from the government. What we have with this bill is an attempt to retrospectively validate the actions of the Commonwealth government, acting as an agent for a private insurer, since 1990. This Defence Services Home Building Insurance used to be provided directly by the Commonwealth, but then it was privatised in 1990. When the insurance product was privatised in 1990, the defence service insurer continued to appear to be providing it. They sort of badged up the private insurance and sold that badged up insurance as though it were a Commonwealth product.</para>
<para>It turns out that, in that rush to privatise in the 1990s—it was a Labor government, of course—they forgot to check whether that was lawful or not. It turns out that, at some point between 1990 and 2025, the government—whether it's this government or a former government—found it was unlawful. So we have been asking for some clarity about when that advice was first given and how long the government has known this was operating unlawfully, and we appreciate the minister providing that advice and clarity in response.</para>
<para>I also note that this comes about through Labor's privatisation, which is no doubt loved by the coalition. Between them, there's nothing they don't want to privatise. It turns out, once again, they've got themselves in a muddle. But, because we're worried about the individual veterans and because we are worried about individual families, we will support the validation so that the whole thing doesn't fall over.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill will formalise longstanding Commonwealth practice, by providing an express legislative authority for the Commonwealth to continue to provide general insurance or act as an authorised representative of a third-party insurer. This means that the Department of Veterans' Affairs can continue to provide general insurance products for Australian Defence Force members, eligible veterans and their families.</para>
<para>The bill will retrospectively validate past activities undertaken by the Defence Services Homes Insurance as an authorised representative of a third-party insurer and also authorise the scheme to continue to carry out such activities in relation to more than 32,000 current policyholders, including granting it the authority to renew policies. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting veterans and their families, and Defence Service Homes Insurance is just one of those supports currently available.</para>
<para>I would like to thank all senators for their contribution to the debate on the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, and for their acknowledgement of the important role defence families play in supporting our defence personnel.</para>
<para>I note the question raised by Senator Shoebridge in his remarks. I do not have that answer with me at this time. I represent the minister, rather than being the primary minister myself. I will endeavour to seek that information and provide it to you on another occasion.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>107</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 20:26</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>