﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2025-02-11</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="">Tuesday, 11 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 12:00, 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>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>1</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="r7237" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to summarise some of the arguments that I made in my first contribution in this debate. They are these. First, this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, is only necessary because of the abbreviated, shambolic process which was adopted by the Albanese Labor government in terms of consideration of this legislation. Indeed, as Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I know we were originally given a deadline of July last year to report on this bill, and it was brought forward by two months. I had the opportunity to look at the government members' report on the Administrative Review Tribunal bill for only about one clear day. It was completely unsatisfactory.</para>
<para>I don't blame the chair of that committee, Senator Nita Green, who does a very good job as chair of that committee. I don't blame the government members of that committee for that abbreviated process. This was executive action. The Attorney decided to bring forward the report on the bill by more than two months. That is completely unsatisfactory when you're dealing with a piece of legislation which has more than 500 pages. Now we're reaping what was sown by that shambolic process—amendment bills that are trying to fix the mistakes that were included in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act.</para>
<para>I want to quote, again, from the Law Council of Australia. These are not my words but the words of the Law Council of Australia in relation to the shambolic process, and I included this quote on page 43 of the committee's report. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Whilst the Law Council is pleased to have obtained an extension to 2 February 2024 to lodge its submission, it remains very concerned that the Committee's truncated inquiry period will undermine or diminish the democratic and proper scrutiny of the Bills.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Law Council's concerns are exacerbated by the sheer level of scrutiny required, given that the Bills comprise more than 550 pages, excluding more than 500 pages of explanatory materials.</para></quote>
<para>And now what we are seeing is the need to fix the act that was passed by this Senate with that abbreviated scrutiny process. At least one of those provisions which has to be fixed is absolutely time critical. This shouldn't have had to be fixed; this should have been picked up. This relates in particular to item 2 of schedule 4 of the amendment of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act, where a provision has to be inserted such that the decision-maker, especially with respect to matters involving child support, doesn't have to continually lodge documents after documents after documents in order to comply with the Administrative Review Tribunal Act and is having to redact documents because they potentially pose a threat to the safety of people going through that process. It's completely unacceptable that that should occur in the context of this legislation.</para>
<para>From my perspective, as I reiterated in my additional comments on this bill, whilst I acknowledge the need for this bill, I do not acknowledge or accept that there was any real policy need for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be abolished holus-bolus and replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal. It has led to costs, dysfunction and mistakes. The AAT could have been the subject of some positive reforms without its being abolished. There was a vindictive streak running through the soul of this piece of legislation, and that was reflected in the compensation paid to those tribunal members who weren't reappointed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>But, at least, Senator Scarr, the bill hasn't been guillotined!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yet.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy President. We hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal would be a significant improvement over its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The old Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a failure. It was top-heavy with Labor lawyers, making it a Labor lawyer fest with appointments made based on a reward system for leftist-aligned lawyers, and there are plenty of them—lawyers doing the bidding of their Labor masters, pushing poor Labor policies, and enshrining woke and harmful leftist ideals.</para>
<para>The Liberals and Nationals stacked appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, favouring lawyers sympathetic to the LNP. So much for justice under the uniparty! This stacking was a recipe for disaster and a significant reason why Labor's jumbled and catastrophic immigration policy continues to fail Australians and continues to hurt Australians catastrophically. Look at the number of people who are homeless and who are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in their cars and in tents. If a noncitizen's visa has expired or has been breached, to slow down the deportation process, the decision to deport could be delayed through an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a fact, and it was done many times, ensuring that there was a high chance that bleeding-heart Lefties would delay or overturn the decision. Few Australians know that there are currently more than 75,000 illegals in Australia right now. More than 75,000 foreigners are living here in Australia on cancelled or expired visas, taking up homes that could be used by those people who are currently homeless. The whereabouts of these illegals is unknown, and the government doesn't care, with limited resources to locate these illegals for deportation.</para>
<para>It's welcome that the current membership of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be declared vacant and that vacancies will be filled on a merit based system. My concerns are that the Administrative Review Tribunal membership will still be loaded with Labor government favourites and that the workload will still create long waiting periods before appropriate reconsideration of major decisions. It would be better to remove the review process for immigration decisions from the Administrative Review Tribunal and consider the reintroduction of a refugee or immigration review tribunal, to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal does not become bogged down with migration appeals, as it is currently.</para>
<para>Instead of a delay mechanism for illegals to exploit, abuse and avoid at Australians' expense, we need to deport illegals. We need to deport more than 75,000 lawbreakers and free up housing for Australians—working families who are currently sleeping in their cars, in tents or under bridges. Australian families deserve roofs over their heads and beds for their children.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 supports the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal created by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. The ART Act commenced on 14 October last year. The miscellaneous measures bill completes the establishment of the tribunal by making technical amendments to 54 Commonwealth acts, including the ART Act, to support the efficient conduct of tribunal review and to ensure the legislation operates as intended.</para>
<para>The bill makes minor amendments to the ART Act and other laws aimed at improving the fairness and efficiency of the tribunal's operations. Importantly, these changes remove administrative burdens from officials across the Australian government, resulting in improved services for the Australian people. We will move amendments to provide that no part of the bill commences retrospectively, to prevent uncertainty and complexity; to ensure that no applicants in immigration detention have less time to apply for a tribunal review than they did previously; and to provide certainty regarding the timeframes for applying to the tribunal for review of decisions regarding foreign geographical indications for wine goods.</para>
<para>The government amendments also defer provisions that attracted criticisms in the course of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. The government remains of the view that these amendments would have been helpful to the tribunal and to its applicants by providing additional clarity regarding when an application is validly made. They would not have changed the law. However, recognising the concerns raised by stakeholders, the government will defer these amendments to enable them to be further considered and progressed at a later time. The bill reflects the ongoing commitment of this government to reforming Australia's system of administrative review. It simplifies the processes for applicants and promotes a more efficient, accessible and cohesive tribunal. I commend it to the Senate.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments that have been circulated to this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to kick off by looking at the performance of the Administrative Review Tribunal, noting the minister's reference to the desire to, through these amendments, improve the case management processes and deal with some technical issues. I want to start by looking at the case load, and this is based on the most recent statistics for the new Administrative Review Tribunal, as at 31 December 2024. When the coalition left office, the AAT tribunal had 67,720 cases on hand. At 31 December last year the new Administrative Review Tribunal, introduced by the Albanese Labor government, had 93,756 cases on hand. What went wrong?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr, for the question. We obviously believe there was a strong case for reform of the ART. We had seen under the previous government, which had been in power for 10 years, the politicisation of the AAT at the time. We didn't believe that was serving the nation and its best interests, which is why we announced the significant review. Obviously, the Attorney-General worked consultatively as we went forward to implement the new tribunal.</para>
<para>There has been a significant and sustained surge in applications for the review of student visa refusal decisions. That is obviously due to a significant increase in the rates of student visa application processing by the Department of Home Affairs. Rates of refusal of these applications are linked to changes in the student visa policy, which contributed to an increase in applications for review of these refusals by the tribunal. In 2024, there were 22,158 student visa refusal applications lodged with the tribunal. This represents a significant increase when compared to pre-COVID-19 application rates. For example, in 2018 there were 6,000 and in 2019 there were 6,848. This increase is an even greater when compared to post-COVID rates, from 2,374 applications in 2022 and 3,893 in 2023. As you can see, there's been a significant jump in those cases.</para>
<para>The tribunal has enhanced powers and procedures to ensure that matters are resolved quickly and fairly. There are more powers for registrars, and there is a demand driven funding model which supports the appointment of additional members when needed, meaning that matters such as student visa refusal decisions can be resolved more efficiently. The government is currently conducting a recruitment process for general members, targeting migration and protection skills, which will help the tribunal address this surge.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I should note that I acknowledge that this isn't the minister's area of ministerial responsibility, and I certainly wouldn't like to lay at his feet the issues which are arising at the ART under the reforms that were driven by the Attorney. However, the fact remains that you've spoken about the student visa issue, and I appreciate the issues arising there—again, because a Labor government policy is increasing the case load. But the difference in cases we're looking at is between 93,756 as at 31 December 2024 and 67,720 as at the time when the coalition left office. We're looking at 26,000 additional cases. The case load is quite extraordinary.</para>
<para>You mentioned that one of the aims of introducing the Administrative Review Tribunal was to deal with matters as quickly, efficiently and fairly as possible. In terms of efficiency, when the coalition left office, the median time to finalise a case was 30 weeks. Now the median time to finalise a case is 48 weeks. Again, I ask you: what has gone wrong?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I disagree with your assessment on that. I don't think pinpointing a period of time will be helpful to having a proper discussion on this. But, as I mentioned before, there has been a significant increase in the number of student visa refusal applications. In 2024 alone, there were 22,158. That's a vast increase from just 2,375 applications when the previous government was in power. As you can see from that one instance alone, there has been a significant increase in the workload of the new ART. We're confident that it is the right move to improve outcomes in this country, and these measures in this bill today will only add to that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll move on to another indicator with respect to whether or not the new ART is dealing quickly and fairly with cases that are coming before it, which was one of the aspirations of the Attorney when he introduced this reform. If we look into the migration and protection case loads in particular, when the coalition left office, the median time to finalise a refugee matter was 113 weeks. The median time to finalise a protection matter under the Administrative Review Tribunal has now blown out to 232 weeks. Again, Minister, I ask you: What went wrong? Why has the timeline doubled?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I disagree with your assessment on this, Senator Scarr. The work that the tribunal is doing is important. The Liberals left the AAT critically underfunded. We're still getting through the backlog that you left us. There are old cases that we inherited, and, indeed, thousands of the cases that we're dealing with are more than five years old. We're confident that these measures that we are implementing will make a difference. They are an important reform. I would point out that I think the only two people in the country defending the old AAT are you and the former Attorney-General.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'll take that comment you made about only the former Attorney-General and me defending the old AAT. I should note, in my defence, that I've referred to facts. I've referred to the key performance indicators contained in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's annual reports year after year with respect to satisfaction rates amongst participants—those who've come before the AAT and their advisers appearing before the AAT—and rates of successful appeal. So I've based my defence of the AAT on the basis of facts, on the basis of objective, empirical data, as opposed to sweeping rhetoric about this or that politicisation. I've actually looked at the facts, and it's the facts that I'm referring to in this interrogation with respect to the performance of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which, as you said, Minister, in your opening statement, was intended to quickly and fairly deal with cases coming before it.</para>
<para>In my first question I referred to the fact that the cases on hand have blown out from 67,000 to 93,000. Apparently that's our fault, because it's dealing with the backlog. But the backlog has now blown out by 26,000, so I don't quite follow that. I'll give you another statistic, and this is in relation to the migration part of the AAT's jurisdiction. On 13 October the AAT had 31,310 cases on hand, and a little over two months later the case load has blown out to 38,495. It's only in a little more than two months that the case load has blown out. Again, why is there this extraordinary increase in case numbers on hand?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. Again, I don't it's accurate to pinpoint two points in time when analysing these matters. What we know from when the AAT was in operation was that it prioritised the easy cases and often left the hard cases to rot. We are now doing those old, hard cases, and they are taking longer to resolve as a result. That's leading to a longer average time to finalisation because of the dereliction of the previous government in dealing with some of those harder cases.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With due respect, Minister, I'm not sure how it's unfair to pick two points in time to analyse the performance of a new tribunal. I would have thought it's fair and reasonable. The first point in time is when you got rid of the previous tribunal, and the next point in time is the current case load. I can't think of a more fair way to assess the performance of a new tribunal than to consider what the position was before you introduced the tribunal that the Attorney said would increase speed, efficiency and fairness. Now we're comparing it to the current position in terms of case load. I'm not sure there could be any more reasonable way of assessing the performance of the tribunal.</para>
<para>But I'll try with another statistic, and this is in relation to the protection case load. As at 31 October, there were 41,476 cases on hand, and, under the new tribunal, that number again has blown out to 43,605 cases on hand. That's an increase of more than 2,000 protection cases in just over two months. Again, what has gone wrong?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. A significant number of the cases on hand now are more than five years old. We are not responsible for those, but that's what we're dealing with. And it highlights, as I mentioned earlier, what we inherited when we came to government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just looking at the facts, and the facts say that there's been a blowout of 2,000 protection cases in just over two months. That's what the facts are telling us. I refer to what the Attorney-General said on the record as justification for his decision to abolish the AAT:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government inherited an AAT that is not on a sustainable financial footing, that is beset by delays and an extraordinarily large and growing backlog of applications and that is operating multiple and ageing electronic case management systems …</para></quote>
<para>The sad truth, though, is that under Mr Dreyfus's watch, under the Attorney's watch, expenditure has blown out to the point that your budget papers reflect a billion-dollar spend on the ART and we're getting this blowout in case numbers. All that's been achieved is a massive increase in the case load of more than 26,000 cases and an enormous blowout in wait times from 30 to 48 weeks. These processes are important, and it is important, as you said previously, that matters are dealt with quickly and fairly. The ART you have established and are attempting to fix now with this legislation has been an expensive failure, hasn't it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. I completely reject your assertion there. As I mentioned earlier, we know that there are only two people in the country defending the old AAT: you and the former Attorney-General. I understand what it's like being the loyal servant of the party that you are, but the reality is that the AAT that we inherited when we came to government was a complete mess. It had been used as a stacking exercise for the Liberal and National parties. We wanted to reform that. We think it's an important reform that's in the long-term interest of the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, whilst I appreciate your flattery—I am a loyal servant of my party—can I say, again, the defence that was mounted in relation to the AAT was based on the statistics and the key performance indicators, which anyone listening to this debate can look at by going to the annual reports of the AAT. They indicate that the AAT consistently met its key performance indicators with respect to successful appeal rates and also to user satisfaction—that's the satisfaction of the Australians actually appearing before the AAT and, even more importantly and perhaps even more persuasively, of the lawyers and representatives who advocated on behalf of those Australians.</para>
<para>When the ART legislation passed the Senate roughly half of all ART members had been appointed by the current government. Now that the AAT has been abolished and replaced by the ART, all of the new tribunal members have been appointed by the current government. There can be no more excuses about this politicisation et cetera. All the members of the existing ART have been appointed by this government. The only difference we're now seeing in terms of performance is a massive increase and blowout in wait times in exchange for much more money. A billion dollars has been invested into this new ART. Why should Australians pay a billion dollars for a tribunal that performs worse than its predecessor, on the basis of objective data, when the only real difference is that the members were appointed by the Albanese Labor government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. I obviously disagree with your assessment. What I've talked through this morning as we've been dealing with this legislation is a significant number of increases that we've seen in regard to student visa refusal appeals, which were up at 22,158 last year, a 20,000 increase from where it was in 2022 and almost a 20,000 increase from where it was in 2023.</para>
<para>We also identified that, under the previous government, the AAT prioritised the easy cases and left those hard cases that the new tribunal is now having to deal with. You have a sorry record. I also respect that you acknowledge you did stack the AAT with political appointees as well; at least that is a bit of honesty on your part. But this is an important reform, and it is one that we think will serve the long-term interests of the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure if there's a doppelganger giving a speech in another place who said the words that the minister attributed to me, but I don't think I acknowledged that the previous government had stacked the AAT—quite the contrary. If it was stacked, it was stacked with members who actually performed quite well in relation to the objective KPIs which I'm referring to in the course of this debate.</para>
<para>Minister, I do want to go to some of the particulars of the bill, and I do acknowledge that this bill doesn't fall within your bailiwick as a minister, so you may well need to get some advice from those members of the department and advisers who are there to assist you and who are, no doubt, hanging on my first question. If I can take you to schedule 4, item 2, from my perspective, as I understand it, this item is dealing with a very serious unintended consequence arising from the introduction of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. Can I ask you the reason for that proposed amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. This is in regard to ensuring practice directions and modified timeframes for providing documents. Item 2 amends section 25 of the ART Act to clarify that practice directions can specify an alternative timeframe for decision-makers to provide the tribunal with additional documents. This amendment ensures the tribunal retains control over timeframes for the production of documents and allows for more tailored approaches to different categories of decisions. Section 36 of the ART Act provides that the president is required to consult the Tribunal Advisory Committee when making practice directions to ensure that practice directions are appropriate. This amendment does not reflect the tribunal's power to order faster production of materials allowed for in section 28 of the ART Act if a party could experience hardship by delay.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, that's a very anodyne explanation of the operation of the bill. I want to drill down a bit further, though, as to the practical reason, in terms of the operation in particular of Services Australia, which necessitated this amendment to be made as a matter of urgency. What were the practical ramifications of the bill prior to its amendment in relation to the operation of Services Australia dealing with, for example, child support matters?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This amendment ensures the tribunal retains control over timeframes for the production of documents and allows for more tailored approaches to different categories of decisions. For example, in long-running matters, it may be preferable to specify a single date for disclosure of materials.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, let me be more direct. I raised concerns, hopeful that I was going to get an answer which explained the dangerous shambles that the rushing through of this legislation has caused, in particular in relation to the sensitive matter of child support cases and the work of Services Australia. If the public service employees of Services Australia are listening to this debate, can I say to you: when I considered this legislation as it came through the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I had no inkling that it was going to have this unintended consequence on you. You do have my sympathies. Minister, because of the way that section 25 of the original ART Bill was drafted, is it not correct that Services Australia is now required to manually review each customer file that is before the tribunal every 28 days to ensure that it complies with the existing section 25? Isn't that the practical consequence of the ART Bill having been rushed through?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. I can only reiterate what I've said before about the importance of this amendment, which ensures the tribunal retains control over timeframes for the production of documents and allows for more tailored approaches to different categories of decisions. You'd obviously have the opportunity to put questions to Services Australia at estimates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hopefully we will have that opportunity. We definitely look forward to that opportunity, unless the government calls an election before then. Again, we are hearing anodyne answers in relation to the need for this amendment to be made.</para>
<para>The minister has referred us to estimates to ask questions in relation to Services Australia, but the fact of the matter is that this amendment bill is now in committee. We can't wait until estimates; the senators are going to have to vote on this bill. Now is the time to be given answers. Again I'll try and provide some assistance to the minister. I can understand why the minister doesn't want to go into this territory—it is terribly embarrassing. It's more than embarrassing; it has actually put Australians, particularly in child support cases, potentially in harm's way.</para>
<para>Let me explain. One of the issues has been raised with us by multiple sources across government. This isn't the opposition making this stuff up; this has actually been raised with us by those public servants in government who have been trying to deal with this issue because of this rushed legislation. The new requirement, as this act currently stands—which you're seeking now to amend—adds an incredibly intensive process of reviewing thousands of documents and applying redactions, to protect from family and domestic violence risk people in vulnerable positions. Those documents then have to be sent out to the parties because their matter's before the ART and section 25 didn't adequately deal with this issue when it was rushed through.</para>
<para>In about 40 per cent of child support cases, where there is no family and domestic violence indicator on the file, there is now a need to seek a non-disclosure order. In those 40 per cent of cases, because they have gone in front of the ART, and because this legislation was inappropriately drafted in a rush, the public servants who are trying to do their jobs faithfully—they have my respect and sympathy—are now having to go and get an order that they don't have to disclose that material, even though in those 40 per cent of cases there's no indication of family violence. It's an absolutely appalling administrative burden that the department has to bear, and that is because of the inherent risk of either parent reacting adversely to the content of those documents and triggering a family domestic violence incident.</para>
<para>There's a very real concern that Services Australia staff, who will inevitably be dealing with the significant volume in a compressed timeframe, will miss something or make an error and inadvertently trigger a domestic violence event. That's why it has been raised with the opposition. It's an absolute nightmare scenario for those public servants, faithfully trying to deal with this legislation that was rushed through.</para>
<para>The reality is that one of the unintended consequences that was created by your ART legislation being rushed through this place is an increase in family and domestic violence risk, which the public servants in Services Australia are trying to mitigate, under the provisions of this misconstrued provision, before it is amended. And we're trying to fix that through this bill. That's true, isn't it, Minister? That is a key reason why this amendment is being put before this Senate for debate—the impact on the staff in Services Australia with respect to child support cases. Could you admit that, please?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not downplaying the importance of the amendment, Senator Scarr. It is an important one.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I agree with you on that, Minister. Again I note that it's a great shame that the committee processes of this Senate weren't given enough time to interrogate down in relation to these issues.</para>
<para>The Law Council of Australia, in its submission to the legal and constitutional affairs tribunal in relation to this legislation, actually commented on the fact that—as I said in my second reading debate contribution—if legislation is going to be passed that is going to have such an impact on Australians in this country, it needs to go through rigorous scrutiny processes so issues like this are picked up.</para>
<para>Minister, is the government aware of any other cases, or any particular cases, where this new requirement has been linked to a tragic incident of family or domestic violence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I'm not aware.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hopefully, that is the case. When did the government first become aware that section 25 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act was associated with an increased risk of family and domestic violence incidents in child support matters and creating this administrative burden upon the public servants in Services Australia, as I've previously outlined? When did the government become aware of that issue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll try to get some advice on that, but obviously it is something that we've acted quickly on in terms of trying to fix it as part of these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It stands to reason that presumably the government was aware there was a problem when you issued the drafting instructions for item 2 in schedule 4 of the bill. I'll add a supplementary question to the question which you're going to seek advice on. When were those drafting instructions issued? Even an estimate to the nearest month would be helpful.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll try to come back to you as soon as we can.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I participated, with colleagues, in the review of this bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. In that respect I pay my compliments to the chair of that committee—Senator Nita Green, from my home state of Queensland—and all the other senators on that committee, who work diligently together to scrutinise legislation coming before this place, to try to improve it for the benefit of all Australians and the common good. But this issue of the impact of the existing section 25 upon Services Australia in relation to sensitive child support cases, and the risk—and the work they have to go through to mitigate the risk—of family and domestic violence arising from inappropriate disclosure of documents under the existing section 25, was never raised. It was never countenanced, and the reason for the amendment, being partly founded upon that risk, was never presented by the department. Why wasn't that issue ventilated before the committee through the submission of the Attorney-General's Department or otherwise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's obviously not something that I was aware of. I'll take some advice and try to come back to you on that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would appreciate that because genuinely, in good faith, I say to you that I was absolutely gobsmacked when I heard about this issue of Services Australia staff having to redact hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents to prevent potential issues of family and domestic violence because of inappropriate disclosure that was introduced under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act. I was absolutely gobsmacked when that came to my attention. I think it should be of concern to all senators as to when the government became aware of that particular issue.</para>
<para>That then leads to the next question: why wasn't this matter brought forward earlier? Why wasn't this matter brought forward as a matter of priority so the public servants within Services Australia didn't have to continue to deal with this issue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CHISHOLM (—) (): I think it's fair to say that it is a priority. It's the legislation that we're dealing with today. The amendment will actually fix that issue, and the only person delaying it at the moment is you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Maybe these are the talking points you were given and I shouldn't attribute it to your door, but it is passing ironic that we're dealing with a matter that arose out of a failure of the executive, the Albanese Labor government, to allow proper scrutiny in relation to a very complicated piece of legislation, namely the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. It is passing ironic that we're actually trying to fix that mess up now and, again, a minister sitting on the government benches for the Albanese Labor government can't resist the urge to voice disdain for the scrutiny processes of this Senate chamber. But, again, it might be in the talking points. We'll move on to operation of part 12 of schedule 2 of the bill. Minister, could you please explain the operation of part 12 of schedule 2 of the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. We'll try and get some more specific information about part 12, but schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to 46 acts in 14 portfolios. The amendments include simple terminology changes such as appealing outdated references to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and replacing them with references to the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 also makes amendments to harmonise and simplify legislative provisions and make technical corrections. These include amendments that prevent decision-makers from altering decisions that are before the Guidance and Appeals Panel, except in accordance with section 31 of the ART Act; repeal specific provisions relating to the timeframes to apply for a review of deemed decisions, ensuring that the standard ART Act provisions apply; ensure provisions account for the new Guidance and Appeals Panel; provide immunity to tribunal members exercising functions in relation to post-entry warrants and delayed notifications of search warrants; remove time limits for applying for internal review or tribunal review of ABSTUDY or assistance for isolated children's debt decisions to facilitate access to these reviews in response to the need of applicants; clearly set out the application's requirements for seeking review of reviewable migration and reviewable protection decisions under the Migration Act; explain the consequences of an application not being properly made; and require the minister to participate in Guidance and Appeals Panel reviews of reviewable migration and protection decisions.</para>
<para>The bill also makes technical amendments to the Migration Act. It clearly sets out the requirements for making a properly made application for a review of migration and protection decisions, removes duplication provisions governing certain notices of decisions and requires the minister to participate in Guidance and Appeals Panel proceedings on an issue of significance to administrative decision-making.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, Minister, especially as a fellow senator from Queensland, I'll put on the record that I note this is not your portfolio area of responsibility and that was probably a noble response to my question. I'll get more particular, though, with respect to the provisions. Section 347 of the Migration Act, which was put in place by the original trenches of the ART legislation, currently says—this is the law as it currently stands—that an application for review of a decision by the ART must be made within seven days if an applicant is in immigration detention or otherwise within 28 days. As introduced, this bill changes that requirement to explicitly specify that the application, prescribed information and prescribed documents must be provided and a prescribed fee paid within that relevant timeframe. Is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The act also provides that an application for review must be made for applicants in immigration detention within seven days and for all other decisions within 28 days. So, effectively, that's a yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, why is that clarification necessary?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that it's to put beyond doubt the existing provisions of the law.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. Minister, I note that that's your understanding, but, hopefully, if you obtain any further information from advisers to confirm that that is, in fact, correct, that would be helpful. Again, I note that this isn't your portfolio responsibility area.</para>
<para>I move on to section 348 of the Migration Act. This was put in place by the original tranches of ART legislation and currently says that the ART must review a migration or rejection decision if the application is properly made. As introduced, this bill now amends that provision to expressly state that the ART must not review an application that is not properly made, and it describes the circumstances in which the application is not properly made. Minister, is that a fair summary of the operation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill makes technical amendments to sections 347 and 348 of the Migration Act to clarify what it means for an application to be properly made. It must meet the existing requirements set out in sections 347 and 348 and be made within time. The amendment also makes it explicit that the tribunal cannot review an application that is not properly made. These amendments make sure that the act operates as intended, as it always has, and that applicants clearly understand the requirements for a valid application. That is why they are important.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know that, given the bill as originally introduced, the amendments the government is introducing on sheet GF100 are designed to return the discretion that has long existent in the tribunal where, if there is a minor defect or error in an application such as an error on the date of birth or the failure to include a particular document, the tribunal will still be able to consider those applications. By putting that sheet of amendments through to the bill as originally drafted, it's retaining the discretion that the High Court said was important to allow the tribunal to accept applications even if there is a technical defect in the documentation. That's the effect of the amendments, isn't it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry; I wanted to get some clarity around the point you are making.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know you are reading from the explanatory memorandum of the bill as initially drafted. As a result of the concerns that were raised in the course of the review by the legal and constitutional committee, a number of amendments have been brought, including on sheet GF100. One part of those amendments is to remove some of the initial provisions in the bill. By doing that, the government has listened to and responded to the concerns that have been raised by NGOs and others, particularly the Law Council, who I know Senator Scarr has repeatedly referenced in this debate as an important stakeholder. The Law Council has urged the government to put those amendments forward, and I note the government has listened to those concerns. What that will do is reinstate the discretion that the tribunal has to receive applications even if there is a technical defect—a document may not be attached, a key particular may be in error. It will reinstate the tribunal's discretion in accordance with the submissions from the Law Council, pretty much every other legal body and many other applicants.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks for the confirmation. My understanding is that that is correct. The government will be moving amendments to remove the items of the bill relating to this, and that will enable the government to consider this matter further.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'd like to obtain some clarity with respect to that issue. What Senator Shoebridge outlined in terms of the technical operation of the amendments would conform with my understanding. Is it the case that the government was proposing particular amendments to those provisions through the initial iteration of the Administrative Review Tribunal amendment bill, but you've now decided to reverse that provision, and the amendments which the government is proposing are actually going to strip those provisions out of the amendment bill? That's the effect, as I read it, of the amendments on sheet GF100. So, to use a very complicated legal term, why did the government flip-flop?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would put it down to a government that does a proper job on consultation, goes through a thorough process, as the Attorney-General does on all his legislation, and listens to stakeholders, which is obviously really important. That is what we've done in this instance.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously a result of that thorough process the Attorney has adopted is that we're here debating crucial amendments to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act, which was rushed through the Senate with inadequate scrutiny. That's why we're here today actually having that debate. Minister, as I understand it, not only will you remove the requirements through amendment (4) of sheet GF100 but you will actually extend the timeframe for individuals in immigration detention to apply for a review. Is that correct and, if so, why?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It might be helpful if I move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet GF100 by leave together, and then I'll provide some answers to those. I seek leave to do that.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (before line 4), before item 65, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">64A Subsection 124(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "AAT's", substitute "ART's".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, page 35 (after line 11), after item 113, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">113A Subsection 245AYK(9) (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "<inline font-style="italic">Appeals</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Review</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">113B Subsection 245AYK(9)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Tribunal", substitute "ART".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">113C Subsection 245AYK(9) (note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Section 27A of the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975</inline>", substitute "Section 266 of the ART Act".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 2, items 115 to 119, page 35 (line 18) to page 37 (line 2), omit the items, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">115 Paragraph 347(3)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 2, Part 12, page 37 (after line 5), at the end of the Part, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">120A Paragraph 375A(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Tribunal", substitute "ART".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 2, Part 13, page 39 (after line 4), at the end of the Part, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Wine Australia Act 2013</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">127A At the end of section 40ZAQ</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Timing of applications for review to the </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Review Tribunal</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may modify the operation of sections 18 and 19 of the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024</inline> (which deal with when applications for review may be made) as they apply in relation to a determination made under those regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">127B At the end of section 40ZAT</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Timing of applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may modify the operation of sections 18 and 19 of the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024</inline> (which deal with when applications for review may be made) as they apply in relation to a determination made under those regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 2, page 40 (before line 3), before the heading specifying <inline font-style="italic">New Vehicle Standards Efficiency Act 2024</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">127C Section 22R (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "AAT", substitute "ART".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">127D Section 22R</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Appeals", substitute "Review".</para></quote>
<para>These amendments make several minor amendments to the bill to support the efficient conduct of tribunal review, update outdated references and ensure the legislation operates as intended. Amendments to the Migration Act 1958 extend the timeframe for persons who are in immigration detention to apply to the tribunal for a review of migration and protection decisions from seven days to 14 days. This would ensure that no applicants in immigration detention have less time to apply than they did in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.</para>
<para>The amendments also remove items 115 to 119 in schedule 2 of the bill. These items would have amended the Migration Act 1958 to clarify the existing law regarding what constitutes a properly made application to the tribunal for a review of migration protection decisions and what the consequences of not making a properly made application are. The items are being deferred to give the government additional time to consider the approach to amending the Migration Act in relation to the requirements for making applications to the tribunal. There are also amendments to the Wine Australia Act 2013, which aim to preserve the longstanding arrangements for review and provide certainty for producers. Finally the amendments update the commencement date of the bill to provide that it commences after royal assent.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'm confused, and perhaps I should be asking questions of both Senator Shoebridge and you as the minister. Senator Shoebridge, in his contribution to the debate, talked about the withdrawal of those amendments, yet now, Minister, you're talking about deferral of those amendments. Which is it? Is it a withdrawal or a deferral?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously I'm the person in here answering for the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, as the person answering for the government, can you tell me if it's a withdrawal or a deferral?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've already answered that question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I feel as if I'm in a Kafkaesque novel. For the benefit of the chamber and for those listening, could you please provide some clarity and confirmation. Is the government withdrawing those proposed amendments or deferring them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I said is that the items are being deferred to give the government additional time to consider the approach to amending the Migration Act in relation to the requirements for making applications to the tribunal.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to move up to the other end of the chamber, if you would like that, Senator Scarr.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I anticipate my colleague will have a question, and I'm quite happy to defer to him.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might, first of all, just put on the record the Greens position on these amendments. The Greens will be supporting these amendments. We're supporting the amendments to increase the period that people who are in immigration detention have to challenge adverse migration determinations in the tribunal from seven to 14 days. This has been a longstanding demand now from organisations like the Law Council, pretty much every legal body in the country, NGOs and refugee advocacy organisations for well over a decade.</para>
<para>As you would know, Acting Deputy President Hughes, people in immigration detention have very limited access to legal assistance. Indeed, it was the coalition that initially removed legal assistance for people in immigration detention. Measures such as mobile phone bans and other bans were put in place by this parliament last year to make it even harder for people in immigration detention to potentially communicate with the outside. Indeed, the very process of being in immigration detention, not because you've committed an offence but because there's an issue with your migration status, puts people at extreme disadvantage when they're seeking to make an application to challenge a decision.</para>
<para>Even with these amendments moving the period in which to do the application from seven to 14 days, people in migration detention will still face an arbitrary timeframe which is half that for standard applications in the ART and, even with these changes, which are positive, there is still no broad discretion for the tribunal to extend the timeframe, so people in immigration detention will still be treated more harshly than people outside of immigration detention. However, the move from seven to 14 days recognises the longstanding demands from the Law Council and others. It recognises the need for a measure of justice in this space, and we're advised from organisations like ASRC and others that it will have meaningful and positive change, and we support it. Indeed, we appreciate the active engagement of the government with my party and those organisations to have this change.</para>
<para>The amendments will remove those original provisions in the bill that were in response to a High Court decision that actually interpreted longstanding legislation that was originally put into parliament by the coalition about when and how an application is made. It's coalition legislation that the High Court reviewed. The High Court found that, notwithstanding there was language that, on the face of it, looked mandatory about the provisions that needed to be contained in an application, once an application had been brought to a tribunal, even if it didn't contain each and every one of those elements, there was a discretion in the tribunal to still consider the application—to do justice, basically.</para>
<para>As I said, that was an interpretation of legislation initially drafted by the coalition. The bill as originally presented sought to address that High Court decision, make it expressly mandatory and remove a discretion in the tribunal to even consider an application if it had some procedural or documentary defect. Again, I want to commend the government for listening to the unanimous position from NGOs, legal organisations and groups like the Law Council, who said that that was unfair and inappropriate and that it wasn't the right response to the High Court decision. These amendments will strip those provisions out of the bill, and the Greens will be supporting those amendments because they provide a small measure of justice in the space.</para>
<para>It is not clear what the government means by saying, 'They're under review,' so I would be interested in, if there were a review process of those parts of the act, whether the government could indicate what the nature of the review is, who they're speaking with, whether there is a timeframe and whether there will be a formal discussion paper. You can see from what happened in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's review of this that it's really important to engage with stakeholders and that it's important to be transparent about this, because, otherwise, you can make an unintentional error, like the original draft bill did.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Shoebridge, for that contribution. You're correct—the result of the amendments is that the provisions do not remain in the bill. We will consider them further, whether you call it a deferral or otherwise. The amendments that we've been referring to will not form part of the bill if the government amendments are supported. That would obviously be a matter for the Attorney-General, in terms of how he handles that in the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it therefore correct to say, taking on board Senator Shoebridge's legitimate questions in relation to what process the government's going to adopt with respect to those amendments that are being stripped out of this bill and which you say have now been deferred—deferred, to me, indicates that there's going to be some further work undertaken. And then, at some later stage, the amendments will be reintroduced—that is, they're deferred. They're not considered today; they're considered sometime in the future. Can you give us any indication as to what's going to happen between today and when those amendments are to be reintroduced, such as the proposed timetable or the consultation that is going to occur with stakeholders? Do you have any transparency or visibility with respect to that process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. All I can say is the government intends to consider the amendments at a later date, following further consultation with stakeholders.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of the deferral process and the work which the government is going to undertake, we note—and I noted previously in this debate—that the timeframe for finalising protection decisions has already doubled since the coalition left office. What impact would reintroducing the amendments or not introducing the amendments have with respect to the management of that case load? Has there been any work undertaken with respect to the impact on case load of those amendments being deferred?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, I'd be confident that that would be a matter that the Attorney-General would consider as part of his further consultation on that issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Similarly, has any work been undertaken with respect to the impact on case load of the extension of time provided for applications to be made? Presumably, if you extend the time for an application to be made, more people are going to take advantage of that opportunity to lodge cases. Has any analysis been undertaken in that regard?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. I've been advised that it's not anticipated that there will be an increase in the work of the tribunal as a result, if it were to increase to 14 days.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>And what's that anticipation based on?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is consultation with the tribunal.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What reasons did the tribunal give in the course of that consultation to evidence that anticipation that there will be no increase in case load? What objective facts did the tribunal provide to the government to found that conclusion?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not a level of detail that I have available to me today, which I'm sure you understand. But, again, I'm confident you'll have the opportunity to ask questions in Senate estimates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We would have appreciated the opportunity to consider those issues whilst the bill was going through the scrutiny processes of this chamber and before it was passed. Be that as it may, I asked a few questions earlier in relation to that very delicate issue around section 25—the misconceived original drafting of section 25. When did the government become aware that staff at Services Australia were having to redact hundreds and hundreds of documents in order to avoid potential incidents of family violence? Have you got that information?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the time available, the department advises that the issue was brought to the department's attention around July or August. The government responded by addressing the issue in this bill, and it was introduced shortly after that. I believe this bill was introduced in August last year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is it now February 2025?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I remind you, Senator Scarr, that the only person delaying this bill so far is you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, one of the reasons to have this legislation passed today—indeed, if we can, before 1.30—is to address that workload and to try and have that smooth operation so that the information can be provided in a timely fashion, those rights are respected and Services Australia can focus on the work at hand. That's why we want to pass this by 1.30, isn't it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's absolutely the case, Senator Shoebridge.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Certainly, the coalition supports the passage of this legislation. But I would say—through you, Temporary Chair Hughes—to Senator Shoebridge that I am absolutely aghast that this issue came to the attention of the government in July or August last year and we are now here, in February, in the context where, when it suits the government's priorities, they're prepared to move legislation on the basis of extraordinarily limited scrutiny, and we're now forced to consider this issue after a delay of over six months. It's quite extraordinary. The issue was not brought to the attention of the legal and constitutional affairs committee, on which both Senator Shoebridge and I sit, and no-one would have been aware of this issue but for the fact that public servants within Services Australia brought this matter to the attention of the opposition. That's how aghast they were by the situation. The government has given these anodyne summaries of the provisions and hasn't given any insight with respect to the seriousness of these provisions during the course of this legislative process. That is an appalling state of affairs.</para>
<para>I would like to move on to another issue, one dealing with the location of registries. From the coalition's perspective, the Administrative Review Tribunal provides, in registries, important review and appeal processes for the Australian people. It should provide access to those processes to all Australians across the whole of Australia, yet the fact of the matter is that the Administrative Review Tribunal bill, when it was initially presented by the Attorney, did not provide for a basic obligation that there be an Administrative Review Tribunal registry in each capital or in each state or territory of Australia. Why was that the case, Minister? Why did the original legislation not provide that there should be a registry in every capital city of every state and every territory of this country? Why did the bill omit such an obvious obligation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, I'll go to your first points, which were basically political points. It's hard to keep up with Senator Scarr when it comes to consistency. On one hand he's saying that there hasn't been a proper process regarding this bill and that he want it slowed down, and, on the other hand, now he's saying we haven't done it quick enough. I can't work out the point he's making. I'd also point out that in your record in government, Senator Scarr, there was robodebt. The way you treated the public servants when it came to robodebt was exposed during the royal commission, and that is actually the next bill that, hopefully, we'll be dealing with today. That is your record in terms of how you actually responded to, and treated, public servants when you were in government.</para>
<para>In regard to a registrar in each state and territory, the ART Act allows the CEO and principal registrar to appoint registrars depending on the needs of the tribunal. The ART already has one or more registrars in each jurisdiction. It is also focused on delivering a broader range of services and information in each jurisdiction to provide to people who do not live within reasonable travelling distance of a registry. Including more detailed requirements in the legislation may unnecessarily limit the principal registrar's ability to manage the administrative affairs of the tribunal and restrict their capacity to fulfil these responsibilities under the legislation, including by limiting how the tribunal flexibly responds to surges in case loads through registry services.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's deal with the issue of registries. From my perspective, as a Queensland senator, it is not about what the view of the CEO of the ART has with respect to where registries should be located; it is about the Australian people having access to the Administrative Review Tribunal. It's about the Australian people because there are decisions are impacting millions of Australians on a whole raft of matters—social security payments, veterans' matters, immigration matters, taxation matters, child support matters and NDIS matters—which go on appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal.</para>
<para>It shouldn't be a question of what the CEO considers with respect to where the registries should be located. Every single Australian in every state and every territory should have reasonable access to government services, and that includes access to the Administrative Review Tribunal registries. That means that, if you're a veteran in Tasmania and you've got a veterans affairs issue that you want to take on appeal to the ART, you should be able to access a registry in Tasmania. Indeed, this point was first alluded to by Senator McKim as a senator for Tasmania: the original bill did not contain a requirement that there would be a registry so that people impacted by veterans decisions, NDIS decisions and child support decisions could have reasonable access to a registry in their home jurisdiction.</para>
<para>That isn't a matter for the Chief Executive Officer of the Administrative Review Tribunal. It's a matter for this Senate to make sure we pass legislation that provides access to such a basic service as a right of appeal with respect to government decisions which have great significance upon their lives. Every single Australian should have access to a registry of the Administrative Review Tribunal because every single Australian deserves access to a process whereby they can have decisions made which have a huge impact on their lives and their families' lives. Every single Australian deserves access to that review process. If you don't have access to a registry within driving distance—or within a reasonable distance—where you can lodge paperwork and get some guidance and if you don't have an avenue where you can go and get your appeal heard, then you're going to be deprived of full access to the tribunal. It shouldn't matter whether you live in Hobart, Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Canberra or wherever; you should have access to a registry of the Administrative Review Tribunal.</para>
<para>Minister, can you please explain to me on what possible basis the Chief Executive Officer of the ART could make a decision that there shouldn't be a registry in every state and every territory of Australia? On what possible basis could that decision be made?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. Now we're on to wasting time around issues that actually don't exist at the moment. What Senator Scarr didn't acknowledge is that there is currently a registry in every state around the country and in the ACT. In addition, the tribunal has a senior member based in Darwin, and the government expects that to increase as more members are employed and undertake that work. Including more detailed requirements in the legislation is not necessary. It may introduce unnecessary inflexibility. What has become clear is that, unlike the opposition, we respect the independence of the tribunal and allow them to operate accordingly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To speed matters up, I'll treat this contribution as the Greens' contribution to the opposition's amendment on sheet 3164. It is an amendment to effectively reinstate the status quo under section 64 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, which required the AAT to have a registry in each state as well as one in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I think that's the amendment Senator Scarr is speaking to, at least obliquely, in this contribution—the absence of that provision in the ART bill.</para>
<para>I want to thank my colleague Senator McKim for raising this issue. He has been an ongoing champion of ensuring that Tasmania is not forgotten and that it's guaranteed there will be a registry in Tasmania. I'll leave it up to Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson to argue about whether it should be in Launceston or Hobart. Perhaps they'll agree on Campbell Town. Senator Whish-Wilson? I don't know, but we Greens strongly—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Bicheno.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Bicheno, is it? We are strong proponents of ensuring that there's a registry in each state and territory across the country, to ensure there is guaranteed access to what is a critical Commonwealth tribunal. For that reason, we'll be supporting the amendment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do acknowledge Senator Shoebridge for that contribution, as I acknowledged, when I originally raised the issue, Senator McKim's concern that a registry be maintained in the state of Tasmania. From my reading of the legislation and from the answers which have been given by the minister, who correctly, I should say, referred to the current Administrative Review Tribunal Act, it's up to the CEO as to whether or not a registry remains, for example, in Tasmania. The CEO could change their mind and say, 'I've decided, for efficiency purposes, I'm going to close the registry in Tasmania.' It's completely unacceptable that a chief executive officer of the Administrative Review Tribunal should have the discretion to close a registry in any of our states or territories. It is incredibly important that those registries are maintained in every state and territory across Australia.</para>
<para>I am happy for us to proceed with the question on the government's amendments but I would ask that we deal with one of the items separately, namely amendment (4).</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr—just for the ease of the chamber—you're happy for amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) to be moved together and amendment (4) to be put separately?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Correct.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the chamber at the moment is that the amendments be agreed to. We'll do amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) first. All in favour say 'aye', against 'no'. A division is required. Ring the bells for four minutes.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells being rung—</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're happy to support amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7), so I think the division could be cancelled.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So the division is cancelled—sorry, Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thought the coalition was supporting this.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, so we're happy to cancel the division?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's item 4 we're opposing.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Cancel the division, and we'll try that again. The question before the chamber is that amendments (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) on sheet GF100 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is from sheet GF100 and is amendment (4), and the question is that that amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [13:31]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>38</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>Farrell, D. E.</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>Lambie, J.</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>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>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</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>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>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</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>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</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>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Progress reported.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will now move to two-minute statements.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Papua New Guinea: 50th Anniversary of Independence</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A dear friend of mine is having a 50th birthday this year. That is the independent state of Papua New Guinea. On 16 September 1975, Papua New Guinea obtained independence. I was fortunate enough to celebrate the silver jubilee of PNG's independence in 2000 whilst living and working in Papua New Guinea, in Port Moresby. So the 50th anniversary—the 50th birthday—of my wantoks in PNG should be a cause for great celebration. I note that the Papua New Guinea Federation Queensland Inc. has a number of significant events in progress, including a PNG cultural day, which will be held in Brisbane on 6 September 2025, and a PNG Independence Day ball to be held on 13 September 2025. I encourage everyone who has some sort of connection with Papua New Guinea to attend events to celebrate the independence of Papua New Guinea.</para>
<para>It's a great feat that PNG has achieved 50 years of independence, and I look forward to meeting many of my wantoks from Papua New Guinea Federation Queensland Inc., QLD PNG Rugby League Inc. and QPNG GOLD Netball Club Inc. To each and every one of those members of our PNG diaspora: you are the human bridge between Australia and Papua New Guine. In fact, I should call you the wantok bridge, not the human bridge, which maintains that precious connection between the people of Australia and the people of the independent state of Papua New Guinea.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor invented Medicare and we are keeping it strong. Medicare is in Labor's DNA, and cutting Medicare is in Mr Dutton's DNA. Labor is not just defending and extending Medicare; we are building Medicare's future with our historic investments in bulk-billing. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive, creating an additional six million bulk-billed GP visits in the last year—six million free visits to the doctor. We are building Medicare's future with our 87 new Medicare urgent care clinics, where 1.1 million patients have gotten the urgent care that they need absolutely free. Our huge investment in women's health is building Medicare's future, delivering lower costs, more choice and better health outcomes for women. This is what Labor governments achieve and this is what is at risk under Mr Dutton—Mr Dutton, the man who froze Medicare rebates for six long years; Mr Dutton, who cut $50 billion from our public hospitals; Mr Dutton, who was voted the worst health minister on record; Mr Dutton, who tried to introduce a GP tax; Mr Dutton, who secretly launched the now-infamous Medicare privatisation taskforce; Mr Dutton, who said there were 'too many free Medicare services'.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know you don't like them, but they were his words. Mr Dutton wants to cut $350 billion from the budget but won't tell us from where until after the election. Australians know where he is going to cut that funding; it is going to be in our Medicare system. Australians can count on Labor to build Medicare's future.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am going to say this once and once only. If you cannot control yourself for two minutes, could you please leave the room? Two minutes is not a big ask to ask any of you to stop interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Floods</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>North Queensland is in the grip of yet another devastating flood crisis right now. Just as clean-up from the initial downpour had begun, more rain swamped the region in the last couple of days. We breed them tough in NQ, but this is a really challenging time. Ingham and areas around Townsville are inundated. From thousands of homes, about 800 are still without power; 20 schools remain closed; hundreds of residents have been evacuated; and, tragically, two people have lost their lives and another is missing. My heart is with those families and with the entire North Queensland community facing this latest flood crisis.</para>
<para>On behalf of the Australian Greens, I say a heartfelt thankyou to the incredible SES personnel and all of those working on clean-up and the bridge rebuilds. I pay tribute to all the locals showing the true Queensland spirit by helping each other in times of need. These floods are a scary indication of the extreme weather events that are becoming more frequent and more damaging as the climate crisis is turbocharged by the big parties' addiction to coal and gas. Australians are already paying the price of these fossil fuel disasters. The recovery and rebuild efforts cost an estimated $13 billion each year, and that's not to mention the human toll and the emotional cost that they wreak.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, fossil fuel corporations continue to reap major profits, get mega subsidies, pay little tax and turbocharge climate destruction. We know that coal and gas are the major cause of the climate crisis, and both big parties are taking more. Labor has approved 32 coal and gas projects, and Mr Dutton wants expensive nuclear that would prop up coal and gas in the interim. The Greens want to stop new coal, oil and gas and make big corporations pay their fair share so that we can support climate affected communities as we transition off fossil fuels.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goulburn Regional Hockey Complex, van der Plaat, Ms Jo</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A few weeks back, I was privileged to go and visit the Goulburn Regional Hockey Complex with Jo van der Plaat, the Liberal candidate for Eden-Monaro, as well as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Jo knows the importance of hockey to Goulburn. It's a very popular sport there, and it's also a regional hub for competitions for younger teams, children's teams and adult teams as well. Jo has been campaigning for an upgrade to the second hockey pitch at the Goulburn Regional Hockey Complex. While we were there, the Leader of the Opposition announced that the Liberal government would invest $1.5 million to upgrade that pitch and redo the surface.</para>
<para>When I spent some time with Jo in small businesses in Goulburn, we also heard a common message about how small businesses there are struggling. Obviously, we've seen record insolvencies across the small business sector in Australia over this past 12 months, which is especially pronounced in the construction sector and hospitality and retail sectors. We heard from small-business owners who are struggling with record input costs, whether that's the cost of electricity, raw materials, food, if they're a hospitality business, labour, inflexible industrial relations changes, which have made it harder to hire casual workers, or insurance. There's no doubt that the small-business sector is doing it tough, and the community of Goulburn—indeed the whole seat of Eden-Monaro—needs someone who will fight for them and fight to get Australia back on track.</para>
<para>Jo is exactly that sort of person. She is born and bred local, went to school in Cooma, still lives in Cooma, has a legal practice in Cooma, was the President of the Law Society of NSW for some time. She's very well credentialled, and I'm so pleased that she has put her name forward to serve her community, fight for an upgraded hockey centre in Goulburn and fight for small businesses across that electorate, who are doing it so tough right now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm so proud to be part of a government that is delivering for women. The announcement of half-a-billion dollars on the weekend for women's health is a game changer. SO many of us spend our lives talking to our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends about challenging conditions that we have faced—issues of menstruation, contraception, childbirth, pelvic pain and menopause. This women's package is going to make such a significant difference. We will see the first PBS listing for new oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years. We will see more choice, lower costs and better access to long-term contraceptives. We will see larger Medicare payments and more bulk-billing for IUDs and birth-control implants and more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. There will also be more Medicare support for women experiencing menopause, with a new Medicare rebate for menopause health assessments. This is something that so many of my friends and I have spoken about over many years—actually finding people who can understand what it is you're dealing with and help you with the solutions. It's not just about dealing with the symptoms; it's not just about constantly being told that you should just put up with it because you're a woman of a certain age. This is about having a genuine impact on women's lives. So I'm absolutely delighted at this funding package and to be part of a government that really cares and has listened, in no small part, through the Senate inquiry conducted by my colleague Senator Marielle Smith. She and many of my colleagues in this chamber and the other place have done tireless work to bring to fruition funding that will provide accessible, quality health care for women.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Funding of Political Candidates</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, well, well! After the rubbish last week about the government consulting with the crossbench—which they were not, by the way—we are now told that the dodgy deal on electoral reform is all but done. It's the only time you will see the major parties working together and voting together, and it's not to protect you Australian; it is to feather their own nests. All the major parties care about is themselves.</para>
<para>These electoral reforms have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to lock in the power of the major parties. They do nothing about the entities that both major parties use to funnel dark money into their parties. They like the traditional two-party system and they like majorities, then they can do whatever they want, when they want, without scrutiny, debate or transparency.</para>
<para>But the element that really, really gets to me is that they are increasing the amount that the Australian taxpayer is going to be paying per vote. I'm not sure that a lot of Australians know about this but if a candidate gets more than four per cent of first preferences, then the taxpayer pays them three bucks per vote. This will increase to $5 a vote. This public funding is supposed to reduce reliance on donors, but if these reforms goes through, this amounts to nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in public funding to the major parties in each cycle.</para>
<para>As <inline font-style="italic">4 Corners</inline> revealed last week, 82 per cent of Australians are suffering from financial stress. Families are struggling to put food on the table. They're struggling to keep a roof over their heads. But all the major parties care about is putting more cash into their own electoral coffers. This government and Senator Farrell say they want to build a better democracy, but what they are really doing is reacting to a decline in their primary vote. They don't care about a better democracy. All they care about is maintaining the power of the two-party system.</para>
<para>The last election saw the lowest vote for the two parties since World War II. That's why they're desperate to get this electoral reform through. With more Australians voting for Independents and microparty candidates, like our own network, we need more transparency in donations. But this isn't about transparency; it's about the major parties locking in their advantages so they can dominate this place for as long as possible. Liberals, you are voting for this too, and you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves today. It's absolutely shameful. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live Animal Exports: Sheep</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The contempt of this Labor government for my home state of Western Australia knows no bounds. I actually thought they couldn't get any worse in the contempt they show for Western Australia. With the mooted nature positive laws, the floated idea of a 60 kilometre-an-hour speed limit through the Pilbara, the dragging out of approvals of major projects affecting the mining industry, the funding of the Environmental Defenders Office—again, attacking our great mining industry—I didn't think it could get any worse. Of course, there was then the closing down of the live export sheep industry in my home state of WA.</para>
<para>The contempt shown for sheep farmers in my home state is already causing a decline of 25 per cent in the size of the flock, with all industry projections pointing to a crash and to more than half the sheep disappearing from WA in just a few years. I didn't think that contempt could get any worse. Then over the summer I saw a three-quarter-page ad in the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline>: 'Phase-out of the live sheep exports by sea transition assistance'.</para>
<para>Senator O'Sullivan, you're from Western Australia. Where is the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> published, Senator O'Sullivan? I think it's published in Melbourne. This policy affects only sheep farmers in my home state of Western Australia, yet this government shows its contempt for the Western Australian sheep industry by publishing a three-quarters-page ad, and I believe it wasn't just in the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline>; it was in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> as well. Shame, Labor!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Care</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Early learning has many benefits for children, for parents, for our communities and for the economy, but in regional and rural areas of Australia we know that accessing early learning has at times been just too hard for particular communities, and that challenge has been there for too long. I know I'm not alone in sharing this view. Mr Ramsey, the member for Grey, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">All I'm asking is that they—</para></quote>
<para>The government—</para>
<quote><para class="block">make it top of their aim to address the childcare deserts before we lavish more on the rest of Australia.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I want to see the minister responsible for this important portfolio area focusing some of her attention on addressing the childcare deserts …</para></quote>
<para>Mr James Stevens, the member for Sturt, has complained:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… there is nothing to address the childcare deserts that occur, particularly in regional areas and regional electorates. We would like the government to look very closely at that.</para></quote>
<para>I've got good news for you, gents: Labor's $1 billion Building Early Education Fund will build 160 more early learning centres in areas of need, including in the outer suburbs and in regional Australia. It is rolling out from July 2025 to directly to address the issue of childcare deserts. The National Farmers Federation has welcomed the move. Indeed, they've implored the coalition to match it. But how has this policy been met by those opposite? With the sound of silence. If the coalition is serious about doing something about childcare deserts in South Australia, then it's time to back in Labor's $1 billion investment to do just that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia State Election</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>WA will soon be heading to the polls for a state election. We have a strong and passionate community in WA, ready for change and collectively working together to demand a WA government that genuinely represents its people. It brings me immense pride to see the array of versatile, compassionate and committed people who have put their hands up to be Greens candidates, dedicated to changing the landscape of the WA parliament.</para>
<para>For far too long, community based change in WA has been stymied by a government that is more interested in cosying up to the likes of Woodside than implementing policies that protect and support our community. I cannot tell you the number of times that I have heard from WA constituents who have reached out to their state representatives for assistance with things like disability, housing or health support, only to be handballed, ignored or sent around in circles. Our community deserves a government that really care about the rental and housing crisis and that won't ask the PM to abolish any progressive environmental law because it upsets their mates in the fossil fuel industry.</para>
<para>The Greens in WA are here and ready to address the needs of the community, the cost of living, housing, education, social justice, our climate and health. We have a real opportunity to elect more Greens MPs in WA. I want to thank everyone in WA—our candidates, our hugely dedicated volunteers and our other supporters—for showing up, for taking the time to care about the future of our communities and for taking collective action together. I hope you know how powerful you are. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Racism</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, a memorial bench here in Canberra for the late Nathan Booth, a Punthamara and Gubbi Gubbi man, was vandalised. It was spray-painted with the most horrific racism you can imagine, and the plaque that his family had laid was stolen. Nathan's family went through so much just to get the memorial in place. It's hard to imagine the pain of seeing it desecrated like this and what that is causing them.</para>
<para>I want to read out some of the words Nathan's sister Deanne shared because I think she puts it perfectly. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A memorial is a sacred place—it's meant for reflection, remembrance, and respect. The fact that Nathan's chair has been vandalised, especially when another—</para></quote>
<para>non-Indigenous—</para>
<quote><para class="block">memorials in the same area remain untouched—</para></quote>
<para>for years—</para>
<quote><para class="block">speaks volumes about the level of disregard and racism still present.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's not just a bench; it's a symbol of justice, love, and a legacy that shouldn't be tainted by racial prejudice ignorance and hate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Stronger accountability and greater awareness are key to challenging and eliminating these disgraceful racial practices—not just in the ACT, but across Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No one should have to fight to protect a memorial, especially one honoring a lost loved one. The fact that this kind of desecration is happening shows that racism is still deeply embedded in parts of our society.</para></quote>
<para>I just wanted to read that and say that so many in the community stand with Deanne and her family. I think we've seen this week that the Senate stands against racism in all forms, and we all can and must do more to combat it in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia: Natural Disasters</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a start to 2025 we've had, with flood and fire at the two ends of the east coast. In Victoria, the fire season started before Christmas, when the Grampians National Park started burning. By last weekend, as the fire was contained, 230,000 hectares had been lost. As well as the physical damage, we saw the normal Christmas holiday rush of tourists gone. That has affected businesses right through the region. From the outset, I want to thank all the volunteer firefighters, their support teams and their families.</para>
<para>At the same time, we've had floods in Far North Queensland. The region has been battered by tropical lows. Towns have had metres of rain and then some, just when locals thought the worst had passed. Homes have been lost, shops are without food, power is out and, unfortunately, in this case, lives have been lost.</para>
<para>There have been two disasters in two states. Both states had visits from the Prime Minister, and both had commitments from the federal government that all assistance—whatever is required—would be provided to support the affected communities. But, when it comes to putting the rubber to the road, the two states are worlds apart. It truly is a tale of two different disasters. The Queensland government moved immediately. Assessments were made, requests were submitted and a range of assistance measures were announced for businesses and primary industries, as well as for people. In Victoria, now that the fires are under control, farms and businesses are still waiting to see if assistance will be offered to them. Councils have assistance, but businesses and farms are still waiting for the state government to do the necessary assessments. They must happen, and they must happen soon. The federal government stands ready. We will support the federal government to get it out the door. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the big problems in fixing Labor's housing crisis is the alarming increase in building costs. Timber costs alone have risen more than 200 per cent since the COVID-19 pandemic. The costs of plumbing materials, like copper and PVC, have risen by about 100 per cent in the same time. The costs of electrical materials have risen almost 200 per cent. Compounding these costs are the various taxes which make up at least 44 per cent of the price of new homes. Excessive regulation delays approvals. It's like having a foot on the accelerator and the brake pedal at the same time.</para>
<para>We need to accelerate construction, but Labor governments are putting too many speed bumps in the way. One of the biggest speed bumps is the new requirement to make all new homes disability compliant, with wider hallways and equipped bathrooms. Building a compliant bathroom can cost up to $20,000 more than building a normal bathroom. In the effort to be inclusive, Labor governments are excluding more Australians from homeownership. Australians building homes should be free to have them built to their own requirements, and most of them don't need disability compliant homes that cost them tens of thousands of dollars more.</para>
<para>One Nation today announces a policy for a five-year moratorium on GST being charged on essential building materials for homes up to the value of $1 million. This will give the building sector much-needed breathing room, improve housing affordability and better allow Australia to catch up on our massive housing shortfall. This policy is part of our plan to slash government waste, put more money in Australians' pockets, pay down debt and invest in Australia's future. This plan will cost $1.4 billion over the next four years. Labor's housing fund is $10 billion, plus $40 million in administrative costs, and not one house has been built yet. You'd be better putting the money into the pockets of Australians. If you got rid of the GST, you'd have a lot more Australians in their own homes.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are 150 billionaires in Australia. There should be zero. Billionaires should not exist. At the very least, billionaires should be taxed properly, and today the Greens announce an ambitious plan to do just that so ordinary people can have a better life. In a wealthy country like ours, everyone should be able to afford a home, food and world-class health and education. Instead, billionaires are making out like bandits, while everyone else—families, renters, students, young people, migrants, women, retirees—is struggling.</para>
<para>Last year, in a full-blown cost-of-living crisis, billionaires like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart made $67,000 every hour. That's more than many people in this country make in an entire year. This staggering inequality is sickening. It is obscene. It doesn't have to be this way, but things won't change if we keep voting for the major parties. Labor and the Liberals would never take on the billionaires because they would be biting the hand that feeds them. Australian billionaires donate millions to the major parties. Only the Greens have a plan to turn the tables. This election, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to secure a minority government with more Greens in parliament. Change is possible, but you have to vote for it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired).</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>21</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New Vehicle Efficiency Standard</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. The Motor Trades Association of Australia has released data showing Labor's family car and ute tax will impose a $2.7 billion cost on car manufacturers in 2029. Why is the government imposing this tax on Australian families in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will wait for the Senate to come to order. Order, Senator Ayres and Senator Wong! Senator McCarthy.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McKenzie for the question. I wonder if this is the end of their weekend policy on vehicles. The Albanese Labor government is working to get more cleaner and cheaper-to-run cars into the market so they're accessible to all families, in Blacktown, Launceston and Cranbourne—a standard that will save Australians $1,000 per year on average on fuel costs. We all remember the days when there were only one or two hybrids or EVs on the market. which were prohibitively expensive for families. Under the Albanese government, we are now seeing over 160 new models available, including Australia's first EV for under $30,000, and they're getting cheaper. Cars that have never been available to Australians before, like new Ford Ranger plug-in hybrids and—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on direct relevance: I asked about the Motor Trades Association's modelling which had been released today and which was also on the front page of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McKenzie. The minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister McCarthy.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You'd make them work it for free. You'd force them to work it for free.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, order! That's twice within a matter of about four minutes I've called you!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that, under the Liberals and Nationals, the markets would once again be frozen in time with the best cars on the market going to the other countries. So what MTAA's analysis actually highlights is how ridiculous claims by lobbyists and the opposition were. Their overblown campaigns from not even a year ago projected brands would have to wear $38 billion in fines which would be passed through to consumers and push prices up.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>According to the Motor Trades Association, the average tax on a Toyota would be $2,855, on the average Ford it would be $2,959 and on the average Kia it would be $3,102. Why is the Albanese government forcing up the cost of new cars for everyday Australians in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis?</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>We do have many quotes from experts in the field. In fact, Rohan Martin, the CEO of the National Automotive Leasing and Salary Packaging Association, says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From Werribee to Wanneroo, ordinary Australians living in the outer suburbs are actually the people most likely to take advantage of and benefit from the discount to battery EVs and plug in hybrids provided through the FBT exemption and novated leasing. We're also seeing strong pick up among workers living in regional centres including Ballarat and Toowoomba.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'm happy to table a copy of the analysis by the Motor Trades Association if you need. At a time when more Australian families are buying hybrid cars, why, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, is the government taxing hybrids when these cars play an important role in reducing transport emissions? Why are you taxing hybrids?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting hearing the questions from Senator McKenzie, given that we had no support from those opposite to improve the cost of living for all Australians, in particular for the support around the tax.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we go with the same thing.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me tell you again, because it actually matters to the Australians out there that, every time we put something forward in this Senate to improve the cost of living for Australians, that side voted no.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of direct relevance: the minister, in three questions now, has not gone to the Motor Trades Association data that the minister she's representing has a copy of.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order: the senator in question, Senator McKenzie, referenced the cost-of-living crisis in her question. The minister is entirely relevant in responding to that point, as she is doing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, you did reference the cost of living, I think, in all of your questions but certainly in this one.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, you're not in a debate with me. You've called the point of order. The minister is being directly relevant to your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is interesting to hear Senator McKenzie. We know that there is division on the other side and that there is no conclusion of any of their policies. In fact, they really have no policies except one. But let me see what Paul Fletcher says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If Australia had fuel efficiency standards in line with comparable nations, estimates of the fuel saving per passenger vehicle could be above $500 per year, or nearly $28 billion in total by 2040.</para></quote>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Albanese Labor government has been very focused on unlocking our nation's prosperity and ensuring that all Australians get to share in the benefits of a future that is made here in Australia. How does the passage of a very crucial bill last night mean we're a step closer to delivering a better future for Australian workers, businesses and communities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Ciccone for his question and for his ongoing support for Australian jobs. All of us on this side are for Australian jobs. The passage of the government's Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 last night marks a major step forward in building Australia's economic future, strengthening our industries and securing more well-paid jobs. Establishing tax incentives will mean that, instead of shipping resources offshore to be processed by other countries, we will add value here at home.</para>
<para>In addition to creating tens of thousands of blue-collar jobs, we will build Australia's sovereign capability in industries crucial to our future and strengthen our regional economies, whether it's in Whyalla and the Upper Spencer Gulf in South Australia, in Central Queensland, in the Pilbara, in Victoria, in New South Wales or in Northern Tasmania. Labor's bill incentivises green hydrogen production to support industries transition to cleaner energy and make Australia a renewable energy superpower. After a wasted decade from those opposite, who have never stood up for Aussie jobs, we are taking action to build Australia's industrial future. All of us will remember those opposite cheering the decline of Australian manufacturing under Prime Ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. Of course they haven't learnt; they've been true to form in opposing the bill.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, you quoted CME yesterday. Let's see what CME had to say about our bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Offering production tax incentives for hydrogen production and critical mineral processing sends a clear message to investors that Australia is serious about seizing the opportunities presented by the global energy transition.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Minister, for that very comprehensive answer. The Albanese government knows that a very strong and resilient economy relies on secure, well-paid jobs and thriving local industries. How will the government's efforts to strengthen Australian manufacturing, support key industries and attract new investment not only create good jobs but ensure that Australia prospers in a very changing world?</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>As the Chamber of Minerals and Energy said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Offering production tax incentives for hydrogen production and critical mineral processing sends a clear message to investors that Australia is serious about seizing the opportunities presented by the global energy transition.</para></quote>
<para>I said that again for you, Senator Cash, as you are so fond of quoting some people, and I would invite you to consider this: since we have come to government, we have seen a record 1.1 million jobs created, including 47,000 in manufacturing. We have had a range of policies and incentives in new energy, new projects, new technology and new markets, and our Future Made in Australia agenda is central to that. But do you know what? Senator Cash, Mr Dutton and the Liberals want to take Australia backwards—back to the most dire skill crisis in 50 years and back to the back of the pack in the renewables race. On top of that, $350 billion worth of— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is clear that the Albanese government wants our industries and exports to remain competitive on the world stage. What steps are the government taking to advocate for Australian industries, secure new trade opportunities and ensure that the Australian made products and resources can compete globally while delivering lasting economic benefits here at home?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ours is a great trading nation—one in four Australian jobs depend on free and fair trade. We on this side, the Albanese Labor government, will always back Australian jobs and Australia's interests, whether it's by strengthening ties with allies and partners, by restoring trade with vital partners or by seeking out new markets and new opportunities, such as driving deeper economic engagement with South-East Asia so that Australian businesses and all Australians can benefit from the fastest-growing region in the world. Our calm, constructive and consistent efforts have resulted in the removal—I know you don't like this, Senator Cash—of $20 billion worth of trade impediments that existed under you and that hurt Australian producers. But what we do know and what we've seen today and again and again is that Mr Dutton and the Liberals are too reckless and too arrogant to be trusted with Australian trade. They are too reckless and too arrogant, and they play politics with our largest export market. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>North West Shelf Project</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Woodside Energy has applied to extend the life of the Karratha Gas Plant until 2070, which would guarantee thousands of jobs in Western Australia; generate billions of dollars in economic activity, taxes and royalties; and provide much-needed energy to be used locally and for export. The Western Australian Labor government has approved the project, with Western Australian Labor's environment minister saying, 'Gas is good.' However, the Albanese government's Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, has delayed Commonwealth approval for two months. Without her approval, this project will not go ahead. Will the Prime Minister show some leadership and ensure that this project is approved as soon as possible to give certainty to Western Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm aware of this project, and I'm also aware of the investments and production that Woodside has engaged in. We have engaged very closely, in my portfolio, with Woodside and with Ms O'Neill and her staff across a range of issues. So I'll just make the point first that it's a very important part of not just the Western Australian economy but the national economy. It is also a company who has engaged very closely with this government, and I have put on record my appreciation for that continued constructive engagement. In relation to the project in question, if I leave—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, I've asked you to come to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, twice I asked you to come to order and you completely disregarded what I had to say. That is incredibly disrespectful. I've asked you to come to order. That is what I expect.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The second point I would make, Senator McDonald, is that you would have seen the release of the government's Future Gas Strategy and you would understand the place we believe gas has in the energy mix. In relation to the project, I would make two points. The first is that, obviously, under the legislation that I think was passed under a Liberal government, this minister or any minister in this role has a set of statutory requirements and statutory approvals that she or he must—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, I'm responding to the senator's question. Do you want to—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, once again you are being disrespectful. If you can't sit and listen in silence, I ask that you leave the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> As there are a set of statutory requirements the minister must engage with, I'm sure Ms Plibersek will do so. I would make the point that I'm advised that, since we have come to government, under Ms Plibersek's ministerial tenure, environmental approvals have doubled in terms of on-time approvals and have gone from 47 per cent under the Liberals to 84 per cent under us. So I would say there has been an— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I have Senator McDonald on her feet. She's entitled to ask her supplementary question in silence. Senator McDonald?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Environmental Defenders Office is strongly opposing the extension of the Karratha Gas Plant despite the significant economic benefit it will have for the people of Western Australia. Why is the Albanese government giving more than $2 million of taxpayer dollars every year to the EDO when their priorities are all about opposing job-creating projects which will benefit Australians?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Scarr and Senator Sterle! I have called for order. That includes the two of you.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been asked on a number of occasions about the EDO, and I have responded that the government's expectation is that the Environmental Defenders Office exhibit the highest ethical and professional standards. I think I may have spoken to the chamber previously, saying that the Minister for the Environment and Water has written to the CEO of the EDO, making those expectations clear. I've indicated to the chamber, in relation to a range of allegations with regard to whether or not the EDO's conduct is in accordance with their grant agreement, that the minister requested that the secretary undertake a review to consider whether or not the EDO's conduct was in accordance with the grant agreement, and I have indicated to the chamber that the results of that review are available on the minister's website.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McDonald, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Isn't it clear from your previous answers that the Albanese government is delaying the approval of the Karratha Gas Plant in the hope of gaining preferences from the Australian Greens at the next election?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, I remind senators that Senator McKim and any senator is entitled to have their question heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Australia's billionaires have more than doubled their wealth in the last six years, so the 150 billionaires in this country have now hoarded an eye-watering $584 billion in wealth—it is in the hands of just 150 people. The Greens have a fully costed plan to tax billionaires at 10 per cent of their net wealth, which would raise $50 billion over the next decade. Interestingly, that is almost exactly what it would cost to fund free GP visits for every Australian. Will Labor work with the Greens to make billionaires pay their fair share of tax so every Australian can visit a GP with no out of pocket—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Kim, the time for asking has expired.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, when I call you to sit, that's what I expect. Perhaps you need to time your question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>GALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator McKim for the question. No, Labor doesn't have any plans to adopt the Greens political party's revenue measures that you have outlined. I take note of the fact that you have said that they are fully costed policies, but the reality is that you can promise whatever you like but you never have to actually deliver it. This is the big difference between the Greens political party and a party of government, which has to look at a whole range of competing pressures on the budget and work out how to meet a whole range of needs.</para>
<para>We have a comprehensive tax agenda. We are trying to get superannuation tax concessions through this parliament, for example, which would raise revenue on those with superannuation accounts of greater than $3 million. We've been trying to do that. We've been unable to get that through this chamber to this point. But we have a range of measures, whether it be multinational tax reform or our tax cuts that we provided, which we made better and fairer for all Australians so that they could get a better share of those tax cuts that were designed under those opposite. We have been investing more than any government in Medicare because being able to see a doctor and having that bulk-billed is a priority for our government. The work that Minister Butler and Assistant Minister Kearney have been leading has been all about making sure that we stop Medicare from falling off a cliff, where it was heading under those opposite, that we address that and that we reinvest in it so we can provide quality health care at an affordable level for all Australians.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With Australia's billionaires each raking in a staggering $67,000 per hour every hour last year, how much wealth is too much for one person to have? How much richer will Australia's billionaires need to get before you make them pay their fair share of tax? Or will you keep siding with ultrawealthy billionaires indefinitely while everyday Australians are getting smashed by the cost-of-living crisis?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): I listened to Senator McKim. We do have a progressive taxation system in this country and we do want everyone to pay their fair share of tax, which is why we have been focused on ensuring multinational tax reform passes this parliament—to make sure that those companies, when they are operating in Australia, are paying their fair share of tax. But I would also say to Senator McKim that we have ensured a tax cut for every taxpayer and energy bill relief for every household, we're getting wages moving again, we're investing in cheaper child care and in Medicare and we're providing cheaper medicines and fee-free TAFE. These are all things that the Labor government wants to do and invest in. We want to invest in our community and make sure that we are taxing people properly and that people do pay their fair share of tax. But I reject some of the propositions put by Senator McKim. We need to do what we can to make sure we're giving everyone a helping hand. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just last week the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You judge a society not just by how it looks after the most wealthy, how it looks after the Gina Rineharts of this world, but how it looks after the vulnerable.</para></quote>
<para>Given Ms Rinehart has added over $10 billion to her wealth since you took office, when will Labor start making her and other billionaires pay their fair share of tax so vulnerable Australians can live with a little more dignity?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order my left! Senator McKenzie and Senator McKim, order! Senator McDonald, if you care to look, I am now on my feet. I beg your pardon, Senator Davey. From the start of question time, a number of senators in this place who I have called by name have been incredibly disrespectful and disorderly to the point that I've had to stand. I expect there to be silence when the question is answered. If you can't remain silent, I invite you to leave the chamber. Minister Gallagher.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just let those two sides of the chamber—the extreme ends of those debates—argue a bit more at each other, but we as the government are making decisions in the best interests of all Australians, and we do have a focus on those who are most vulnerable. It is a key job of any government to make sure that those who need an extra helping hand are getting that extra helping hand and that there is opportunity for everyone, which is why all of the effort that we have put in in the last 2½ years has been to address areas where that wasn't happening enough and to make sure the budget can meet some of those pressures. I say again: if you look across the board in housing, healthcare, education, tax reform, energy and the transition to more renewable energy sources that, we have been focusing on making sure that we are addressing those who are most vulnerable in our community and making sure that everyone benefits from those types of policies. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. I refer to the Albanese government's plan for building Australia's future. On top of delivering immediate cost-of-living relief, how is the government creating secure and well-paid jobs in Australian manufacturing that will strengthen our economy and deliver a future made in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pratt for her question. Like Senator Ghosh, she is a wonderful representative of the great state of Western Australia.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Sterle</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about me?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to come to come to you! Hold on. The Albanese Labor government is tackling the challenges of today while ensuring our prosperity into the future. We have made sure that every taxpayer got a tax cut and every household got energy bill relief. Australians have access to cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and a stronger Medicare. Yet we are looking to the future—a future built in Australia—and we are making strong progress.</para>
<para>In the last few months, the National Reconstruction Fund, which is rebuilding Australia's industrial base, has invested $400 million in businesses across this country, while our industry growth program is supporting dozens of companies across robotics, next-generation batteries and equipment manufacturing. These are important investments in our national future. Securing well-paid jobs in critical industries across the country will ensure that manufacturing stays onshore, helping to diversity and strengthen our economy. We recognise that a domestic steel industry is vital to building a future made in Australia, and that's why I was recently in Whyalla with that terrific Premier, Premier Malinauskas, speaking with workers—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you his godfather?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's a wonderful, very fine fellow. We were speaking with workers and contractors at the Whyalla steelworks. Steelmaking is key to the nation's security and prosperity, and the Albanese Labor government will always stand up for our steelmaking workforce. <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 Pratt, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's clear that the Albanese government is backing manufacturing right around the country. How else is the government creating secure and well-paid jobs in Western Australia, backing regional communities and ensuring a future made in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pratt for her first supplementary question. Yesterday the Albanese Labor government's production tax credits passed the Senate, and I congratulate Senator Ayres on the terrific job he did in getting that legislation through. It was a great day for Australia but especially, Senator Pratt, for Western Australia. Consulted on and supported by industry, the Albanese Labor government's production tax credits ensure that resources aren't just mined here; that Australia processes locally to maximise their value. It means more resource sector jobs, providing secure and well-paid incomes to Western Australian families.</para>
<para>Yet there are those in this chamber who voted against this. I'm looking at all those over there, and I'm particularly looking at those Western Australian senators—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>including you, Senator Cash; and Senator Smith, behind you; and Senator Reynolds; Senator Brockman— <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 Pratt, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's great to hear about the impacts that the Albanese Labor government's production tax credits will have on my home state of Western Australia and the support they've received from industry. The minister has talked about a future made in Australia, but what other support is the government providing for manufacturing workers, and what is standing in the way?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pratt. Minister Farrell, I remind you to address your response through me.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank you for that admonition, President, and I thank Senator Pratt for the second supplementary question. I can answer that question, Senator Pratt, because, alongside our plan for a future made in Australia, our $400 million Industry Growth Program is helping Aussie businesses grow, ensuring that we increase our manufacturing capability and, most importantly, make more things here. We've delivered energy bill relief for Australian businesses, a tax cut for every Australian and higher wages for manufacturing workers.</para>
<para>These measures, each and every one, have two things in common: (1) they are supporting Australian manufacturing workers, and (2) the Liberal and the National parties tried to block them. It's clear that, under the Liberals and Nationals, Australians would be worse off. They are opposed to every bit of relief. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Farrell. Minister, new research released today has found that seven out of 10 renters and mortgage holders are now in housing stress, and one in three lack confidence that they can afford their housing costs over the next 12 months, yet here we are a couple of months out from the end of Labor's first term and you still haven't released the promised national housing and homelessness plan, and you won't support my bill to legislate one, despite 72 per cent of people supporting such a plan. Minister, you understand the importance of numbers. With this kind of support, why won't you legislate a plan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for his question. I acknowledge that on many occasions Senator Pocock has asked me questions about the issue of housing and homelessness, and I respect his interest in this topic. But, in terms of a plan: as you say, we are still working on that plan. We want to make sure that we get the plan right and that we don't make the wrong decisions in this space. That's why, as a government, we have been consulting all of the stakeholders to come up with the right plan. But we haven't just been sitting on our hands, Senator Pocock. I—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, we haven't been sitting on our hands.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, we haven't been sitting on our hands. We have been doing things to address the 10 years of neglect by your government, Senator Cash. Can I read out some of the things that we've been doing in this space. Would you like to hear that? We've made the single biggest Commonwealth investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. Of course, that period takes into account your period in government, Senator Cash—but the biggest single Commonwealth investment in social and affordable housing. Then under the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Housing Accord, 40,000 new social and affordable homes will be delivered. This includes— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, we learnt, in a response to a question on notice over the summer, that the government's National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, who has been advising on the plan, is not in fact measuring for unmet social and affordable housing need. Does the government believe measuring unmet need is essential to formulating an effective plan to meet that need?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for his first supplementary question. We understand that housing and homelessness are important issues in the Australian community. I started to explain, in my first answer, Senator Pocock, some of the things that this government is doing in that space. We recognise that it's a problem. We recognise that it's a concern for many, many Australians, but we also recognise, as a government, we've got an obligation to do something about it.</para>
<para>I mentioned two of the things: the biggest Commonwealth investment in social—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Pocock, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance. I asked specifically about whether or not we need to measure unmet need to meet unmet need?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I'm happy to draw the minister back to your question, Senator Pocock. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am explaining the way in which we deal with this issue of need in our community. We have doubled the Commonwealth's homelessness funding, under the $9.3 billion national agreement on social housing and homelessness, to $400 million each and every year— <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 Pocock, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you pointed out that I've asked you about this a few times. In October last year, you said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are working with the states and territories as we speak. The new minister, Clare O'Neil, is working very hard to get movement on that project.</para></quote>
<para>I'm interested in why there's been no movement in six months. Surely housing is as important, if not more important, than more money to the major parties to keep Independents and minor parties out of the parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for his second supplementary question. I'm not sure what the link between keeping Independents and Teals out of the parliament has with the issue of housing. But can I say this: we've got a terrific minister in this space, and they are working with the states and the territories to get best possible result for the Australian community. If these things were easy to fix, Senator Pocock, somebody else would have already done it and we wouldn't have issues of housing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you for real?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you did nothing for a decade.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For that wasted decade, when you did nothing. We are trying to fix— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</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 Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. On Monday, Minister Watt provided a figure for the cost of the net zero transition to the economy at $122 billion. AEMO discounted the $500 billion cost by 7 per cent a year, producing a figure of just $122 billion. This left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics puts at over $650 billion. There was no allowance for behind-the-meter power, where you go in and take power out of people's wall batteries and EVs. Minister, what is the cost of this behind-the-metre cost to households and businesses that you have left out of the net zero costs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts yet again asks for more detail—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, give us more detail!</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>when questioning a publication that is in the public domain—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! This is Senator Roberts's question. He's entitled to a response, and the minister is entitled to silence. Minister McAllister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much, President. I can inform Senator Roberts, as I have in the past, that the government's approach is to rely on the advice of experts, and the experts at AEMO conduct intensely detailed, publicly available, engaged work with a community of experts to cost the transition for our power system to 2050. I will say that they provided information publicly again and again and again saying that the cheapest path to 2050 to meet our electricity system requirements lies in renewables firmed by batteries and other forms of storage and by gas. I will say, though, Senator Roberts, that the approach we take, which is to listen to the experts and provide significant amounts of detail in the public domain for scrutiny, is quite different to the approach taken by your party. I have checked the One Nation website. You've actually done some policy work over the summer. There were 88 words worth of policy on energy and energy prices previously on the One Nation website; it's down now, I understand, to 33 words or thereabouts. It used to say that you were committed to building low-emission, coal-fired power plants. You've now moved to a new variation on this, which says that you're going to change the NEM rules to incentivise coal- and gas-fired power. But I make this point: to your credit, it's a deal more detail than those opposite have provided. The people opposite have proposed a risky nuclear system which they cannot find an expert willing to back. It is $600 billion worth, on the taxpayer tab, with no plan for how to pay for or deliver it—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for answering has expired. Order! Senator Ayres, I have called the chamber to order. That includes you. Senator McKenzie! I think I've called you to order enough times this question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister—rely on experts, eh? Bombshell freedom of information document show that AEMO was directly instructed by your government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite your claims AEMO's process was not independent of Labor's political agenda. It's true, isn't it, that an even cheaper grid could be built if we ditched net zero, but your government told AEMO they could not look at that.</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>Senator Roberts misunderstands the process that AEMO goes through. AEMO has and has been very clear about the process they undertake to work through the issues associated with replacing and fixing up the mess that was created by those opposite. When those opposite left office, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour. Just like we inherited a 6.1 per cent inflation rate, which they don't take responsibility for, they won't take responsibility for the mess that they left either. They know exactly what was going on. Prices were going up, and what did Mr Taylor do at that time? He went off to the Governor-General to make arrangements to hide that price increase from the Australian people before an election. What a disgrace. There is a lot of work to do to resolve the mess that was bequeathed to the Australian people by those opposite, and we are up for it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you talked about Liberal policy; I want to know about Labor policy. Australia has been installing more and more wind, solar and batteries onto the grid for 20 years, and electricity prices have never been higher. South Australia, the wind and solar capital, has spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. When will you admit the truth—that your net zero is pushing Australia into poverty?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That statement is simply incorrect. The prices that are reflected in the way Australians experience their bills are not to do with the spot price. They are an average price from all of the prices that are experienced within the National Electricity Market. The truth is that renewables remain the cheapest form of new generation. We've got a lot of work to do. These guys managed the electricity system—or mismanaged it—for over a decade. There were 22 policies. Four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the grid; only one came on. That actually causes a problem that requires resolution. When we left office, prices were very, very high. There was no plan at all, and our government is working through the necessary steps to put in place the generation to secure Australia's interests into the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macquarie Point Stadium</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister McCarthy. Recently, Dr Nicholas Gruen, an independent economist, handed down his report on the Macquarie Point precinct, and the results were damning. Dr Gruen's report found that the Macquarie Point precinct project has the hallmarks of mismanagement and that the site selection process was hasty and partial. He found that the project will suffer a massive budget blowout costing more than a billion dollars. But, given the Albanese government has stumped up $240 million of taxpayers' cash for the project, the federal government has skin in the game. Has the federal government reviewed Dr Gruen's report—because, apparently, you do this all on experts—or is the government comfortable with pouring money into a project that has an unrealistic budget, an unrealistic timeline and no social licence from the people of Tasmania?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Lambie for her question. What we certainly have an interest in is investing in Tasmania. Our government is very, very proud to invest in Tasmania, in particular in housing and infrastructure. We know that the Australian government is investing not just in the urban renewal precinct at Macquarie Point but in a range of projects announced throughout this term, including most recently the reconstruction of the Clarendon Vale Oval pavilion, revitalisation of Flinders Island Airport, upgrades to local roads to support 600 more homes in South Brighton and the redevelopment of the Princess Theatre and Earl Arts Centre in Launceston.</para>
<para>Clearly, having made the arrangement with the Tasmanian government, we expect, like we do with all governments, those governments to then take responsibility for what we provide in terms of our funding arrangements with each state and territory jurisdiction.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Dr Gruen's report was followed by economist Saul Eslake's review of Tasmanian finances. Mr Eslake found that Tasmania's debt will be an estimated $16 billion by 2035, the worst in the country. He found that the state's poor financial position was entirely caused by government policies. Is the federal government going to review Saul Eslake's report so that it doesn't prop up the Tasmanian government's reckless decisions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I reject the assertion of reckless decisions in terms of the federal government. We clearly want to support the people of Tasmania in every way possible, and I've already made clear in my previous response that, in regard to any funding agreement between the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian government, it is now for the Tasmanian government to determine the way that funding is spent.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Lambie?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order. I just want to know whether they are going to review Saul Eslake's report. It's a simple question: yes or no.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, and your question also went to debt, and I think the minister is being relevant to the question, Senator Lambie, but I'll continue to listen carefully.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have no doubt, Senator Lambie, that you have had meetings with the minister for infrastructure, who I'm sure is very ready and able to have that meeting with you, but can I continue to point out to the Senate that this is a Tasmanian government responsibility.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Wow! Palming it off! Dr Gruen's report recommended renegotiating the timeline with the AFL on parts of the deal. He said: 'It's in the interests of the Tasmanian government and the AFL.' The arrogant Rockliff government rejected this idea. Is the federal government as reckless as the state Liberal government, or is it willing to support a renegotiation of the Macquarie Point precinct without jeopardising the funding it has already provided?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government is not reckless. We support state and territory jurisdictions in funding, and we certainly do so with the Tasmanian people. For any further questions on this, I would advise you to go to the minister directly.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Senator Gallagher. Australians in regional and rural areas play a crucial role in contributing to our nation's prosperity, including in my home state of Tasmania. From agriculture, mining, energy and tourism—key regional industries—to local small businesses, these communities drive jobs, investment and growth across the country. How will today's announcement by the Albanese Labor government protect access to essential banking services that regional communities rely upon, and how is the national footprint of Australia Post's trusted branch network being harnessed to meet the evolving needs of regional customers and businesses?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Urquhart for the question and for all the work she does, particularly for regional communities on the north-west coast of Tasmania and for her home state of Tasmania. It's an important announcement—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know the opposition don't want to hear about this, because they did nothing about regional bank—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, I'm not quite sure which part of 'order across the chamber' you think doesn't apply to you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm astounded that those opposite don't want to hear what we're doing to make sure that people who live in regional communities can have access to banking services and to make sure that their needs are being met, particularly after the hundreds and hundreds of bank closures that those opposite oversaw when they were in government. Perhaps what Senator Cash referred to earlier, about having to sit on their hands, is really summing up the former government. They did sit on their hands a lot. That's why we've inherited a lot of challenges and problems that we've been methodically working through as the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>We believe that banks have a responsibility to regional communities, and we're holding them to it. I acknowledge the work of Minister Rowland, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer in all of the discussions that they've had with the banks and with Australia Post to make sure that Bank@Post is able, resourced and supported to do the job where those banking services have been withdrawn. We acknowledge that those communities, like the ones that you represent, Senator Urquhart, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, play a critical role in Australia's economy, and we are standing up for them to make sure that they continue to access the banking services they need.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> There's a lot of shouting from those opposite. I would have thought they would have welcomed the moratorium on the closing of banks. I thought they would have welcomed the agreement to have that trusted Australia Post delivering services to make sure that people get them close to where they live, but no. Sitting on their hands alright—that's all they did. <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 Urquhart, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister confirm the Albanese Labor government has secured a new moratorium on regional bank branch closures from participating banks, including NAB's new commitment and extensions by the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac? And can you confirm this ensures communities across regional Australia will continue to have access to face-to-face banking services for consumers and small businesses with no closures until 2027?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Urquhart for the question. Yes, I can confirm that the Albanese government has secured new moratorium arrangements on regional bank closures from a number of key banks, including a new commitment from NAB and extensions by the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac. This ensures no closures before 31 July 2027 in regional communities serviced by those banks. This is a major win for regional Australians, who have been advocating strongly, and their government has listened. We have acted and we have reached agreement to make sure that moratorium is in place. We've stepped in. We've not sat on our hands like the former government did, and we have worked with stakeholders to make sure we can get the best outcome for regional communities. This is the best outcome: a moratorium on closures and making sure that Bank@Post is funded and resourced appropriately to do the job that it needs to do.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Urquhart, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In addition to keeping banking services available in the regions, how does this announcement—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why didn't you go to the inquiry?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Seriously, Senator McKenzie! I intend to remind you of standing order 203. I have, quite frankly, lost count of the number of times I've had to call you to order today.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How does this announcement build on the Albanese Labor government's broader work to strengthen financial services and protect consumers? How are the government's reforms, whether it's improving access to financial advice, cracking down on scams or strengthening consumer protections, giving Australians greater confidence to engage with the finance system and plan for their future?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Canavan and Senator Watt, I remind both of you of standing order 203. Seriously! Come to order!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Urquhart for that supplementary. The announcement builds on the Albanese government's ongoing work to ensure the banking sector works for all Australians. We're helping farmers and small-business owners in regional areas plan for their future by improving access to affordable financial advice and making it easier to navigate the challenge they face, whether it's managing cash flow or planning for their retirement. Scams prevention, again, is something we're investing in heavily—something that those opposite didn't do. We've now got the moratorium on regional bank closures. We are standing up for regional communities.</para>
<para>We know there's a person over from that side of the chamber in the other place that's in witness protection right now. He's not allowed to stand up for regional communities. Poor old Barnaby! He just wants to be let out.</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!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, Senator Colbeck! I call the chamber to order and you still continue. You are incredibly disrespectful. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. Senator Cash, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you could, ask the minister—as they always do to us—when referring to a member of the other place, to refer to them by their proper title, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cash. I'm sure that you are fully aware that it is always my practice to remind senators of that. Minister Gallagher, I do remind you of that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, then I say poor Mr Joyce. There he is, wanting to stand up and speak up for regional communities, and he's locked up. Free Mr Joyce! Let him speak!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It's quite a simple question, actually. How many houses have been built under the Housing Australia Future Fund agenda?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would almost take that interjection, Senator Davey! As you know, the government has a $32 billion Homes for Australia Plan, which is focused on supply. You would also know that you and others participated in blocking very substantial components of that plan. We would have liked to have started much of this much earlier, given the housing supply challenge that Australia is facing. That job—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order on relevance. The question merely asked for a number.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, and it did talk about HAFF in the beginning of the question.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! You are not in a debate with me. The minister has only begun her response. I will listen carefully and, if I need to draw the minister to the question, I will certainly do that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the government, as a consequence of these policies, has directly supported more than 10,000 new homes since the election and, through investing in social and affordable housing, is helping first home buyers get into the market with a deposit of five per cent or less. There is more in the pipeline—</para>
</continue>
<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>I have a point of order in relation to relevance. The question was in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe the minister is being relevant to the question. Minister Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have responded to the question, but I would say this in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, it does seem somewhat hypocritical to come into here and complain about the rollout of that fund when you are a member of the coalition who have consistently opposed it.</para>
</continue>
<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>The point of order is again relevance. It is a figure: how many were built? We can tell you the answer—it's zero. You just need to say it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, if you are seeking a point of order you address your question to me. I've ruled on the point of order. The minister was responding to Senator Cash. I will now remind the minister to go back to the substantive question rather than talking about the senator.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I again say the government has directly supported more than 10,000 homes since we were elected, on top of the 400,000 that have been built nationwide, enabled by the investments in fee-free TAFE and enabling infrastructure. There are more homes to come—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I will call you when there is order in the chamber. Senator Cash?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, it is a point of order on relevance. We are asking for a figure under the Housing Australia Future Fund. We are not asking for the government—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cash. As you described, it is a narrow question, but the minister is entitled to go to the context of the question, I am advised by the clerk. I have drawn the minister back to the question. I call the minister again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that 24,000 homes are in the pipeline through direct Commonwealth investment, including 13,700 under round 1 of the HAFF.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, a first supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How many houses has the Housing Australia Future Fund actually completed? I don't think the answer is fee-free TAFE. In addition to that, given the overall target of a quarter of a million houses, how is the government going against that target of 250,000 houses per year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, 21,000 homes are in the pipeline through direct Commonwealth investment, including 13,700 under round 1 of the HAFF. The government is working with the states and territories on what is an ambitious target. But, Senator, you really have no credibility on this. You voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund every single time and now you're complaining about delays.</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>Again, it's a point of order in relation to relevance. Could you direct the minister to answer the question. There is a difference between 'in the pipeline' and 'built'.</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. She is entitled to talk about housing. Senator Bragg, a second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that the Prime Minister has now failed to apologise to Australians for Labor's cost-of-living crisis, including 12 interest rate rises, energy bills rising by $1,000, living standards collapsing, 27,000 businesses going bust and a record-breaking household recession, will the Prime Minister at least apologise to the Australian people for his housing crisis?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked about the cost-of-living issue. I'm asked about the cost-of-living crisis from a bloke who voted against every cost-of-living measure this government has put in place for working families, a man who voted against energy relief, child care, tax cuts and the range of cost-of-living relief that we have put in place. You lot have been in opposition for nearly three years, and you've got three policies: $10 billion to fund long lunches, $600 billion to fund nuclear reactors and cuts to everything. That's your cost-of-living response.</para>
<para>I ask that further questions be placed on notice.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>33</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education Standards</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In question time on Monday, Minister Wong undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked by Senator Roberts relating to mutual recognition of qualifications. In my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Education, I've written to Senator Roberts to provide additional information, and I table my letter for the information of all senators.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</title>
        <page.no>33</page.no>
        <type>PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rennick, Senator Gerard</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I inform the Senate that I now sit as a Queensland senator for the Gerard Rennick People First party. I also inform the Senate that I should be designated as party whip for the purposes of standing order 24A, relating to the Selection of Bills Committee.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>33</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>33</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to start by acknowledging the longstanding interest that Senator Lambie has in the substantive policy question that this order for the production of documents relates to. I also want to acknowledge the senator's longstanding advocacy on questions of transparency. We take our disclosure and transparency obligations seriously, and we comply with our obligations. In this case, I'm advised that the government is not in a position to provide the documents that have been requested. The Minister for Communications has outlined in correspondence to this chamber that the government claims public interest immunity over the requested documents. If disclosed, it would both disclose and pre-empt the deliberations of cabinet.</para>
<para>There has been a longstanding acknowledgement of the issues that arise from the disclosure of documents that relate to the deliberations of cabinet. Indeed, former senator Birmingham previously advised the Senate in March 2021 of the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As is well recognised in the Westminster system, it is in the public interest to preserve the confidentiality of cabinet deliberations to ensure the best possible decisions are made following thorough consideration and informed discussion of relevant proposals within cabinet. It is not in the public interest to disclose information about the cabinet's deliberations, as it may impact in the future upon government's ability to receive confidential information and to make appropriately informed decisions impacting upon the Australian community.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the statement.</para></quote>
<para>I feel sorry for Senator McAllister having to read this pretty pathetic explanation from the government about why they continue to keep the Australian public in the dark and why, rather than acting on the promises they have made to reform gambling advertising in this country—as they promised to do—they are refusing. This government made promises. They upset the gambling lobby. They upset some of the big corporates in the sports world, and now they're crab walking away from their commitments. This parliament acted collectively to hand down an historic report over 18 months ago from a committee chaired by the late Peta Murphy, and it said overwhelmingly that, if we want to stop the harm that gambling is doing to families, we have to stop the promotion of the harmful product.</para>
<para>That report called for a full ban on gambling advertising, and we've seen parliaments act on other reports in relation to other dangerous products, like tobacco. At the time that that report was handed down—a unanimous report backed by all sides—the Prime Minister at the time and other members of the government stood up and said they would act on these recommendations to reduce the harm of gambling advertising and that they would do it in this term of government. We're standing in the chamber today debating this topic on what might be the third-last day before the next election. The government has run out of time to act on gambling advertising reform. They have run out of time to deliver on their promise.</para>
<para>Now they want to justify keeping the public in the dark about their secret deliberations. I'll tell you what's secret—cosy lunches, dinners and fundraisers with gambling lobbyists. You don't want the public knowing what you're really up to. You don't want the public to know what you've done with your spine. So you come in here and pretend that, for some reason, there is a legitimate excuse for public interest immunity. There is no excuse for this. I put to this Senate that we should reject this public interest immunity claim. It's bollocks. It's a political excuse, not a real excuse. It's about doing the dirty work of the gambling lobby. It has nothing to do with the public interest. When ministers come into this place and claim public interest immunity, they should do so in the full knowledge and intent of what is in the best public interest. Keeping the public in the dark and telling the community that the promise that you made no longer applies is not a public interest immunity excuse. It's pathetic. I urge my fellow senators to reject this public immunity claim. It's rubbish. It is a sad, sad sign of government that, whenever the tough questions are asked, instead of answering them and instead of being upfront, you pull out the public interest immunity claim. I tell you what's in the public interest: stopping the harm of gambling advertising and acting in these next three days to get something done. We could wipe the Senate agenda for tomorrow and Thursday and get it done. That would be in the public interest. This is not.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>34</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of answers to all questions that were asked by coalition senators.</para></quote>
<para>I'd like to start with Labor's war on the family car and Labor's war on the ute. What we have in Australia is a real disconnect between the governing class, who are based here in Canberra, and those who live out in the real world. What Labor is proposing to do is to make it a lot harder for families when they want to buy a new car, because they have such a focus on EVs. My position as an LNP senator from Queensland is that I don't care what type of car you drive. That's up to you. You make that choice. Whether it's a hybrid, an EV or, if you're like me and you like diesel—that's good. But what the Labor Party do is make it even harder for families, who are suffering under Labor's cost-of-living crisis, if they want to buy a new car because of Labor's ideological focus on anything to do with EVs or renewables. Labor is disconnected from what's going on in the real world. They're the new establishment, the new elite. They're the governing class. They sit up at the front of the plane. They get in their big cars. They go overseas. They sit around their nice, polished wooden tables—they're all very important people. They have thousands of public servants—more of them are going to be appointed, by the way—working for them. They sort of forget what it's like.</para>
<para>This is the Labor Party who promised 97 times that they would cut power bills by $275. Yet power bills haven't gone down by $275, they haven't gone down by $10 and they haven't gone down by a dollar. Power bills have gone up an average of a thousand dollars, so poor Australians are dealing with this government who just want to tax them and make it harder to just get on with life.</para>
<para>This war on cars and this war on utes—I don't understand why the Labor Party don't get it. I tell you what, I have spent a fair bit of time on the road. On the weekend, I was in Senator Wong's home state. I was in Port Augusta and Whyalla. It's interesting: those who drive utes, the tradies, have shifted. Labor's traditional base, the tradies—guess what, Labor?—have shifted. They're getting in their utes and they're driving away from the Labor Party and they're driving towards the coalition, because we're on their side.</para>
<para>If you want to buy a ute, buy a ute. You should not be punished because of the Labor Party's obsession with EVs. When you do roadsides, which we do in the coalition, and you're out there early in the morning, the tradies are also the ones out there at 4.30 to five or 5.30 to six in the morning. Where do you get the toots from? You get the toots from the tradies who are going to their sites, going to do the work, because they're up early. They understand that we're on their side and the Labor Party has just left them behind.</para>
<para>But what was more disappointing about the answers that we got in question time today was the defence by the Labor Party of the Environmental Defenders Office. The minister concerned—I think it was you, Senator Wong, and I apologise if it wasn't—said there are allegations in relation to the EDO. Well, they're not allegations. This is actually what—and I've taken my glasses off so I can read it properly—the Federal Court judge said. They're not allegations; it's what the judge said. Justice Charlesworth said that the EDO's evidence was 'so lacking in integrity' that no weight could be placed on it. Justice Charlesworth went on to say that the EDO were involved in 'distorting and misrepresenting' evidence and that they manipulated and coached a number of traditional owners.</para>
<para>I don't know how the lawyers who were involved in this matter have not been struck off from the solicitors roll or the barristers roll, in their respective jurisdictions. This is appalling conduct from lawyers. These lawyers should be struck off, the taxpayers of Australia should stop funding the EDO and the Labor Party should stand up for what is right and withdraw the funding. We're going to do that. We're going to make sure that no money goes to the EDO.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's laughable for the coalition to come into the Senate this week and talk to us about the car industry. These are the very same people, the very same party, the very same coalition who had no regard for our world-class car industry. We heard the good senator from Queensland talk about a war on the family car, but it was those opposite that shut down this industry—an industry that my dad was very proud to work in—and the thousands of people who worked in the industry lost their jobs overnight.</para>
<para>Let's not forget that one of the decisions that former prime minister Tony Abbott's government made was to shaft Holden, when they awarded a brand new contract to BMW to replace the Holden Caprices that had been used to drive every single politician around the country. They went with a foreign owned car company. They chose a BMW over the fantastic, world-class Holden Caprices that we exported to the United States, which was a very lucrative market. They've all gone quiet over there, haven't they—Senator Lambie and others here—because it was an exclusive contract. You shut down a fantastic industry that supported thousands of people directly and indirectly, including the research and development that also was behind the car industry. Guess what? They just wanted to rationalise their spending. They didn't believe in a domestic market we as a country could build a current through.</para>
<para>We are the only country in the OECD that does not make cars. But overnight, one after the other, Holden, Ford and Toyota all went. I still remember that, when I was a kid, those cars cost around the $20,000 to $30,000 mark. It was very affordable for many people—families like mine—to have a car that was made here in Australia. Sadly, now we're in a marketplace where rely exclusively on foreign car companies to export their cars into Australia. What this government has decided to do is open up that market, acknowledging that we don't make cars here anymore. But the best thing for us consumers, for the very people here in the gallery watching, is to open up that market so any car that people want to get they should be able to get. That includes EVs.</para>
<para>What we have seen is that there is now more choice of brand new cars coming into the market. But we've had to apply pressure on the car companies, because we've also had to change the standards for fuel sold in this country. No longer should we, as a leading developed nation in the world, be able to have fuel of a very poor quality and standard. On drive.com and in articles in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> in my home state in Victoria, we now see every week new cars being discussed about being imported here into Australia. They are certainly cheaper, because we're now opening that marketplace. We are now allowing and incentivising those car companies to sell these cars—and they're not all electric, by the way. They are hybrids. I think hybrids are doing a fantastic job at being that medium between electric and petrol, and I think you get the best of both words. I proudly drive a hybrid car, because I acknowledge the world is now moving on.</para>
<para>I want to call out the hypocrisy from the other side when they come in here and talk about us getting rid of the utes or the family car. They started this. In fact, if it weren't for their ideological policies back then, we'd have a fantastic, proud marketplace, where we would still continue to make Ford, Holden and Toyota cars in this country and export those cars overseas. It wasn't just the United States, too, Senator Brockman. I remember Toyota used to actually export the engines of the cars we were making here, the Avalons, back to Japan, and they were just amazed by the fantastic V6s. And I know my office might be laughing, but I had one—a gold-coloured Aurion V6, which had much more power than Ford and Holden. It put to shame those Commodore and Falcon drivers at the red lights. I could have told you that—not that I did anything else. It had more power and more torque than those cars, and it was something we were very proud of as Australians, and we should be, but, sadly, we are not.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ciccone, you opened the door so wide! I was reading an article the other day about how, in America—and perhaps this is happening here, too; we'll have to ask some of your colleagues—people are starting to sell their Elon—sorry, I mean their Teslas! That's because those on the Left of politics don't like to be seen driving around in an Elon—sorry, I mean a Tesla—anymore. But I'll put that to one side. I'll remind Senator Ciccone, because he is younger than me, though I hate to admit it, that my memory stretches back a little further than his. The downfall of the Australian car industry goes straight back to the Dutton car plant, where, in their desire to centralise, control, force and unionise, the then Labor government forced completely separate car companies Toyota, Holden and Ford to share bodies, engines and drive trains. When you went out and bought a Holden Astra, it was exactly the same as a Toyota or Ford. That was the downfall of the Australian car industry, and it was 100 per cent at Labor's feet. They unionised, they controlled, they centralised and they forced massive inefficiencies into the Australian car industry.</para>
<para>What do we have now? We have a Labor government again who hates people having choice. Senator Ciccone says that it's all about giving people choice, but the fact is it's not. The most popular cars in Australia—the D-Max, the HiLux, the Ranger—are all being made more expensive under this Labor government's policy. And guess what will theoretically become a bit cheaper under this Labor government's policies. It's the Elon—sorry, the Tesla. They become cheaper under this government's policies. So you're not giving Australians a choice. You're not giving Australians the choice of the cars that they have demonstrated over a long period of time are the best for this environment, best for workers and best for how people want to live their lives on the weekends. This Labor government wants to suck that out.</para>
<para>We've also seen, in the answers to questions today, the betrayal from the Labor Party of the great Western Australian gas industry, with a two-month delay on a project extension. This isn't a project approval. This is not a greenfield site. This is a project that already exists, the famous Woodside project, which has the sign-off from the state Labor government. Yet this federal Labor government, under Minister Plibersek and Prime Minister Albanese, has got to delay this until after the election. Why do they need to delay it until after the election? This is a really important project for the economic future of Western Australia. This is a really important project for the economic future of not just Western Australia but Australia. This is a really important project to ensure that we have gas supplies not just for ourselves domestically but also for our major trading partners and allies, like Japan.</para>
<para>These are not trivial decisions that should be kicked down the road for two months because of an election where you want to keep the Greens on side. That's not how we should treat policy development. Again, this is not a greenfield approval. This is a project that has been underway for decades. This is a site that has been used for decades. But we've got to kick the can down the road another few months to get it past the election so they don't have a problem on their left flank. What an absolute disgrace and what a revealing statement of the priorities and the values of this Labor government. They don't think about the people of Australia. They don't think about the economic impact on my home state of WA. They only think in terms of their own electoral interests over the next few months. Well, I say let's bring on that election because I think the Australian people are going to have a very different opinion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question we saw in question time today from Senator Bragg was quite spectacular. It was only a few short weeks ago that we saw those opposite blocking every single housing bill that we brought into this place and not coming to the party at all on fixing what we know is a housing crisis in this country. That is a fact. We have a housing crisis, but it did not just appear overnight. This is something that has been building for well over a decade. What exactly did those opposite do when they were in government? Oh, that would be approximately nothing. In fact, for a significant part of their time in government, those opposite, the coalition, didn't even have a housing minister. That's how important they thought it was when they were in government. This is just a trend that we're seeing across the board. The things that they were actively against and actively crushed when they were in government, they're now standing there claiming they're the champions of. I would say to anyone: 'Don't listen to a word that they are telling you because it all appears to be rubbish. Just look at the facts. Look at the history. Look at what they've actually done in the past, not the rubbish that they are spouting now.'</para>
<para>In housing, they have no credibility whatsoever. We know full well that the issue we have is one of supply. After all that time of no building, no commitment to housing, no care in the world for people who were doing it tough, no care in the world for people who were trying to get into the housing market, no policies to help them and no support for people who were renting, their audacity to front up to this chamber and fake the outrage on the housing crisis is beyond belief.</para>
<para>In Labor, we know that whether you're trying to rent or buy, more homes mean more security for everyone. To have that, we need to increase supply. What are we doing? We are training more tradies and funding more apprentices. Growing the construction workforce is a critical part of getting houses on the ground. We are kickstarting more construction by cutting some of the red tape, giving incentives to state governments to build homes more quickly.</para>
<para>I can assure you, in South Australia, the Labor government under Peter Malinauskas is doing a spectacular job of working alongside the Labor federal government to get houses on the ground for South Australians. We have got heaps of development. Appropriately designated land is being fast-tracked, and those houses are being built. You can see it across South Australia, because of two Labor governments in the state and a federal government making a fundamental difference to people who we know are doing it hard.</para>
<para>We're delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade, helping to reduce homelessness and taking pressure out of the rental market. Strengthening renters' rights across Australia is a critical part of this because renters are, without a doubt, doing it the toughest. We've got to make changes. We've got to ensure that renters get more relief and they're better supported. In strengthening their rights, minimal rental standards are critical, as are limits to rent increases and requiring genuine, reasonable grounds for any form of eviction.</para>
<para>We have delivered a more than 40 per cent increase to rental assistance—that's the largest increase in more than 30 years—to take that pressure off people who are renting. We're not there yet, we know that. We know there's more to be done and we are trying to do it but we are constantly getting blocked by the coalition over there and the Greens over there. This is ridiculous. Everyone admits this is a housing crisis, yet every single great policy that we bring in this place, every single great piece of legislation to build more houses, make life easier for renters and to lift that pressure is being blocked. Then we are seeing fake outrage from across the chamber and the audacity to come in here and talk about the housing crisis as if you ever cared in your 10 long, horrible years in government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a very proud West Australian senator, it is absolutely shocking what those opposites are doing in relation to the gas policy for this nation. Not only are they exploiting and paying the environmental defenders offices to do their dirty work for them, but we've seen in question time alone just how dirty that work is.</para>
<para>But I am very proud to say that gas is good. In fact, gas is great, and those opposites speak with terribly forked tongues. You have the minister for minerals and energy in Western Australia saying how good it is, how important it is, but they do not back it up with action. Natural gas is a vital part of the energy mix, and the energy transition, over time, to net zero or zero energy. Government must not just say, on one side of the country, that we need gas. Whatever your view on the energy market going forward, whether you support nuclear energy or you want a heavier load of renewables, gas is essential. It is still going to be essential for decades and decades to come, so let's just have a look at the hypocrisy of those opposite.</para>
<para>Now, it's not just me who thinks gas is good. Reece Whitby is the Western Australian Labor environment minister who gave the approval in Western Australia last year—after six years, mind you. They had to start the review process over again because a bureaucrat left. It took them six years to approve it. The Western Australian Labor state minister said that gas is the enabler of renewables, especially in Western Australia. If you want to use renewables, you must have gas. The whole of Western Australia is essentially powered by gas. It runs all of our industries. All jobs in Western Australia—tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in mining, manufacturing and mineral processing—are powered by gas, and they will continue to be so for decades to come.</para>
<para>While gas is poured out of Western Australia, investment and jobs have poured in, not just into the gas sector itself but also into all of the enabling industries in Western Australia. But the North West Shelf does need to be extended—in fact, out to 2070. It has had six years so far. As Meg O'Neill, the amazing CEO of Woodside, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have a plant. We're not changing the fence line, we're not changing the stuff that's inside the plant. If anything we're going to be improving the emissions performance.</para></quote>
<para>It took six years for the Labor government in Western Australia to finally come to the conclusion that gas is good and necessary. She said that it was baffling. And now we come to the federal environment minister. She's got to get the report on the project from her department by the end of this month, but I'll bet you anything she ain't going to make a decision on this before the federal election. And why? It is because their partners in environmental and economic crimes, the Greens, will absolutely go mad at them—we've heard them.</para>
<para>So what do we need to do from here? In fact, I might put it this way: Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for the Environment and Water, has a decision to make. We are running out of gas in Western Australia. There are three new projects, which will feed into the existing infrastructure. They will bring in $30 billion of investment and will provide Western Australia with the gas security that it needs. Of course, gas is far cleaner than coal, which is why it is so necessary for the transition. But I say this to Tanya Plibersek: you approved the environmental vandalism of the Perth Hills—the destruction of 60,000 trees to make way for a property developer's high-density housing development in the Perth Hills in the middle of the most fire-prone area of Western Australia.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macquarie Point Stadium</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Macquarie Point precinct.</para></quote>
<para>The Macquarie Point precinct stadium has caused a lot of division in Tasmania, and for very good reason. And, by the way, opposing the stadium does not mean being against Tasmania having its own AFL team. For God's sake, we've well and truly earned the right to have our own team, and it is well overdue. Opposing the Macquarie Point stadium means opposing the raw deal that has been shoved down the throats of hundreds of thousands of Tasmanians.</para>
<para>The AFL will not hold Tasmania to ransom on my watch. The Macquarie Point stadium comes at a massive cost that Tasmanians will be paying off for years. Why should 18 AFL clubs be dictating what Tasmania should and shouldn't have or that the Australian taxpayer owes the AFL money for a stadium the AFL didn't even build? What rubbish! It can't be built in a realistic timeframe.</para>
<para>People either believe that taxpayers' money should be spent wisely or they don't. When it's black and white, there's no excuse to play by sides. Tasmanians won't be wooed by dangling the carrot of the AFL team. Tasmania having its own AFL team is an issue of fairness. When Premier Jeremy Rockliff or the AFL tells Tasmanians that there's no team without a stadium, I say that's rubbish—poor performance. I've been told by business leaders that this was the worst deal they had ever seen a Tasmanian government do. The Rockliff government has brought in a new era of arrogance as I have never seen. It's at a whole new level.</para>
<para>The real way to lead a democratic state is to propose something and let the people have their say on what should or shouldn't be. There is no social licence in Tasmania for this stadium. When the stadium was announced, the deal had been decided behind closed doors by a commercial entity, a former Premier and a few foffies. Transparency was non-existent and still is. Yet, despite clear and valid concerns, the Rockliff government has been the most arrogant we have ever seen down there.</para>
<para>This happens because they are spineless and beholden to the AFL. First, Saul Eslake's independent report on Tasmania's final position clearly said that, because of deliberate decisions by the Liberal state government, Tasmania's financials have been driven off a cliff. Then we have Dr Gruen's independent report on Macquarie Point Stadium, saying the stadium is going to suffer massive budget blowouts carving out a bigger hole in the state's finances. What the Eslake and Gruen reports have in common is that, despite the facts being there in black and white by renowned and respected economic experts, the Rockliff Liberal government's mind is set in stone, rejecting the findings of both. It's arrogance at its best. The arrogance of that government sets a very dangerous precedent where the government convenes in the interests of themselves instead of Tasmanians.</para>
<para>All this has been helped by the state government's partner in crime, the federal government, pouring in 240 million bucks. The Prime Minister is champing at the bit for this stadium. Last year he told Tasmanians to get on with it. He said he poured tens of millions of bucks into this site when he was infrastructure minister in 2012. All of that money was spent on setting up a corporation. Those millions were absolutely wasted. In an era when Tasmania is poorer than ever, our so-called leaders are committed to making our state even poorer. Shame on them.</para>
<para>Tasmania's budget update shows an increase in debt of $1.1 billion, taking our total debt to $10 billion in three years. Tasmania's year 12 educational attainment is just 53.1 per cent, the worst of any state or territory. A decade ago, half our population was functionally illiterate, and it is probably even more now. More than 2,300 Tasmanians are homeless. More than 8,300 Tasmanians are on elective surgery waitlists. But all these people don't need to worry, because in some fantasyland they may sit in a seat in a stadium with a roof. Hallelujah! Congratulations! I'm sure that is going to help you out!</para>
<para>The reality is that where the stadium is, what the stadium has and the timeline for it have been determined by the AFL club boardrooms across the country, not in Tasmania and sure as hell not by the Tasmanian people. The gutless Rockliff government rolled over and sold Tasmanians out. You sold us out as cheap as chips. You should be ashamed of yourself, Jeremy. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Well, I say to the AFL clubs out there, all 18 of you: stop bullying us. Stop bullying us, and get out of our state. Stop hurting your AFL brand. I tell you I am only just beginning. If you think you aren't going to take your AFL brand down a very dark hole, you are mistaken. Now go away and have a good think about it, because you're going down.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Andrews, Hon. Kevin James, AM</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 14 December 2024 of the Hon. Kevin James Andrews AM, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Menzies, Victoria, from 1991 to 2022.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 14 December 2024, of the Honourable Kevin James Andrews AM, former Minister for Ageing, Employment and Workplace Relations, Immigration and Citizenship, Social Services and Defence, and member for Menzies, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.</para></quote>
<para>Before his retirement, Mr Andrews had the honour of holding the parliamentary title Father of the House. He held the seat of Menzies for almost 31 years, from 1991 to 2022, and served as a senior minister in the Howard and the Abbott governments. Yet it was not the length of service that defined Mr Andrews but his unwavering faith and his personal principles. His integrity and conviction earned the respect of all regardless of their political persuasion.</para>
<para>Mr Andrews was born in the city of Sale in Victoria. He would proudly say that he came from 'Little Australia', with his parents running a small trucking business and a mixed farm in Gippsland. He saw the value of hard work firsthand. His parents worked from the early morning to the late night—his mother taking on the full running of the business when his father passed away. He inherited a strong work ethic and a belief that you can only rely on yourself to become the person that you want to be.</para>
<para>He would leave his family farm to pursue a career in law, completing a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Melbourne, having resided at Newman College, and later a Master of Laws at Monash University. Mr Andrews quickly made a name for himself as a barrister and was named the Australian Young Lawyer of the Year for his work in establishing a legal scheme for disaster victims.</para>
<para>He would leave the same impression on entering parliament as the member for Menzies in 1991. Mr Andrews spoke about the transition to politics as a vocation, not as a career:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A career is about the individual; a vocation is about a cause …</para></quote>
<para>And, over three decades, he would fight for his cause—a cause built on individual empowerment, family values and faith.</para>
<para>The passing of the 1997 Andrews private member's bill, which overturned the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation, was a historical moment, as one of the only handful of private members' bills to ever pass the parliament. Mr Andrews served on multiple portfolios over his three decades in parliament. Appointed as Minister for Ageing in 2001, Mr Andrews worked hard to expand care and the number of beds. In 2003, he entered cabinet as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister and would go on to become Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister for Social Services and Minister for Defence.</para>
<para>Yet that is not where his contribution ends. Mr Andrews was a prolific author, writing books on politics, marriage, religion, and—one of his great loves—cycling. He was an avid cyclist, and, despite his relentless schedule, he would prioritise charitable rides, including the annual Pollie Pedal event. I might add, on a personal note, that he was a regular attender at the Tour Down Under, in Adelaide, and I'd often see him there either riding or meeting the great riders who ride in that wonderful event.</para>
<para>In 2025, he was posthumously appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the people and the Parliament of Australia, to the Catholic Church and to the community.</para>
<para>I extend my sincere condolences to his wife, Margaret, his five children and his seven grandchildren. The loss of a loved one is heartbreaking. While he will be sadly missed, he'll be forever remembered as a man with boundless energy, of profound faith and with strongly held personal principles.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of the opposition to pay tribute to Kevin Andrews, who, in his final few years in the other place, was known as the Father of the House. Kevin was so much more than a colleague to so many of us. He was a friend, a mentor and an absolute gentleman, to say the very least. A man of integrity, he was always thoughtful and wise and always true to his beliefs. He was a great Australian with a passion for, and love of, our great country. He was a man of faith, a man with a strong sense of duty and service and, of course, a man of immense human decency. In fact, when I spoke to a number of colleagues after we received the news that he had passed, it was told to me that he was a guiding light for so many of us in this place and, even when I spoke to others on the other side of the chamber, they also agreed.</para>
<para>Kevin James Andrews was born on 9 November 1955 in Sale, Victoria. He was the son of Roy Gebhardt Andrews and Sheila Rosina O'Connor. Kevin was educated at the Rosedale Primary School, St. Patrick's College in Sale and the University of Melbourne, where he resided at Newman College and graduated with a Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and a Bachelor of Arts in 1980. At university, Kevin was the president of the Newman College Students' Club and the National Association of Australian University Colleges. He later completed a Master of Laws degree at Monash University, in 1986.</para>
<para>In the 1970s and the 1980s, Kevin was a racing commentator, calling various sporting events, including athletics, cycling and motorsports. A little-known fact about him is that he wrote for a number of publications, including Australia's <inline font-style="italic">Auto Action</inline>. In fact, for those in the chamber—and I'm sure some of my colleagues behind did have the opportunity to hear Kevin call a race—if you did not have that opportunity to hear Kevin Andrews call a race, you have seriously missed out. It was actually quite extraordinary.</para>
<para>I was just looking online at a number of the articles about Kevin Andrews, and there was one some time ago where he was interviewed and he spoke about his childhood ambition, which was actually not to go into politics; it was actually to call horseracing. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I grew up in a racing family; my father was secretary of a country race club for probably the best part of twenty-five years. We went to the races every Saturday when I was a kid … And from a very early age I used to go up the back of the grand stand and start practicing calling the races and eventually took it up for a while.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">… if I didn't go to the races on Saturday I would sit down and listen to the radio stations, I'd study the techniques of, in those days Bill Collins, Bert Bryant, Joe Brown and the likes, and … I was very serious about it.</para></quote>
<para>As someone who did have the pleasure of seeing Kevin literally transform from the quiet, humble, astute individual that he was so well known as, into Kevin 'You've got to be kidding me, is this actually really him?' the racing commentator, I can assure you he was utterly outstanding. Every so often, this quiet and humble man—and I'd been at a few functions with him—would shock people by transforming in a second into a professional race caller. It was quite spectacular, and it could literally stop a room. A little-known fact is that Kevin did some part-time race calling to help fund his way through university.</para>
<para>Kevin was also secretary of the Melbourne University Athletics Club and a director of the Victorian Amateur Athletics Association. At Melbourne University, Kevin trained with the legendary athletics coach Franz Stampfl.</para>
<para>After graduation, he worked for the Law Institute of Victoria, from 1980 to 1983, as a research solicitor and coordinator of continuing legal education. From 1983 to 1985, Kevin served as an associate to Sir James Gobbo, a justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria and, subsequently, the Governor of Victoria. Kevin then practised as a barrister from 1985 until his election to federal parliament in 1991.</para>
<para>He won Liberal Party preselection for the seat of Menzies against, at that time, 25 other candidates. That is no mean feat. In fact, some might say anyone could have come through the middle, but he actually wanted it and he got it. He was elected, as we all know, in the 1991 Menzies by-election. As we all say in this place, every election, particularly for a House of Representatives member, is one whereby you just don't know. But Kevin was re-elected by his constituents in Menzies 10 times as the federal member for Menzies. Elected in 1991, he held the seat until his retirement, just prior to the 2022 election. He spent a total of 30 years, 11 months and 11 days as a member of parliament, and that is one of the things that I remember so well about Kevin Andrews—30 years, 11 months and 11 days. He relished every single one of them.</para>
<para>Kevin was quite proudly and rightly a senior minister in the Howard and Abbott governments, and he held critical portfolios of aging, employment and workplace relations, immigration and citizenship, social services, and defence throughout what was, without a doubt, a significant ministerial career. As defence minister, Kevin himself implemented the First Principles Review to establish a single Defence Force structure in Australia. He also authorised—this is incredibly significant when you look back at our defence history. Kevin Andrews, as Minister for Defence, authorised the replacement of the entire Australian naval fleet. In his valedictory remarks, Kevin appreciated the increasingly precarious world in which we live, and he stated this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We must stand economically, strategically and militarily with those nations and states, however imperfect, that seek to uphold the dignity and the freedom of the individual against totalitarian regimes …</para></quote>
<para>Former prime minister Tony Abbott observed, after Kevin's passing, that one of his finest achievements predated his time as a minister—the 1997 Andrews private member's bill that overturned the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. Regrettably, his courage and principle were not appreciated by everyone in the local Liberal Party and led to an unsuccessful preselection challenge. Kevin was honourably and consistently committed to the sanctity of human life. He understood the critical difference between declining to keep someone alive who would otherwise be dead and deliberately killing someone who would otherwise be alive.</para>
<para>It's often quite humbling, when you see a person who leaves this place and then passes away, to go back and actually have a look at what others have said about them. The tributes to Kevin Andrews, without a doubt, were effusive. They were many, and, fittingly, for a man of such integrity, they were from both sides of politics. Opposition leader Peter Dutton described Kevin Andrews as 'a stalwart of the Liberal Party and a man of faith, family, intellect and service'. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He was a staunch defender of the family unit and a true Liberal.</para></quote>
<para>Former prime minister John Howard pointed to Mr Andrews's conviction as a politician, his devout Catholicism and his success as a backbencher in overturning the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws, as well as his service to the Australian people and parliament and his loyal support to him and the Liberal Party. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Kevin Andrews dedicated his life to the things he cared for most: family, faith, community and nation.</para></quote>
<para>Bill Shorten said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While we were opposed on many political fronts, I respected that he always fought for his values: what you saw was what you got. He was a gentleman who wore his faith with pride. In his final term, he did excellent work charing the Joint Committee on the NDIS on a bi-partisan basis as an experienced parliamentarian committed to the best interests of NDIS participants.</para></quote>
<para>Kevin himself was a believer, like so many in this place on our side, in the free market, aspiration and personal responsibility. In fact, in his maiden speech to the parliament in 1991, as Australia suffered through Paul Keating's 'recession we had to have', this is what Kevin said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's present social and economic woes owe much to the dead hand of socialism, which stifles individualism and withers enterprise in this country at its roots. Rampant unionism hinders the vaunted but little recognised and little realised micro-economic reform in this nation and continues to keep our economy uncompetitive with its wasteful work practices. A plethora of taxes, including a tax on employment itself, punishes anyone in this country who is foolhardy enough to invest the capital and to work around the clock. People such as that are the people who employ over half the Australian work force.</para></quote>
<para>That was his maiden speech. Then, in his valedictory speech some 30-odd years later, he also spoke to his belief in service, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Three decades ago I gave up a career in law to pursue a vocation. A career is about the individual; a vocation is about a cause, and my cause has been the peace, the welfare and the happiness of the people of Australia.</para></quote>
<para>From a personal perspective, my view is that Kevin did just that. He did so much quietly, humbly to contribute to the peace, welfare and happiness of the Australian people during his time in parliament. As Senator Farrell has said, though, this is the type of incredible man that he was.</para>
<para>Despite his incredibly busy work, you'd often see Kevin first thing in the morning out in his lycra—we did have words once!—on his bike before parliament. He had an incredibly busy work and family life. He still found the time to write five books, and they weren't just books. They were considered books. They were well-thought-out books on marriage, on cycling and on Joe Lyons. One of them titled <inline font-style="italic">One People One Destiny</inline> was an early rebuke to identity politics. He literally worked right up until his death, and only weeks before his death he actually published his final book on his local Catholic church. He was quite literally working on the publication of his memoirs right up until the day he died.</para>
<para>For many of us on this side of the chamber who have been here for some time, we knew Kevin well and we counted on his wisdom and his advice. If Kevin spoke in the party room, it didn't matter who you were or what side of politics you came from, you listened. His contributions were always considered, and they were respected. He was truly a mentor, and, on a personal note, I am very happy to say and very lucky to say he was a mentor to me. He was always there on the other end of the phone with sage advice and much encouragement.</para>
<para>When I was the Attorney-General of Australia, we were dealing with family law, and Kevin had worked very closely with others on reforming the family law system. He would often, at the end of a night—the bells in the Senate would finish; the bells in the House would finish. It would be a late night, he'd wander around to my office, we'd sit down and he would share with me his wisdom on how we could change the system for the better. Even in the years after he left parliament, he was just one of those people who was always at the other end of a phone if you needed to run something past him. Quite literally he was one of the few people in life for whom nothing was ever too much. I know many others in this place drew on his knowledge in a similar way.</para>
<para>But of course the one thing that was clear whenever you spoke to Kevin—and this was throughout his 30 years in public life—was that he was supported by the love of his life, his wife, Margie. There is little doubt that—so many of tributes to Kevin said this, and I think Kevin would have been so proud of this—despite everything he had achieved at the highest levels of government, his greatest legacy is the family that he and Margie built together as the parents of five wonderful children and grandparents to seven grandchildren. No doubt the entire family must be immensely proud of the man Kevin was and the respect and admiration he received from not only his colleagues in parliament but also the people of Australia. It is not surprising a man of such honour, conviction, courage and compassion garnered admiration from those who knew or observed him.</para>
<para>On behalf of the coalition I offer my heartfelt condolences to Kevin's colleagues, friends, family and community. But our thoughts are especially with his wife, Margie; his children, Emily, James, Stuart, Catherine, and Benjamin; and his grandchildren. May Kevin Andrews rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the National Party in the Senate I rise to pay tribute to a dedicated statesman, a principled conservative and a great servant of the Australian people, the honourable Kevin Andrews. His passing is an immense loss to our nation, to the Liberal Party and to all those who had the privilege of working alongside him through his distinguished career.</para>
<para>Born in Sale, Victoria, Kevin Andrews was always proud of his country upbringing—as he should have been—despite living in and representing his metropolitan electorate with distinction. Before parliament, his childhood ambition was to call horseracing. He was a great friend to the Victorian racing industry his whole life. With his father as the secretary of the country race club for nearly 25 years, he grew up around horses and racing, and unfortunately for the racing industry—or may we say fortunately for the parliament and constituents of Menzies—his father convinced him to go to university and ultimately pursue law, but not before he earned some part-time wages calling races to pay his way through university in the seventies and eighties. I do not know what was going on down in Gippsland racing, but Peter McGauran was a great friend of the racing industry down there as well. One of the great delights of my life was at an AHA pre-Cup function in Melbourne where Kevin was the guest race caller, shall we say, on the Monday, and it was absolutely the best call I've heard of my life—very much a missed calling there.</para>
<para>Kevin dedicated over three decades of his life to the Australian parliament, representing the people of Menzies with integrity, wisdom and an unwavering commitment to his principles. He was first elected in 1991, and he became one of the longest-serving members of the House of Representatives, leaving an indelible mark on the political and policy landscape of our country. Hearing of his preselection story of 25 other competitors, shall we say, I would love to have heard that particular race called by somebody. Mr Andrews retired at the 2022 general election, and it's a great tragedy that he wasn't able to enjoy a long and fulfilling retirement with his loving family.</para>
<para>Kevin Andrews was not only a formidable policymaker. He was also a deeply compassionate individual. He understood that politics is ultimately about people; about strengthening communities; about ensuring every Australia has the opportunity to prosper; about assisting families, in whatever way that he could, to stay together; and about standing firm for the values that define our nation. His work in supporting civil society, religious freedoms and the social fabric of Australia will be remembered as part of his enduring legacy. Whether advocating for stronger families, workplace reform or a robust national defence strategy, Kevin's approach was always principled, thoughtful and deeply informed. His work on national security was particularly significant, helping to modernise Australia's defence posture and ensuring our armed forces had the resources and strategic framework they needed to protect our sovereignty and national interest in a modern environment.</para>
<para>Kevin was also a man of great personal kindness. Many in his chamber, across the political divide, can attest to his generosity of spirit, his willingness to mentor younger parliamentarians and his calm and reasoned approach to the most complex of policy challenges. His dedication to serving not only his constituents but also his colleagues was a mark of his character and the depth of his public service ethos.</para>
<para>To his family—his beloved wife, Margaret, and their children and his grandchildren—on behalf of the National Party I extend my deepest sympathies. The sacrifices made by the families of those of us who serve in this place are often unseen, but they are very profound. Kevin was a devoted husband, a loving father and a man of strong faith, and I hope his family can take comfort in the legacy of service and principled leadership that he's left behind.</para>
<para>His passing is a moment of great sadness that all who knew him, but his contribution and legacy will endure. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to associate myself with the outstanding speech of our leader and with yet another speech by Senator McKenzie and to add some of my own brief reflections on our former colleague and friend, Kevin Andrews. In just thinking about Kevin, there are three things that really sum him up for me. Firstly, he was a parliamentarian, secondly, he was a patriot and, thirdly, he was a family man.</para>
<para>In thinking about Kevin's role as a parliamentarian in that distinguished and long career, I can say that it is often the case—you hear it in valedictory speeches in this place, as well as in eulogies for our colleagues who have left us—that some the best and most impactful work they can do is while they're on the backbench. All of us aspire to have the honour of serving in a ministry one day and doing great things in those portfolios, but often you can have remarkable public policy impact from outside the industry. Kevin achieved both.</para>
<para>As a backbencher, in his early parliamentary career before he was promoted, he secured the successful passage through both houses of parliament of one of the only private member's bills to pass the parliament. It is very common in this place to introduce a private member's bill, but it is much rarer to successfully pass a private member's bill. Whatever your view is on the substance of that issue—my own views on euthanasia are close to Kevin's and I support what he did—that is a remarkable achievement of which he should be proud and of which his family should be very proud. It came from a place of very sincere and genuine belief.</para>
<para>At the other end of his career, when he was again a backbencher after having served as a minister, he played a very significant role in the passage of significant legislation in the final term of our time in government, under the Morrison government. That was the passage and introduction of the Magnitsky human rights sanction regime. Kevin worked very diligently as the chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, working particularly closely with our other former and sadly departed colleague, Senator Kimberley Kitching, in a bipartisan way to build consensus for these reforms and to convince the then government that it was necessary. Upon receiving that agreement, he then worked with our former minister for foreign affairs, Senator Marise Payne, to successfully legislate that scheme, which is now being utilised by this government. That is a really great achievement that I think will stand the test of time and, because of the work that Kevin did in that respect, it will be of great value to future governments and future foreign ministers.</para>
<para>In thinking about Kevin as the patriot, I know that the ministerial post in which he had the greatest honour of serving was the defence portfolio. I think he long aspired to serve in that portfolio. He was very honoured to be called upon by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to take up that portfolio and he immensely enjoyed working with our men and women in uniform. He brought to that role his typically thoughtful, diligent style, but he was also very clear-eyed about the challenges that Australia faced, and I know he would have loved nothing more than to have had the opportunity to have served longer in that portfolio, but, as Senator Cash outlined, he achieved significant things in that time, and his family should also be proud of that.</para>
<para>Finally, I want to reflect on Kevin as a family man, because, although his achievements in public life were significant, I think he would be most proud of his family and the achievement that that represents. To sustain a loving marriage over 31 years of political service is a remarkable thing. To raise children who love and respect you is an extraordinary thing. He was an example to us all. We should be inspired by his example to commit to and honour our own families in the same way that he honoured his. It is a tragedy, as others have said, that, in retirement, he did not get to spend more time with them post his parliamentary life, but I know he wasn't someone who neglected his family when he was a parliamentarian. He made sure that his parliamentary and political life didn't detract from his family life, and that is a reminder for all of us to try and emulate that in our roles as well.</para>
<para>Kevin was a great Victorian, he was a great Liberal and he was a great Australian. We will miss him.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we pause to honour the life and legacy of Kevin Andrews, a man whose dedication to public service spanned more than three decades and whose principled approach to politics shaped so much of our national conversation. His passing represents a significant moment in our parliamentary history.</para>
<para>Kevin represented his electorate of Menzies for over 30 years. That in itself is a remarkable achievement and reflects not just the trust of his constituents but also a clear connection to the community that he served. In this place he was known for his methodical approach to policy, his careful consideration of complex issues and his ability to articulate his position with immense clarity. Throughout his distinguished career, Kevin served in some of the most challenging portfolios in government—Defence, Social Services, Employment and Workplace Relations—and to each role he brought a characteristic thoroughness and intellectual rigour. Even those who disagreed with his conclusions couldn't fault his dedication to understanding the complexities of each portfolio. Kevin's approach to public life was exemplified by a willingness to take difficult positions based on deeply held principles and to defend those positions with rigorous argument rather than rhetoric.</para>
<para>What struck me most about Kevin was his invariable courtesy in debate. In an era where political discourse often generates more heat than light, he maintained a steady commitment to civil dialogue. He demonstrated that it is possible to hold strong convictions while treating those who disagree with you with respect and dignity. This is perhaps one of the most valuable lessons for our current political and social climate. We should also seek to follow this example in and outside this place.</para>
<para>While it's well known that Kevin served in many senior ministerial roles in both the Howard and Abbott governments, I personally got to know him when he'd been recently returned as a backbencher and he stepped up to the role of Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS. This was one of the first committees that I served on in this place. I learned so much from him there—from procedural issues, to dealing respectfully with colleagues from right around the chamber, to dealing sympathetically and professionally with witnesses and contributors, balancing candour with competence and with kindness. Kevin displayed not just his diligence and his thoroughness but also a genuine commitment, embedded in his deep faith, to looking after those who are unable to look after themselves.</para>
<para>Kevin will always be remembered as a stalwart of the conservative side of the Liberal Party. But so often conservatism is easily and, dare I say, lazily seen as a euphemism for hard-heartedness. That was not Kevin Andrews. His advocacy for social services reform and his commitment to supporting vulnerable Australians spoke to a genuine concern for those in need. His Catholic faith, which informed so much of his world view, was matched with a practical compassion.</para>
<para>His legacy is a reminder that, while we may differ on policy approaches or ideological perspectives, the desire to improve lives can unite those across the political spectrum. The tributes from across the political divide—from the current Prime Minister, from former prime ministers Howard, Abbott and Turnbull, from the former leader of the opposition Bill Shorten—all speak to the respect that Kevin earned through his approach to public life. Each acknowledged his unwavering commitment to his principles, even when they disagreed with his position.</para>
<para>For the Liberal Party, Kevin's passing marks the end of an era. His parliamentary career spanned some of our party's most significant moments, from the reforms of the Howard government to the challenges of recent years. He remained a steady presence, consistently advocating for his vision of Liberal values. To his wife, Margie, and to his children and his grandchildren we extend our deepest sympathies. While the nation has lost a dedicated public servant, you have lost a husband, a father and a grandfather. We hope that you find comfort in knowing that his legacy of principled public service and civil discourse will continue to influence our national conversation. Kevin Andrews showed us that it is possible to be both principled and respectful, both passionate and measured. In today's political climate that must be, and may be, his most enduring lesson. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay tribute to a great friend, the late Kevin James Andrews AM. Kevin was also a valued colleague. He was the former federal member for Menzies and a minister in both the Howard and Abbott governments. Kevin was principled and he was compassionate. I join my colleagues in conveying my deepest condolences to Margie, his five children and his family following Kevin's very sad passing late last year.</para>
<para>Kevin's death is difficult to fathom. He was so full of life—a very young 69-year-old, super fit and able to ride a bike faster than men half his age, so his death did come as an enormous shock. Kevin was born in the country Victorian town of Sale in 1955 and, on completing his schooling, moved to Melbourne to pursue his law studies. His advocacy skills were first honed as an associate to Sir James Gobbo in the Supreme Court of Victoria and as a barrister at the Victorian Bar. He was always said to go far. From an early age, he also became known for his skills as a race caller, which, of course, entertained many people over many, many years.</para>
<para>Kevin served his community, the Liberal Party and his country for 31 years—a truly remarkable period of service. Bound by his love of family and his Catholic faith, he was a person of true conviction, who lived a life of service, dedicated to the best interests of Australia and Australians. I greatly admired and respected Kevin for his work as an MP, as a minister and, of course, as the highly respected Father of the House. Kevin's ministerial appointments reflected the trust and faith which John Howard and Tony Abbott had in Kevin. His appointments included Minister for Ageing, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister for Social Services and Minister for Defence. He made a real difference, increasing access to aged-care beds, restoring the rule of law with the establishment of a construction industry watchdog, improving the character test in the Migration Act, reforming access to welfare payments and committing trips to fight the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria.</para>
<para>As a backbencher, I worked closely with Kevin as Minister for Defence, when he drove such significant investment into Australia's defence industry. I also worked closely with him as Chair of the joint select committee on the NDIS, which he undertook with such dignity and compassion. In February 2015, I vividly remember joining Kevin in Puckapunyal, where he announced a LAND 400 phase 2 tender. I was hoping he might have just cut to the chase and announced Geelong as the winning location, but that might have circumvented a few of the rules! But I did don a helmet and [inaudible] a gun and thought that, perhaps if I stayed close to Kevin, someday it would happen. He held a press conference, and I was just reflecting on his words. He said: 'The first priority of a national government is the safety and security of its citizens, and the first responsibility, therefore, as defence minister is to ensure that our military forces have the capability to be able to maintain the safety and security of this nation and the people of Australia. Where it is consistent with that, we also wish to encourage Australian industry to participate in the requisite capability that we need as a nation.' I am proud to say that Geelong eventually secured the LAND 400 phase 3 project along with the howitzer project which we committed to in 2019. Throughout that long journey, Kevin provided me with much support and encouragement.</para>
<para>Kevin's leadership on opposing euthanasia and providing greater support for palliative care inspired so many Australians, including me. Kevin was a conviction politician. Agree or disagree, but you always knew where you stood with Kevin. He was no fence-sitter, and, in politics and public service, that is a trait to be much admired. In everything he did—the fiercest of political battles, the most difficult of decisions—Kevin undertook his work with dignity, decency and the strongest sense of duty. In paying tribute to Kevin, his former senior adviser, Anthony Moate, was moved to say, 'I witnessed firsthand his commitment to serving the most vulnerable in the Australian community. Whether it was supporting the aged, the terminally ill or refugees escaping persecution, Kevin's work was always marked by genuine compassion and an unwavering sense of justice. He also worked tirelessly to promote social cohesion, recognising the value of Australia's multicultural society. He always treated his staff and those he encountered, on both sides of politics, with the utmost respect and dignity. 'For Kevin, being a public servant was very much a vocation not as a member of the Public Service but as a servant of the public.' They were the words of one of Kevin's former senior advisers, Anthony Mote.</para>
<para>Kevin was a leading light of the Victorian Liberal Party, and his passing has left a very big hole in our lives. Kevin and I enjoyed many wonderful conversations. He was a man of great wisdom, calm reflection and quiet determination. A state funeral was held for Kevin at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne on 23 December 2024. Former Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Tony Abbott AC shared words of remembrance on behalf of the Andrews family, noting most importantly Kevin's love of his family. Tony Abbott said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… for all his achievements on the national stage, it's the family that Kevin and Margaret have built, inside their home—with five wonderful children and their spouses, and seven adored grandchildren—that will stand as his legacy, as much as anything he did in Canberra.</para></quote>
<para>In the 2025 Australia Day honours, Kevin Andrews was posthumously appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the people and Parliament of Australia, to the Catholic Church and to the community. This was so well deserved. Kevin provided an example for us all. Vale, Kevin Andrews.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I likewise rise to associate myself with the comments of colleagues this afternoon in remembering the former member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews. Kevin was a man who truly displayed courage in his convictions, and I think that the contributions that have been made here this afternoon reflect that. Senator Cash mentioned in her remarks that Kevin was elected as the member for Menzies in 1991. That was the year after I was born, so Kevin was one of the few people, when I was eventually elected to this place in 2019, that I had a fair few memories of seeing on television in the very lofty ministerial positions that he had held, particularly during the Howard government. I can remember feeling somewhat intimidated at the prospect of meeting Kevin and working in the same party room as him, but there was no way that I should have been so intimidated, because, as other colleagues have alluded to, Kevin did take a very active role in mentoring new members of the party room, in teaching us the mystical and wondrous ways of both how our party room and the parliament more broadly operate. I did want to reflect on that here this afternoon.</para>
<para>I had the pleasure of working with Kevin on the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, which was constituted in the 46th Parliament shortly after I was elected to this place. I think it is fair to say that I and others who were appointed to that committee knew that it was very serious and difficult subject matter that we were going to be dealing with and that the reason Kevin would be chairing this committee, as he did so wonderfully, was partly to keep us all cool, calm, collected and focused on that subject matter. There were some incredibly sensitive issues that were presented to this committee, as anyone in this chamber and the other place who served on the committee would know, as we investigated, for not the first time in this parliament's history, ways that our Australian family law system could be improved so that outcomes were better for individuals and their own families when they were going through the difficulty of separation. For a first term backbencher such as myself, I had a front-row seat to the class act that was Kevin in dealing with the issues that that committee examined with his usual calm and understanding demeanour.</para>
<para>He also had a difficult job ahead of him in compiling the report for that committee. Such a sensitive issue is one that people on all sides of this chamber and the other place have many and varied views on. Speaking as a senator—and we in this chamber pride ourselves on our collegiality—I think Kevin displayed almost senatorial tendencies in how he managed the work of that committee and the numerous reports that the committee produced, endeavouring as much as possible to make the work of the committee not just bipartisan but as multipartisan as possible. That was a real testament to Kevin's work.</para>
<para>Kevin was also a fearless conservative. Whether it was as a minister—and I can't personally speak for that because obviously he was on the backbench by the time I came to this place—or as a backbencher he truly saw the value in encouraging our party room to embrace policy debate and engage in the exchange of ideas in a fearless way. He knew that that was not only the great tradition of the Liberal cause but a way that our cause could be progressed. I'm sure many of my colleagues were approached by Kevin at various points in time to contribute to his <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline><inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">olity</inline> magazine, which he produced once or twice a year and which contained his thoughts on the world. Occasionally he would ask colleagues to contribute as well, and I was very humbled that he asked me, in my first term, to provide an article for that piece as well.</para>
<para>My colleague Senator Paterson referenced the work that Kevin did in developing the report that eventually gave rise to the legislating of Magnitsky style sanctions. That is an incredible piece of work, and, again as we've heard here today, those sanctions have now been applied by the Australian government in an attempt to hold foreign regimes to account. That is something that I'm sure Kevin's family are, and Kevin himself was, incredibly proud of.</para>
<para>I attended Kevin's funeral in Melbourne at the end of last year, and, as I'm sure anyone else who was there would attest, it was a very full cathedral at St Patrick's. It was very clear from the number of people there that Kevin was a much loved member of his community, not just the Liberal Party community but the community of Menzies more broadly and, particularly, his local church. I want to extend my deepest condolences to his community, which I know would be hurting at his loss, and, in particular, to his lovely wife, Margie, his children and grandchildren, who have lost a wonderful husband and a loving father. Vale, Kevin Andrews.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to honour the life and the legacy of Kevin Andrews. I, like Senator Chandler, only had the privilege of serving in this place for a three-year period of Kevin's long career. That represents 10 per cent of his 30 years—three decades—of service to this nation, as Senator Cash was speaking about. Having served with him for only that short time, I nonetheless learnt so much from him.</para>
<para>Like Senator Chandler, I was also appointed to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. We commenced that committee very early in that term of parliament. As someone who was new to this place, for me, Senator Chandler and other colleagues to get a masterclass in how to deal with very difficult issues, particularly when it came to the family law system, was a great privilege and an honour. The way that Kevin managed and facilitated that inquiry is something that I've tried to emulate through any other proceedings that I've had to do since that time.</para>
<para>But that wasn't the first chance I had to meet Kevin. He wouldn't have remembered, but I certainly remember meeting Kevin when he was Minister for Social Services and he'd commissioned Patrick McClure to do a review of the social services system. I remember Kevin describing it like a schematic diagram for an oil rig when you lay it all out. That's how complex the social services system was. He set in motion a plan to simplify that system so that we were better meeting the needs of Australians who were in need and doing it in a better and more efficient way so that that money that was provided by taxpayers was able to get to people who really needed it. That, I think, was the approach of Kevin Andrews right throughout his career—taking really complex issues and trying to simplify them to actually make a difference in people's lives.</para>
<para>I was speaking with Senator Blyth, who had her first party room meeting today, and she said she walked in and just saw all of these famous people. I, like Senator Chandler, as she remarked, walked into the party room and saw Kevin Andrews, someone that I'd admired significantly, not just because he was a conservative and someone I very much identified with but because he was someone that I knew served this nation with such commitment and drive and someone who you just knew was full of integrity. It's something that I try to emulate and try to follow in any possible way.</para>
<para>Kevin Andrews, in his final speech in this place not that long ago, in March 2022, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This, I believe, is the great Australian dream—to hand on to the next generation an even better nation than the one which we've inherited. I've always believed that a successful society is a compact across generations. We prosper because of the wise choices, the sacrifices and the hard work of previous generations, and, in turn, it's our duty to use our industry and judgement to ensure the best for future generations of Australians.</para></quote>
<para>Well, this country is a better place for Kevin's contribution, and he made a difference to his community. He leaves behind a legacy of dedicated service to Australians. He was a man of faith, family and service. I want to extend my condolences to Margie and to his family and all those that were very close to him, who, as others have said, are no doubt hurting at this time. His life was lost to all of us and to them far too soon. Kevin, well done, good and faithful servant.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to make a few remarks to join my colleagues in remembering the Hon. Kevin Andrews. I first met Kevin when I came here as a member of the House of Representatives in 2004, when he was a minister in the Howard government. As my colleagues have said, even then he was somebody who was well known and to be looked up to and respected. A point of connection that I had with him was not only being a person of faith but also the commitment to families. When the then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, appointed me to chair the backbench committee overseeing the implementation of family relationship centres, I found I had a very common cause with Kevin around the value of seeking to empower and enable people to hang in there with marriages as opposed to seeing the rate of marriage breakdown and family breakup rise. We built a good relationship over those issues at that time.</para>
<para>I then encountered Kevin after I left this place after the 2007 election and came back as a senator when he became the defence minister, and I had a fair bit to do with him. Some of the achievements that he had during that time, I think, were things like the naval shipbuilding plan for Australia, which was putting in place a framework to have an ongoing industry base to build ships in a sustainable manner which lowered risk and cost. Some of those sorts of achievements, I think, have been overshadowed by subsequent events, but he had a very strategic mind and sought to make those kinds of long-term changes as opposed to just the quick political wins that so many people accuse politicians of.</para>
<para>It's been mentioned a couple of times that Kevin saw work in the parliament as a vocation and not a career, and I think it's a mark of the character of the man that, when he was not reappointed in the Defence portfolio and went to the backbench, rather than becoming bitter—which I have seen in far too many people in this place—he looked for new opportunities to serve. As the then chair of the parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Kevin indicated that he wished to come and serve on that committee, and he particularly wished to serve on the human rights committee. In that role, he took on, as members have mentioned here, the inquiry looking into autonomous sanctions known as the Magnitsky sanctions, but he also did a power of work looking at freedom of religion and belief. Kevin understood, as one of our former eminent judges has said, that, if you don't have freedom of belief and conscience and religion, you don't have freedom at all. He was diligent to understand the state of freedom of religion and belief in this nation and the steps that we may need to take moving forward. Much of that overlapped with the work that Mr Ruddock and his expert panel did during that time.</para>
<para>Kevin also reached out to many of the diaspora communities in Australia who were suffering persecution, even though they were living here, from agencies from their countries of origin, and he also did a power of work supporting women and girls in the Pacific. I just think it's a mark of the man that, while many would have been bitter and decided to move on and do other things, he continued to look for the opportunity not only to serve the constituents of his seat of Menzies but also to provide leadership in the capacities where he had the opportunity in this parliament.</para>
<para>We have seriously lost a good man in Kevin. I was privileged to have him as a colleague and a friend and a mentor over a couple of decades. My sincere condolences to Margie and the family. Vale, the Hon. Kevin Andrews.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to associate myself with the remarks of all my colleagues, particularly our leader in this place. For so many of us, Kevin Andrews was a parliamentarian's parliamentarian. Coming into this place in 2017, I had known Kevin through my time here as a staffer. Reflecting on that time, Kevin was always extremely respectful of people who worked in a staffing role in this place. It wasn't at all dismissive. He would talk, he would listen and he would communicate with you.</para>
<para>But, coming into this place, as you've heard from many of my colleagues, actually, I don't think Kevin perhaps realised how much of a mentor he was to so many of us. I believe I probably took Senator Hume's place on the joint committee on the NDIS, which at that time Kevin was chairing. Not only did I get a masterclass in how to chair a committee—how to do that very important work of the parliament—but I also saw someone who was deeply involved in utilising that committee system to get positive outcomes for Australians. It wasn't about political point-scoring. Kevin Andrews used his position as chair of the NDIS committee to see a public policy problem or a system that was failing an individual and utilised his position as a parliamentarian either to address that systemic problem or to help that individual.</para>
<para>So often in that time on the NDIS committee, we would have a meeting, and a problem would become apparent through hearing from a particular witness or a set of witnesses. Then the committee would disperse, and we would go back to our home states. Then, on reconvening in this place, we would find that Kevin Andrews had worked the problem, that Kevin Andrews had been in touch with the minister or that Kevin Andrews had been in touch with the department and, actually, if he had not solved the problem—which in many, many cases he did—then he at least brought that public policy problem or that issue affecting an individual to the attention of the minister or the bureaucracy. It was an absolute masterclass in being an effective parliamentarian in this place.</para>
<para>To Margie, to Kevin's family, to colleagues who knew him much, much better than I do, may he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too would like to honour the memory of the Hon. Kevin Andrews. I got to know Kevin well first during the gay marriage debate; we were on the losing side. As others have remarked, he was an incredibly courageous and brave but also very principled advocate for his cause. He was an absolute gentleman, he was respectful, and he kept us very focused. He kept everybody very focused. If only we could have cloned him and had more of him, maybe we would have done better. It was an honour to serve next to him during that unique process.</para>
<para>The first time I noticed Kevin from the outside, before I was in parliament, was when he challenged for the Liberal leadership. I'm not sure anyone else has mentioned it yet. He was a bit of a trendsetter, I believe; he was the first to challenge Malcolm Turnbull for the Liberal leadership, and many others followed. I think the interesting thing to remark about that was that he clearly didn't do it for himself. I think he probably understood that he wasn't going to be Liberal leader, but he challenged because he wanted to change a policy. He had a principled position about the policy position of the Liberal and National parties at the time and wanted to change that. It takes a lot of courage to do that. It takes a lot of courage. We all know that. It takes a lot of courage to put yourself out in front of the media. As I said, he probably expected a loss, so that's obviously somewhat embarrassing, but he had the courage of his convictions and acted on them. He didn't just speak about them; he acted on his convictions.</para>
<para>While he failed in his leadership tilt, he did succeed in changing the policy of this nation on that issue. He did turn around the position of his party room on the proposed emissions trading scheme, and he turned around the country's attitude on it. Ultimately, within months, the then prime minister dumped that policy. Not long after that, he himself was gone, in part, at least, because of the efforts of Kevin Andrews to go against a policy that was popular at the time but which he, as I said, thought wasn't right for the country. It shows the importance in this place of fighting for what you believe in. You can make a difference by doing that. We could all just follow the weathervane of focus groups and opinion polls, but that's not really what we are here for. Anyone can do that; it takes someone of the stature, courage and statesmanlike behaviour of Kevin Andrews to make a difference in this place.</para>
<para>I want to finish by commenting on the fact that his greatest legacy is his family. He spoke often of his kids but probably more often of Margie. He loved his wife, and it's a great testament to him. I also would like to comment that I hope people continue to read his book on marriage, <inline font-style="italic">Maybe </inline><inline font-style="italic">'I Do'</inline>. I think it's the greatest Australian book on the importance of marriage and especially on the importance of marriage for children, which—coming back to where I started—I fear we have lost focus on a little bit in all of these debates. Ultimately most people get married to have kids. As Kevin writes eloquently in that book, it makes a big difference if we can keep people married, and kids should be the centre of everything we do. To Kevin's family and to Margie, I hope you find some solace in the legacy that Kevin has left for all of us. Vale, Kevin Andrews.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too would like to add my voice and associate myself with the comments of my colleagues in relation to the late Hon. Kevin Andrews. I think I probably worked with him a bit longer than most people in this place, with a slight interregnum after 2016. But the terminology that all my colleagues have expressed in respect of the way Kevin conducted himself and the way that he participated in debate shows that he certainly was a strong advocate for his values and for the things that he believed in. He was prepared to put himself out there in support of those things, and, as Senator Canavan has just said, sometimes that's an extremely difficult thing to do. Sometimes it's a lonely place to be. But, to be frank, that's the point of being here. That's why we come here: to represent the people that have elected us to do those things, to express those views and, obviously, to represent our communities.</para>
<para>Kevin did that in so many ways, but he always did that with a high level of dignity, respect—and respect for this institution. Sadly, some people forget the importance and the significance of the huge privilege that it is to serve in this place and the good that you can do in representing the values and the principles that you bring to this place. Now, I'm quite happy to say that, on a number of occasions, I didn't necessarily agree with Kevin and the arguments that he was putting, but I was proud to serve in the same party room as him. I think that the breadth of values and opinions that are expressed in that party room is one of the real values of the system that I'm a part of as a member of my party. There were a number of times that I walked into the party room not necessarily certain of the particular stance that I might finally take on a matter. But participating in the debate in my party room and then all walking out together to put forward a position that we had agreed upon amongst us in the party room is a very powerful thing, and one to value, and Kevin was someone who was always prepared to make a contribution in that sense.</para>
<para>We, as large political parties, are often derided for the fact that we are political parties. The public is told that we are told what to say and do. Those of us that are in the room know that we have our conversations, and I've seen individual voices, as Senator Canavan has just indicated, change the view of a prime minister and the party room and change the position of the party. It's an important process that we should all undertake, and Kevin always did that in a very, very respectful way—forceful, strong, but respectful—and I think that's a real value that he brought to this parliament over a very proud career that exceeded 30 years, which is something to be extremely proud of for him, but also for Margie and his family.</para>
<para>Margie herself was quite a regular visitor here in the building, and I'm very thankful for the friendship that both Kevin and Margie extended to Gaylene and me, because there was a time when our partners were an important part of this place, and I think the place was better for it, to be honest. Senator Canavan mentioned the importance of his family. I agree. For any single one of us, our greatest legacy is our family: our kids, our grandkids—for those that have them; for those that don't, it's something to look forward to. Kevin was exceedingly proud of his family and the important job that he was doing to make this country a better place for them.</para>
<para>So I'm very happy to add my voice to and associate myself with the comments of my colleagues in relation to the extraordinary career of Kevin and the support that he received from Margie and his family to do this job. I express my condolences to Margie and to his family more broadly and to his broader community of friends, who I know were extremely close to Kevin. I trust that all of those people, particularly Margie and the family, can find comfort in the very warm memories of Kevin that we all hold. So I express my condolences to Kevin and, as others have done, say vale to the Hon. Kevin Andrews.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</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 general business order of the day No. 63, Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023, be considered at the time for private senator's bills on Thursday 13 February 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there's no objection, the business is postponed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Finance and Public Administration References Committee</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>52</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>LAMBIE () (): I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 August 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The operation and appropriateness of the superannuation and pension schemes for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) whether the legislative framework governing superannuation and pension schemes for current and former members of the ADF is fit for purpose;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whether the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) enables veterans to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement in an equitable and sustainable way;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the structure and governance of the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC), including an examination of its services to current and former members of the ADF and the identification of strategies to address complaints and improve service delivery;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) whether CSC account holders have the same rights and protections as other Australians in relation to their superannuation, including the ability to withdraw funds, receive appropriate returns, change superannuation providers and receive transparent information about return on investments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) mechanisms for veterans to have their discharge reclassified from administrative to medical, particularly in cases involving psychological injuries, and whether current appeal processes and discretion practices by the Department of Defence and the CSC adequately protect veterans' entitlements and recognition of service-related mental health issues;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the operation and effectiveness of the MSBS, Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, Defence Forces Retirement and Benefits Scheme, Australian Defence Force Superannuation Scheme and Australian Defence Force Cover Scheme and whether these schemes are operating in the best interests of current and former members of the ADF;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) targeted initiatives and education for current and former members of the ADF to preserve superannuation savings, improve understanding of superannuation and increase participation in these schemes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) any other related matters.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>52</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="s1436" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>52</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Whistleblower Protection Authority, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>52</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline></para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Thirty years ago, a Senate Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing handed down a report titled <inline font-style="italic">In the Public Interest</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A centrepiece of the report was a recommendation to create a dedicated body to protect whistleblowers and act on their disclosures. The recommendation was, in effect, for the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The idea of a Whistleblower Protection Authority was considered radical in 1994. Back then, whistleblowers were too often cast as traitors—people to shun, not celebrate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Fast-forward thirty years, and things have changed. Now, we better understand the true value of whistleblowers. They are an important part of accountability and a healthy democracy—risking their jobs, reputations, and safety to shine a light on wrongdoing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But for all that risk, we've fallen short. For decades, whistleblowers have had to fend for themselves. And today, the need for a Whistleblower Protection Authority is greater than ever.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's time we finally gave whistleblowers the support they deserve—because when they are protected, all of us benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since the publication of <inline font-style="italic">In the Public Interest</inline> thirty years ago, there are many who have pushed for better protections for whistleblowers, and I would like to acknowledge the incredible work of advocates for a Whistleblower Protection Authority across the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Andrew Wilkie, the Member for Clark, has been at the forefront, drawing on his own experience as a whistleblower to push for change with conviction and courage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Dr Helen Haines, the Member for Indi, embedded a Whistleblower Protection Authority in her Federal Integrity Commission Bill, showing the foresight needed to create lasting integrity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And the Greens, including Senator Shoebridge, have been calling for better protections too.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The urgency of this issue becomes painfully clear when you hear the stories of whistleblowers—people who tried to do the right thing but paid a heavy price. These are not theoretical debates—these are real lives, with real consequences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Jeannie-Marie Blake, a Centrelink employee, saw the warning signs of the Robodebt disaster long before it exploded into public view.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She tried to stop it, raising concerns about the harm it would cause to Australia's most vulnerable all the way back in 2016. But instead of support, she was met with silence—and worse, denial.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Her managers were unwilling to listen to her and effectively told her to "stop complaining" or find another job.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But she couldn't let it go. Testifying before the Royal Commission into Robodebt seven years after she first raised concerns, Blake described the toll of standing against unethical practices, all while trying to support her family as a single mother of three children.   </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She told the Commission that she "couldn't sleep at night knowing what we were doing."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite the immense personal cost, she kept fighting, guided by the moral compass her father instilled in her. But by the time her voice was heard, it was too late for the many people who lost their lives or faced life-altering hardships because of Robodebt.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Imagine how different things could have been if a Whistleblower Protection Authority had existed—empowering Jeannie-Marie to raise the alarm before it was too late.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We know that hundreds, if not thousands, of Australians died due to Robodebt. How many lives could have been saved? How much suffering could have been prevented if whistleblowers had been properly supported?   .Then there's Richard Boyle, who—as many of us know—blew the whistle on aggressive debt-collection tactics harming small businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Boyle has paid an incredibly high cost of speaking out.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ATO and Federal Police raided his home, and he faces criminal charges that could put him behind bars for up to 46 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a Senator, I've witnessed firsthand the consequences of not having a Whistleblower Protection Authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Dozens of people have contacted my office in the past couple of years, hoping to use parliamentary privilege as their last resort to expose wrongdoing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One example involves an employee of Santos, who came forward after witnessing a 25,000-litre oil spill off Varanus Island in Western Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This spill likely caused the deaths of dolphins and other marine life, but Santos downplayed it as a "minor incident."   </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Frustrated by the lack of investigation, the whistleblower collected documents and videos, ultimately bringing them to my office to be tabled in the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nearly two years later, they still live in fear of legal retribution from Santos.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While I am grateful to use my platform to advocate for whistleblowers, parliamentarians are no substitute for greater whistleblower protections in our laws and a dedicated Whistleblower Protection Authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Parliamentarians often lack the resources and expertise to properly support whistleblowers and protect them from retaliation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the title suggests, this Bill establishes the Whistleblower Protection Authority, an independent statutory authority responsible for providing information, advice, assistance, guidance and support to whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Authority will consist of a Whistleblower Protection Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, a Chief Executive Officer and appropriately experienced and trained staff. It will be empowered to receive and facilitate the investigation of whistleblower disclosures; assist whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers; investigate the mistreatment of whistleblowers; and undertake enforcement activities as necessary. Importantly, the Authority will conduct research and policy work in relation to the efficacy of Australia's whistleblower protection laws; and will monitor, educate and advise on how to prevent detrimental actions against whistleblowers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also establishes a Whistleblower Protection Advisory Board to provide advice to the Commissioner, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Whistleblower Protection Authority to appoint the Commissioner, and to monitor and review the performance of the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill has been drafted in consultation with experts who specialise in whistleblower protections. In particular, I would like to thank Kieran Pender and Madeleine Howle from the Human Rights Law Centre, and Professor AJ Brown AM from Griffith University, who is also Chair of Transparency International Australia, for their engagement on this Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Whistleblower Protection Authority is long overdue and something the Labor Party promised before the 2019 Election. My crossbench colleagues and I are ready to work collaboratively with the Government to reform our country's whistleblower protection laws, and it starts today with this Bill. I urge the Government to get on board or get out of the way, so we can ensure whistleblowers are protected, not punished, prosecuted or imprisoned.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend this Bill to the Senate.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Education</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 4 pm on 13 February 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a breakdown of the data used to calculate the Government's claims, published on 28 January 2025, that families have saved $2,768 in childcare costs since September 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the modelling used to calculate the above total, including using other income cameos;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a breakdown of the data used to calculate the Government's claims, published on 3 February 2025, that more than 100,000 families across Australia will have access to more subsidised care, and more than 66,000 families will be better off with changes to provide 3 days of subsided childcare; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) correspondence between the Department of Education and the Minister for Education's office regarding the production of this data.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Great Australian Bight (World Heritage Protection) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>54</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="s1445" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Great Australian Bight (World Heritage Protection) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to protect the Great Australian Bight, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>54</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">For more than a decade, South Australians, ocean and nature lovers, surfers, the tourism and fishing industries, communities across the country, and the Australian Greens, have been fighting to protect the Great Australian Bight from Big Oil and Gas. We've fought off BP, Chevron and Equinor, and now we must win the ultimate protection—World Heritage Listing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Great Australian Bight is an SA icon and is home to a vast array of unique marine life, including treasured whale species and sea lions. 85 percent of the species that live in the Bight are found nowhere else on Earth. It is an essential calving sanctuary for southern right whales, and a feeding ground for threatened sea lions, sharks, tuna and migratory sperm whales.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Modelling has shown that an oil spill in the Bight would impact many Matters of National Environmental Significance. This would include up to 177 marine species, 47 species classified as vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered, and 50 coastal wetlands.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thirty-eight marine reserves would be covered in sludge, resulting in the mortality of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and thousands of marine animals, including endangered southern right whales, blue whales, killer whales, dolphins, and endemic and endangered Australian sea lions. Hundreds of sea turtles would be dead. Hundreds—potentially thousands—of kilometres of shoreline would be covered in oil, causing extreme harm to both the birds that live on the coast and those that visit nearby.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This environmental devastation isn't the end of it. The Bight plays host to over ten thousand fishing and tourism jobs. These industries would be decimated and may never recover. That is why, all along the coast, local councils voted against drilling in the Bight.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Traditional Owners of the Nullarbor Plain, the spectacular Bunda Cliffs and the pristine waters of the Bight, the Mirning people, have staunchly defended their land, air and sea and the place of the great white Dreamtime whale Jeedara against Big Oil.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All of those directly impacted by oil and gas drilling in the Bight are supported in their opposition by more than two-thirds of South Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We love our beaches and coastline and we want to keep them clean and pristine. South Aussies know that our beautiful Bight and coastline is worthy of protection and deserves World Heritage status to protect it forever.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We must ensure it is not put at risk again by any Government greenlighting new gas and oil developments. Right now, there are no active licences for oil and gas exploration in the Bight. There is no better time to protect it for good.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2019, our South Australian community stood up to big oil and told them they were not welcome. We won that battle, but now it's time to win the war.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill would help protect our Bight from all offshore drilling for good. South Australians, and indeed the rest of the country and world, are already experiencing the impacts of climate change, and opening a new oil and gas field would only make that worse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No longer should our coastal communities live with uncertainty, or have any risk of oil muck washing up on their pristine beaches. Any suggestions that our coastline, marine life and fishing and tourism industries should be put at risk for the profits of big oil and gas will be met with strong opposition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Both the Federal and State Governments have been too slow to act, so the Greens are once again.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our planet is on the verge of environmental and climate collapse. There is no time to lose in taking the action needed to save nature and humanity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill would give the Bight the protection it deserves, as well as ruling out new fossil fuels in this biodiversity hotspot, which is the only way we will stop irreversible global warming.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I urge Labor and Liberal to listen to voters and do the right thing for our environment, jobs, and economy—support this Bill and protect the Great Australian Bight for good.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of the Treasury</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>55</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by 9 am on Wednesday, 12 February 2025, all the submissions made to the 2019 superannuation binding death benefit nominations and kinship structures consultation process.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Social Services</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Liddle, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 17 February 2025, a list of all individuals and groups/organisations consulted and a copy of all submissions to the Future of Income Management consultation period (22 November 2023 to 6 December 2024).</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Climate Change, Energy the Environment and Water</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before moving general business notice of motion No. 771, I ask that the name of Senator Thorpe be added to the motion. At the request of Senator Duniam and Senator Thorpe, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 746, agreed to on 5 February 2025, relating to correspondence with Senators Hanson-Young and David Pocock in relation to the Government's Nature Positive bills; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to comply with the order by no later than 9 am on 12 February 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Education</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on 28 November 2024, the Minister for Education requested more time to comply with order for the production of documents no. 719, relating to drafts of the Universities Accord final report, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a response has not yet been provided and therefore the Minister representing the Minister for Education has failed to comply with the order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Education to comply with the order by no later than 4 pm on 12 February 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has failed to comply with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) order for the production of documents no. 756, agreed to on 6 February 2025, relating to Rex Airlines,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) order for the production of documents no. 761, agreed to on 6 February 2025, relating to the Stronger Communities Program, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) order for the production of documents no. 762, agreed to on 6 February 2025, relating to Federation Funding Agreements; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to comply with the orders by no later than midday on Wednesday, 12 February 2025.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government complied with orders for the production of documents Nos 756, 761 and 762 on Monday 10 February 2025.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of the Treasury</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</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 midday on 21 February 2025, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes or other records of interaction from 1 July 2024 to 7 February 2025, between:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Assistant Treasurer or their office; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Assistant Treasurer or their office and the Treasurer or their office;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">in relation to the deadline imposed by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority for lodging complaints about mis-sold add-on insurance.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</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 the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the response to order for the production of documents no. 656, relating to the implementation of the recommendations in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's digital platform services inquiry, was due on 4 December 2024, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Minister representing the Treasurer has failed to comply with the order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than 3 pm on Thursday, 13 February 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Education</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>57</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that order for the production of documents no. 750, relating to the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, has not been complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) notes that the Minister for Education has made a public interest immunity claim on the basis that complying with the order may prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister, noting that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the minister has disclosed publicly several of the key terms of the bilateral agreements referred to in the order for the production of documents no. 750,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) it is usual practice to publish bilateral agreements once announced,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would adversely impact relations between the Commonwealth and states and territories, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the states and territories; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Education to comply with the order by no later than 4 pm on 12 February 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to me for 10 February, for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</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>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 11 February 2025, from Senator McKim:</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 matter is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for the Albanese Labor Government to support the Greens plan to tax Australia's billionaires and use the revenue to help fund urgent cost of living relief, including getting dental into Medicare and making it free to see the GP."</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 PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</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>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</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 need for the Albanese Labor Government to support the Greens plan to tax Australia's billionaires and use the revenue to help fund urgent cost of living relief, including getting dental into Medicare and making it free to see the GP.</para></quote>
<para>Australia's billionaires are making off like bandits. There are just 150 of them and, collectively, their wealth has doubled in the last six or seven years. Collectively, the 150 billionaires in this country have now hoarded an eye-watering, a staggering $585 billion between them.</para>
<para>If you are a nurse, teacher, carpenter, plumber or cleaner, you go to work and you work hard, but you don't get to keep everything you earn. You pay taxes on what you earn—in income tax. That is actually a good thing that people pay tax because it allows governments to provide services. Some of those services are universal, others are deliberately targeted—and rightly so—at the people who most need assistance.</para>
<para>What about the billionaires? Why don't billionaires have to pay a tax on their wealth? If billionaires paid just a 10 per cent tax on their net wealth over $1 billion that would raise about $50 billion over the next decade. That just happens to be exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Office have costed for the Greens of what it would cost to allow every Australian to see their GP, for free, whenever they needed to. If we as a country were prepared to make billionaires pay their fair share of tax, that would raise enough revenue for every Australian to be able to see a GP whenever they needed to with no out-of-pocket expenses.</para>
<para>Let's weigh this up. This should not be a difficult calculation. Let's weigh it up. On one hand, we could ask 150 people who collectively have hoarded nearly $600 billion in personal wealth to pay a 10 per cent tax—over billion dollars—on wealth they own so that every person in this country could see a GP whenever they need to with no out-of-pocket expenses at all. Let's think: every person could get a free GP visit, or we could just keep looking after the billionaires and keep allowing them to accumulate even more of their already eye-wateringly large hordes of money.</para>
<para>The billionaires, or everyone getting a GP visit for free with no out-of-pocket expenses—this should not be a difficult choice for our country. Somehow it is a difficult choice for the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. In fact, it doesn't seem such a difficult choice for them because they're just going to end up on the side of the billionaires. In doing so, they're basically saying to Australians that in a wealthy country you should keep having to pay to see your GP.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian people just got a small insight there as to why they should be very scared of the potential Labor-Green minority government in the next few months, because these guys over there, the Greens, don't understand basic economics, they don't understand basic finances and they don't understand the difference between wealth and income. What we just heard there is that they are going to put a tax on billionaires. I don't even know if their figures are exactly correct, but let's say they're right. I'm going to accept their figures that there are 150 with $600 billion in wealth. If they're going to tax them at 10 per cent and take $60 billion, that's a wealth tax. They'll get $60 billion or so for that, and that's apparently going to fund their dental plan, which is costed over four years at $50 billion, I just heard.</para>
<para>What do we do at the end of the four years? Once you tax the billionaires, you have no billionaires left, or they have much less wealth. This plan is a plan to fund it for only a few years. That doesn't provide any income over time. It simply takes the wealth that we have today to fund something very temporary and leaves the bills for future Australians going forward. This is not a plan. This is a slogan, something that the Greens specialise in because they don't really have a sustainable plan for our country.</para>
<para>The sustainable plan for our country to deliver public services is to make sure we continue to create companies and businesses that produce much wealth going forward. We need billions of dollars of wealth to be created every year to fund the public services we have here in this country. We have just been through this experience with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was costed originally at just $16 billion, and that was in gross terms. There was some state funding included in that figure. Today, it's costing the budget almost $50 billion, and it's projected to go to over $80 billion at the end of this decade. That was an example of where we haven't planned very well, and it's putting an enormous strain on our budget, our economy and our labour market because we haven't planned for it correctly. We made some mistakes there, clearly, that have to be fixed up.</para>
<para>It is easy, of course, to promise everybody better public services, new public services and free public services, but I don't take the costings of the Greens with any grain of salt. I don't care who's done them, because lots of those bodies costed the NDIS and got that wrong. We need to be very careful about that. If we're going to fund something like this, we also need to make sure that on the other side of the ledger we have a sustainable revenue stream that can fund it, otherwise we are going to bankrupt this nation. We've been riding high the last couple of years, and it's easy to be lulled into a sense of complacency with a couple of years of budget surpluses, which have come almost exclusively on the back of a massive mining boom, bigger than what we experienced in the late 2000s and early 2010s. What we've had since the Ukraine war is the biggest trade boom in our history. That has delivered a temporary, illusionary surplus for the Commonwealth budget, but in the years to come—it's starting this year—the deficits are going to grow bigger and bigger every year. Our debt is already at very high levels post-COVID, and we need to be very careful with what we spend.</para>
<para>I hope, God willing—let's pray—that the Greens political party do not get control of the finance benches in a few months time. This is a small window—this is just one of their policies; they've got even more crazy stuff out there—into how they would destroy this nation's finances, and the only way they'll get anywhere close to doing that is if the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, is in a position to form a minority government. There's no way, of course, the Greens will agree to form government with us or with Mr Peter Dutton, but they very well could. But I know they're licking their lips at forming government with the Labor Party. These little asks here are just the precursor for the negotiations that are to come with the Australian Labor Party.</para>
<para>Whatever Labor senators say right now you can totally discount. No matter what they say before an election, they will completely change their tune if an alliance with the Greens is the difference between them staying over there and coming over here. If they need to agree with the Australian Greens to stay over there on the government benches, they'll sign away their mother-in-law, maybe even their mum, because they want to stay in government. They'll be desperate to stay in government. You can't trust them right now. The only way to avoid a Labor-Greens government is to not vote for the Labor Party. That's it. If you don't want that chaos, that destruction of our finances, do not vote for the federal Labor Party at the next federal election.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise after two contributions: one from those who have no sense of managing a budget in any possible way, where money comes from nowhere and everything can be provided for immediately; and a negative one from the senator opposite who is from the party that wants to cut and cut and cut—$350 billion. They're the party that said Medicare was an impossible thing to deliver and that said superannuation was an impossibility to deliver. In between those two gross extremes that have no responsible vision for the nation, there sits the Labor Party governing with integrity, creating not simplistic solutions to complex challenges, as proposed by Senator McKim in this urgency motion, but solutions that will involve the hard work of the kind that the Albanese Labor government has undertaken to ease the cost-of-living pressures that are a real thing for Australians.</para>
<para>Let's be clear. We in Labor don't just talk about fairness; we deliver it. We believe in making multinationals pay, and we delivered that in legislation in November 2024. We believe in ensuring that every taxpayer gets a tax cut, so we delivered stage 3 tax cuts to every working Australian, whereas Senator Canavan would have only given them to a much smaller number of people and certainly left those in the lower end of the income band stranded, ignored and without any increase in their tax return. We believe in strengthening Medicare so that every Australian can access quality and affordable health care. Here we are in government, doing what we've done now for five decades—after delivering Medicare, we've had to rebuild it time and time again. And then there was that miserly, penny-pinching, cost-of-everything, value-of-nothing contribution that we had from Senator Canavan, which leads nowhere good for our nation.</para>
<para>The Greens want to claim that they're the only party concerned with the cost of living, but the reality is that, while they grandstand here in the parliament and make demands without a plan, the Albanese government is delivering real relief. For millions of Australians, being able to see a GP without an out-of-pocket cost is the difference between getting the care that they need and delaying an appointment until things have got much worse, they end up in hospital and it costs even more. It's a ridiculous proposition. That's why we had to fix it once again, and we tripled the bulk-billing incentive. That is the single biggest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history. When Labor returned to government after a period of attack on that fundamental need of Australians, it was clear that Labor was the only party that would deliver for Medicare and for the health of Australians.</para>
<para>So we introduced this policy this time, in the last three years, and more than six million Australians have had additional GP visit that have been bulk-billed. That's really a massive change for pensioners, parents and low-income Australians who are no longer forced to pay to see a doctor. It means fewer people having to make the difficult choice between medical care and paying their bills. We need healthy Australians who can afford care who are able to continue to contribute to our society. This isn't theory to us as Labor people. We are making sure that Medicare holds up. Bulk billing rates, which were in freefall after the nine years of Liberal cuts, are now rising again, and that's just one part of our $2.8 billion of investment of your Australian taxpayer dollars to strengthen what we know you value: Medicare—that little card in your wallet that you wouldn't have except for the Labor Party delivering the whole policy and rebuilding Medicare after the vandal-like attacks of those opposite.</para>
<para>We're investing in urgent care centres. Millions of Australians have already had the benefit of that since we came to government in 2022 and brought that into being. There are more free mental health services and higher rebates for essential tests and treatments. This is real relief for Australians who need it most. Now, the Greens demand a whole raft of new taxes. This government has ethically and in a principled way taken deliberate action to ensure multinationals pay their fair share, and we will make sure Australians get the benefit of that investment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to this motion today. While I agree with the sentiment that we do need tax reform in this country, I think the idea of taxing billionaires is overly simplistic. But we do need tax reform. I disagree with the former speaker that the Labor government has done enough about taxing foreign multinationals. You're not serious about taxing foreign multinationals until you lift the rate of withholding tax on profits sent offshore. I've spoken many times recently about the fact that the tax treaty with Ireland hasn't been updated since 1983. Given that Ireland's company tax rate dropped down to 12½ cents when they entered the EU 20 years ago, there really is no excuse as to why successive Australian governments haven't dealt with the rort that is shifting profits to Ireland. So, rather than taxing billionaires that live here in Australia, what we really need to do start doing is taxing profits that gets sent offshore. We need to lift the withholding tax rate to a rate that's higher than the onshore tax rate.</para>
<para>The other thing we need to do, of course, is one of the policies of People First—as a matter of fact, it's our first policy—is to lift the tax-free threshold to $40,000, because we believe that people shouldn't be taxed below the cost of living. It's an absolute outrage that we have people on low incomes paying 16c on the dollar plus 12 per cent superannuation plus 2c Medicare when it is 30c on the dollar up to $45,000 and over $45,000 they pay 30c on the dollar, 12c superannuation and 2c Medicare. Once you start earning more than $45,000, you're losing 44c on the dollar. That is an absolute outrage. Income tax is way too high in this country.</para>
<para>But it's not just tax reform we need in this country. We need to reform our entire monetary policy. Yet again, People First is the only party that actually understands global capital markets. We're the only ones that understand the way Australia's balance sheet works. For too many years, thanks to Paul Keating lifting capital controls in 1985, we have been too dependent on foreign debt, and we need to start relying on equity. Just like companies issue new shares on the stock exchange, Australian governments can issue new shares to build vital infrastructure that will generate recurring revenue to help pay for things like dental services, GP services, schools and hospitals, because we shouldn't just be taxing people. We can generate profits from the untapped wealth in this country in a way that not only delivers essential services but gives state governments another way of generating income that they have lost since they privatised way too many assets throughout the 1990s and early 2000s.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've got half an hour this evening to discuss the latest proposal of the Greens. I'm not sure you would call it a policy, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one confused here, because, while it's pretty consistent for the Greens to be going after the billionaires on tax—I get them doing that—aren't they lining up with them on electoral reform? There's a genuine matter of urgency to get the billionaires out of our electoral system, which we could be debating today. So I'm not sure. The Greens are the billionaires' besties one day; they're the bad guys the next. 'Frenemies' might be the best way to describe the relationship.</para>
<para>But, on the serious matters contained within the motion, the Albanese Labor government has been delivering cost-of-living relief, and it's the Albanese Labor government that has been ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax—two things we do because they're consistent with Labor values, with the values of every Labor member on this side, with the values of a Labor Prime Minister and with the values of a Labor government who has been elected to govern. Under our government, we've passed legislation to set a global minimum tax and a domestic minimum tax for multinational enterprise groups with an annual global revenue of at least $1.2 billion from January 2024. We've worked with our partners in the OECD to coordinate this approach for a fairer domestic and international tax system because we believe that multinationals making a profit in Australia should be paying tax on those profits.</para>
<para>And, of course, cost of living remains our focus. It's our focus in this chamber and the other chamber, and it's the focus of every single minister in our government, because it's the focus of the Australian people at the moment. It is our focus particularly in health. You can see that with the measures we've taken recently to triple the bulk-billing incentive, which is the largest ever investment in bulk-billing in the history of Medicare. And, because of that, we've reversed the decline in bulk-billing. I will remained the Senate why bulk-billing was in decline and freefall. It was because the former health minister, Mr Peter Dutton, froze the Medicare rebate, which started this freefall, and he claimed at the time there were too many free Medicare services.</para>
<para>We're also as a government investing significantly in Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, including six in my home state of South Australia; 1.1 million Australians know the value of these clinics, just how important they are and how valuable they've been when they've visited them. They've got treatment for conditions and injuries which are urgent but not life threatening. This is taking pressure off our hospitals and getting more people treatment sooner. We're also working tirelessly to bring down the cost of medicines for the Australian public, freezing the maximum cost of PBS prescriptions to $31.60 and making nearly 200 medicines available for 60-day prescriptions.</para>
<para>On the weekend we announced the largest ever investment in women's health: half-a-billion dollars, including the first PBS listing for new oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years with Yaz and Yasmin finally being listed on the PBS, and the first PBS listing for new menopausal hormone therapies in over 20 years. This will save hundreds of dollars a year for more than 200,000 women. It also includes larger Medicare payments and more bulk-billing for costs women experience—the tax on womanhood in our medical system—for IUDs and birth control implants. Around 300,000 women will save up to $400 in out-of-pocket costs on these items. These measures come into effect immediately—a real cost-of-living measure making a real difference in the lives of Australian women, building on our work on cheaper medicines, Medicare and the development of urgent care clinics.</para>
<para>Our work also continues as we deliver cheaper child care across the country. We're expanding access to the single parent payment,. We have boosted paid parental leave, increased income support, delivered free TAFE and are fully funding public schools, including a massive investment in my home state of South Australia to fix the black hole left by the former Liberal government when they gutted those school funding agreements. We're investing $32 billion in our Homes for Australia Plan to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. We're providing energy bill relief directly to families, and we have delivered a tax cut to every single Australian taxpayer.</para>
<para>I joined the Labor Party because I believe in the power of good public policy delivered through government to deliver good outcomes for people. These things have happened because there's a Labor government—a Labor government led by a Labor Prime Minister implementing Labor values through meaningful reforms which help with the cost of living and have a positive impact on people's lives.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year, Australia's 150 billionaires made some $67,000 per hour—each one of them. While everyday families struggled with the basic cost of living, billionaires made 1,300 times the national wage of an Australian. Our growing wealth inequality and underfunded systems are leaving our communities without access to the medical and mental health care that they urgently need. In the electorate of Perth, in Western Australia, only one out of 46 GP clinics is a bulk-billing clinic. Outside of this, the community is paying, on average, almost $50 for a consultation. That is on top of soaring rents and grocery prices.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, half a million Australians are living in so-called GP deserts, receiving 40 per cent fewer GP services than the national average. This means that people have less access to check-ups, screenings and medication management support. WA leads the country in these GP deserts. People in these areas have a rate of passing away that is 1.5 times higher than the average due to preventable causes.</para>
<para>The Greens are the only party with a plan to genuinely tackle the inequality that is rampant in our society and to fund the health care and other systems that our community needs. This will mean that you will be able to go to the GP for free again and you will be able to get the health care you need where and when you need it once again and that our hospitals will be funded properly once again. These are the changes the community has demanded.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a time to be alive in Australia! While ordinary people across the country struggle with skyrocketing prices and unlimited rent increases and can't afford to see the dentist or send their kids to child care, the total wealth of Australia's 150 billionaires more than doubled between 2018 and 2024. The Labor and Liberal parties have created and continue to uphold an economic system that allows Gina Rinehart to have $40.6 billion in wealth while others have to choose between paying the rent and getting enough food on the table.</para>
<para>I can tell you why the two-party system is dying in this country. It's because both Labor and the Liberals are under the thumb of billionaires and their big corporations, taking millions in dodgy donations, private jet flights and prime-ministerial photo ops without even an ounce of shame or self-awareness, propping up a system that allows the richest 150 billionaires to increase their wealth faster than they can count while leaving thousands in poverty. It's disgraceful. I'm not surprised that this would happen under the Liberals—but the Labor Party? Come on, comrades. Your forefathers would be embarrassed to see you sitting over there on the government benches, responsible for such a grotesquely unfair economic system that doesn't work for people. It works for the top end of town and the major party donors.</para>
<para>Billionaires should pay their fair share of tax. How on earth is this a position that the major parties can oppose? The revenue should be used to make sure that everyone can access the services and essentials that they need—affordable housing, health care and early childhood education. The Greens will make billionaires pay their fair share of tax by imposing a 10 per cent annual tax on the net wealth of Australia's 150 billionaires, with a 10 per cent limit on capital flight in any year. We will make Gina and Clive pay their fair share of tax so you can fix your teeth, but you're going to have to vote for it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right across this country, people are skipping going to the doctor because they can't afford the co-payment. They're literally not going to the dentist because they're frightened about the bills, struggling to put good food on the table after paying the last two, which are literally smashing their bank accounts. Rent is going up $100 at a time, and people are leaving the places they love because they can't afford to live there.</para>
<para>It's not a coincidence that that's happening while the rich are getting richer. Their wealth isn't just growing; for billionaires it's skyrocketing. Last year alone, Australian billionaires pocketed an extra $28 billion. That's $3.2 million an hour to all of them or each of them getting $67,000 an hour every hour for the entire year. The richest are hoarding wealth, influence and power while everyday people are told to tighten their belts. We have fossil fuel magnates who take in ever more public money while telling young people that they've got to stop eating avocados to be able to afford a house. People won't be able to afford a house unless something serious changes. Politicians often talk big in this place, but they act small. They fight over crumbs while their billionaire donors feast, and they're selling ordinary Australians out.</para>
<para>The answer isn't more excuses or empty promises. It's simple: tax billionaires and fund a decent life for everyone. Tax them. That means real investment in things that will make a difference, like getting mental health and dental into Medicare and making it free to see the GP. It means cutting off the handouts for the ultrarich. Billionaires didn't get there by working a million times harder than the rest of us; they got there because the system is rigged, and it's time to unrig it. It's time to tax billionaires back to earth.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Billionaires should pay their fair share of tax. That should be uncontroversial, but the reality is that neither major party actually believes that. The total wealth of Australia's 150 billionaires has more than doubled in the last six years alone. That's under both Liberal and Labor governments. So many Australians are struggling. They're struggling with skyrocketing prices that mean they can't afford to get to the dentist, pay for child care or get to the doctor, and two-thirds of retirees in private rentals are living in poverty. Meanwhile, billionaire Gina Rinehart's wealth has exploded to $40.6 billion, making her one of the richest people on the planet, with a $10 billion increase under Labor in the last couple of years.</para>
<para>The Greens will make billionaires pay their fair share of tax by imposing a 10 per cent tax each year on the net wealth of the 150 billionaires. We need to calm down about what that will cost because we've got strong and clear costings from the Parliamentary Budget Office. It's expected to raise $50 billion over the next decade, and this could fund dental and mental in Medicare and free education from early childhood through to university. We're a wealthy country. We can afford this. The Greens have a plan to pay for it, and it doesn't involve taxing everyday Australians. Our plan targets the one in three corporations who pay zero tax in this country and the 150 billionaires who doubled their wealth through a pandemic. If the major parties can't support the Greens' plan to tax billionaires, they shouldn't be surprised if, on election night, everyday Australians who want to see access to the services and essential things they need—housing, health care, education—vote for the party who is ready and willing to tax Clive and Gina to make it happen.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:42]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>12</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>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>25</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</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></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A letter has been received from Senator McGrath:</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">"Hard-working households, families and small businesses are suffering under an Albanese Labor Government, and things will only get worse under an Albanese-Bandt minority government."</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 ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</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>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we're debating here today is a matter of public importance. I'll read it out to those who are listening at home on the wireless.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, I'll just get you to pause. Colleagues, if you're not participating in the discussion can you either leave or sit quietly so I can hear the good senator speak.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I'm not surprised that Labor senators are chattering like chooks in the henhouse, because they might learn something. They might learn the damage that the Labor Party have done to Australia. What we're debating here today is that hard-working households, families and small businesses are suffering under an Albanese Labor government, and things will only get worse under an Albanese‑Bandt minority government. So come on down, spinner!</para>
<para>You've got to realise that when you go into coalition, which Labor and the Greens could do after the election—obviously, I think Peter Dutton will be Prime Minister and David Littleproud will be Deputy Prime Minister—you've got to work out who is going to take the portfolios. We know that Adam Bandt is going to be Deputy Prime Minister. The question is—I'm sorry, Greens senators over there; I'm sure that some of you might have the ability to touch ministerial leather. Of course, we could have Senator McKim being minister for education, because he did such a bang-on job when he was minister for education in Tasmania and was busily closing schools. Of course, we've got some other noted senators, such as Senator Faruqi. She could be the minister for planning—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Housing development?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Or development! I think she would do a good job.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator McGrath. Senator Allman-Payne on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Allman-Payne</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I realise I'm a bit slow to my feet, but I think the comments in relation to Senator McKim were impugning his character and I would ask that Senator McGrath withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe that they were, but the senator may wish to assist the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MCGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Actually, Acting Deputy President, I'm not going to. I wasn't impugning his character. I actually said he possibly could be education minister based on his track record in Tasmania, which is where he did propose the closure of lots of schools. I don't think that's impugning someone's character; I think that's setting the facts on the record.</para>
<para>But, to go back to Senator Faruqi and her well-known love of koalas and natural bushland, I think perhaps Senator Faruqi could be the minister for bush and koalas. Having said that, it's actually quite serious here, because the Albanese Labor government have absolutely destroyed Australians economically. Australians are living in a cost-of-living crisis caused by this Labor Party government. It's been caused by a weak Prime Minister who's unable to make decisions. Let's face it, he went to North Queensland last week. He left parliament early and went to North Queensland. As a Queensland senator, I am pleased that the Prime Minister of this country visited Townsville and the flood centres, where they've been absolutely destroyed by the floods, but this Labor Party Prime Minister left North Queensland early to attend a Labor Party fundraiser in Brisbane. This Labor Party Prime Minister spent more time attending Labor Party events in Brisbane, including a fundraiser, than he did meeting with victims of the floods in Ingham and Townsville. That shows you the mentality and the character of the Prime Minister of this country.</para>
<para>But, then, this is a prime minister who's clearly not trusted by the security services of this country. This is a prime minister who's not trusted by the Labor Premier of New South Wales. This country came very close to a mass casualty event. A caravan full of explosives was to be placed outside either a Jewish synagogue or a Jewish church, yet this Prime Minister cannot tell Australians if he was told or when he was told.</para>
<para>So what is the use of this Prime Minister? There is no use of this Prime Minister but to show to the Australian people the danger of a Labor government and the extreme danger of a Labor-Greens government. We know that the Labor Party will do a preference deal with the Greens party—the Greens party, who are a racist, antisemitic party. This is a Greens party who refuse to accept the situation that is happening in the Middle East, a Greens party who are apologists for what has happened over there and a Greens party who do not acknowledge the antisemitism that has grown in Australia because of some of the actions of Greens politicians. So you can just imagine what would happen to this country with a minority Labor-Greens government. You would have people who dislike modern Australia trying to govern modern Australia. Vote LNP!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're a proven racist.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I beg your pardon, Senator Shoebridge. You can withdraw, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Withdraw—given the findings against him? He was sacked by the UK Prime Minister for being that. He was literally sacked for that reason.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, I'm not entering into a debate with you. I'm asking you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We just had five minutes from the opposition talking about anything but the cost of living. They propose an MPI to talk about hardworking households, families and small businesses, which I'll actually talk about, but those on the opposite side have no plan except to take $350 billion out of services in this country for hardworking Australians. They have no plan except to get rid of 36,000 people who provide services to hardworking Australians and who live and work all over this country and through our regions. That's what they've got organised.</para>
<para>When you start thinking about the things that they haven't done yet, you've got to think about what they are doing. Under a Dutton government, we would have all been $7,200 worse off in terms of the cost of living because of the things that they've opposed. Every Australian would have been $7,200 worse off on the basis of what the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, has been saying in the battles over what should be done about the cost of living. Their strategy in the battle over the cost of living is to do nothing, to take more out, to rip off services and to damage the community. That's their strategy—no strategy at all except cause harm and more harm and more harm.</para>
<para>We see the cuts that they continue to put forward. In the press release, Mr Dutton described cutting 36,000 public servants across this country who provide essential services right across our community, whether it be in the childcare area, in the NDIS, in veterans affairs or in Centrelink. We know how long veterans were waiting to get their cases even touched, and those opposite want to go back to that. People were waiting 12 months for the file to even be opened up. These are people who fought for and protected the country. That's what those opposite think about service and fellow Australians. That's what they think about people who deserve to have a government that acts for them—cut it further; cut it back.</para>
<para>Of course, when you look at all the cuts they've said they're going to make, you have to think about the ones that they won't tell us about, because they're going to have a meeting after the election to talk about where the other billions of dollars are going to be cut from. They come in here and propose an MPI, a matter of public importance, to talk about small business, households and the cost of living, but not for one second do they talk about any of that in the debate on their own matter of public importance.</para>
<para>Then you start looking at the sorts of things that they want to do to the Australian workforce and community. There's the right to disconnect so that people have a reasonable opportunity to say to somebody, 'Ringing me at two in the morning is not an appropriate time to be ringing me and waking me up, unless it's a matter of absolute urgency.' Unreasonable times and arrangements are unreasonable times and arrangements. But those opposite have said they're going to get rid of that right, because they want people to work harder and longer for less. That's the party that actually believes that everyone in the country is getting paid too much. Time and time again, strategies and policies have been put forward by this government to make sure that we can lift wages, but they want to bring things back to where they crush the middle class in this country. Wages in the middle class declined during the 10 years under the conservatives, and they want to do it worse. In terms of the right to disconnect, think about what the Police Association Victoria said about it. They spoke about the culture of being constantly contactable after hours, and they said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It just causes undue stress for people. That's not necessary when the job is stressful enough.</para></quote>
<para>Police Federation of Australia's Scott Weber said very similar things. He described the unpaid time thus: 'Otherwise it's simply wage theft.' When you see that proposals have been put in place to make sure that the right to disconnect takes place, you see that people have been able to turn around and manage it. Managers manage—the system still works—and people just aren't having their time thieved from them for nothing. But they want to go back to that, because they want people to work longer and harder for nothing. That's their strategy; that's their plan. They are against 'same job, same pay' as well. They want tens of thousands of dollars taken off hardworking Australians around this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With all the signs pointing towards a minority government, this election provides voters with a unique opportunity to keep Mr Dutton out and to push Labor harder to take meaningful action on the things that matter. In a very wealthy country like ours, everyone should be able to afford the basics—food on the table, a roof over their head and a world-class health and education system.</para>
<para>But, while millions of people are struggling to get by, Australian billionaires are raking in $67,000 an hour. Let me say that again, $67,000 an hour. That is 1,300 times more than the average worker gets. It is time for voters to turn the tables. If we were to tax Australia's 150 billionaires, we would raise $50 billion over the decade. We could use that money to fund services like getting dental into Medicare for everyone, having everybody see the GP for free or fully funding our education system this year.</para>
<para>One in three big corporations pays no tax. I will say that again, one in three big corporations pays zero tax. The Greens will make those corporations pay their fair share of tax so you can see the GP for free or go and see the dentist without your credit card.</para>
<para>If you are worried about the cost of seeing a doctor, a dentist or a psychologist, you are not alone. Despite being a wealthy country and despite people having access to the health care that they need, we know that more and more people are putting off healthcare appointments because they can't afford it. And let's not even talk about those people on income support who haven't seen a meaningful increase in this term of government. Those people are choosing between getting their health attended to, putting food on the table and paying the rent.</para>
<para>We cannot keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. If you want to see the GP for free and if you want your local public school to be fully resourced and free, the first step is to fight for someone who will vote for you. When the Greens held the balance of power in 2010, we got dental into Medicare for kids, and if you put the balance of power with us in the next government, we will work to push Labor to get it done for everyone. More than three million children have had 43 million services provided to them since the Greens secured that change. Change is possible and, at this election, you can vote for it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know about anyone else, but I feel a bit queasy now. The fact that we could be staring down a minority government with those opposite and the unicorn farmers in charge really does make me fear for the future of this country. The reality is that we live in the greatest nation on earth; however, the last three years have seen poor decisions by this government mean that all Australians are worse off, that all Australians are a little bit less safe and that our nation has been divided.</para>
<para>Every Australian knows that they are worse off than when this government came to office. I think what has also become quite unsettling about this government is their constant need to gaslight Australians. They do it every day in this chamber, when they are one step from saying Australians have never had it so good. You only need to go out and talk to the mums who actually pay the childcare bills to know that child care isn't cheaper. You can say it as much as you like, but it's not true. Every time you tell a mum that you're so good because you've delivered cheaper child care, when the reality is it's up over 12 per cent and more than that for a lot of families, you are just gaslighting these Australian women by saying to them: 'No, you're wrong. We have delivered cheaper child care. You don't understand. We have. No, it can't be that more money is coming out of your wallet each week.' But they know it is.</para>
<para>You are gaslighting Australians with this renewable only push. We can imagine how that's going to go when you're in partnership with the unicorn farmers. The only time you'll get a bend in a transmission powerline under this lot is when Mehreen Faruqi is building another house—and the koala can get out of the way of that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Faruqi, please, Senator Hughes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies. Senator Faruqi, the potential minister for housing and development, because, let's face it, she's built more houses than the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Four times as many.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Four times as many. She's been much more successful. She could maybe run the HAFF. But it is gaslighting Australians. It's treating them like mugs, and they can see it. They know they're worse off. They know their power bills are going up, because they pay them. So when you stand there and say that renewables are the cheapest form of energy and that energy is free from the sun and the wind, they know you're making it up. Renewable energy isn't the cheapest form of energy when you put the cost of the transmission lines in. We know the unicorn farmers can't quite figure it out because they never quite passed economics; they were too busy in gender studies and basketweaving. When you work out the volume of materials and concrete required for one wind turbine, let alone its limited lifespan—and the materials aren't recycled; they go to landfarm. The critical minerals are mined by slave labour. The Uighurs in China are making their solar panels. But they know that if your power bill is 50 per cent transmission and the transmission costs go up, your power bill's going up. This gaslighting of Australians is continuing to occur.</para>
<para>The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, does have a plan to get Australia back on track. Whilst we're going to see scare campaigns from those opposite, because we know that's all they've got in the campaign drawer, Australians aren't believing them. They didn't believe them in Victoria last weekend. They're not believing them in outer metropolitan areas. They're not actually believing them anywhere. They've never believed them in rural and regional Australia. Australians know you are gaslighting them. You are turning us into a poorer nation. You are dividing this nation. You are lining yourself up. We saw it this week as the Greens jumped into bed with you again to put the guillotine through. I think we're up to 200 bills we've now seen guillotined through this parliament, the parliament that was going to be full of transparency. What a joke! You'd be up for coercive control with the volume of gaslighting that's going on and the way that you're conducting yourselves.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While I agree with the sentiment of this motion—it is true that Australians are suffering under an Albanese government and things would get worse under an Albanese-Bandt government—the fact of the matter is that this motion doesn't have any solutions. It's typical of the Liberal Party to throw mud at the other side saying, 'Well, we're bad, but they're worse.' I'm sorry, but it's about time the Liberal Party actually came up with some solutions of their own. Yes, there's the $20,000 tax deduction for entertainment. If that's the best you've got, then heaven help us.</para>
<para>We know that for nine years under the coalition government—and I was there for a number of them—there was very little tax reform and very little genuine structural reform of the economy. In fact, I know. I've spoken to Angus Taylor, the current shadow Treasurer, many times about structural reform. I spoke to him one day about the need for an infrastructure bank and he said, 'Well, that sounds like MMT to me.' I'm sorry, shadow Treasurer, but the fact of the matter is that MMT is when you expand the volume of credit without actually securing it against infrastructure or an asset.</para>
<para>People first are proposing to build infrastructure by issuing new shares. We don't intend to use foreign debt. We're going to use domestic equity. There's been a lot of talk today by the coalition about the dangers of a Labor-Greens government, and I totally agree with that, but you cannot trust a Liberal government to actually implement economic reform in this country. I know that because I was secretary of the backbench finance committee for five years. Despite repeated attempts at introducing new reform, we got diddly squat. So I know that the best coalition you should have is a coalition-People First government, because People First—yours truly here—is the only one that understands the tax act, the only one that understands global finance markets and the only one that has solutions to fix the economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't believe I'm actually going to agree with some of the comments that Senator Rennick has just made in this debate. He is right: the coalition have not done their work when it comes to policy. What we do know, though, is that, when we won the last election, we inherited interest rates going up, the cost of living going up, and high inflation. It had a six in front of it. What we have done in the almost three years that we've been here is work every single day to bring that inflation down while at the same time lowering unemployment to figures that we haven't seen in this country, with low inflation and low unemployment, which is benefiting the Australian community.</para>
<para>Yes, we know the cost of living has had a huge impact, but we know that's been felt around the globe. But those people on the other side want to try and rewrite history. They live in Fantasia, where they are the only ones that are ever right. They come in here and try to grandstand with these MPIs, but, when it comes to reality, the Australian people know who Mr Dutton is. They remember him in his portfolios in the past. Yes, I do recall that there was an organisation in Health when he was the health minister: the prestigious AMA, who voted him the worst health minister in Australia's history. Why did they do that? It was because he cut. He gutted it. He used health and aged care as an ATM. That's what he did when he was minister. They will not want to go back to him.</para>
<para>The beauty of it is that they're so consistent on that side. They've had almost three years in opposition. They have no policies except for nuclear energy that's going to cost every mum and dad and business in this country, if it ever happens, more when it comes to energy and power prices. And the other major policy they have is bringing back long lunches for bosses on the taxpayer. That's their priority. Every single measure that we brought into this chamber and the other place to give relief to the Australian community and to families—reducing the cost of medicine, bringing in 60-day scripts, having the opportunity for people to see a GP when they need urgent care. We developed the urgent care clinics, which are so successful. I can't speak highly enough of the contribution that the urgent care clinic has delivered to my community in Launceston and northern Tasmania, taking the pressure off the hospital and accident and emergency. That's delivering for the community.</para>
<para>We know that, when they were in government, their great claim to fame was that their policy was to keep wages low. It was for Australian workers to have their wages low. Now they've come up with, 'We are going to have cuts, but we're not going to tell you until after the election.' Well, no-one is going to trust Mr Dutton, because we know his track record. My community members are asking me, 'How much is this going to cost me if there is a change in government?' I remind them that, if they vote for Bridget Archer, who is a really nice person, she will deliver Peter Dutton into the Lodge, and that's not going to be good for the Australian community. So be careful what you wish for, when you're voting for your local Liberal member. Who would then be the Prime Minister?</para>
<para>They voted against every single measure that we have brought in, including lower power prices, delivering energy relief, tax cuts twice as large as what they promised when they are in government—which they said they would scrap when they got into government—introducing fee-free TAFE and rebuilding the skills of Australian workers. They come in here and cry crocodile tears about the cost of living and the impact that it's having. If they were genuinely concerned, they wouldn't have joined forces with the Greens. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Despite all the bluff and bluster of those opposite, the facts are that, 2½ years ago, Anthony Albanese, now our Prime Minister, promised all Australians that life would be cheaper under Labor. They would have cheaper mortgages. They would have cheaper electricity, and everybody would be better off.</para>
<para>Those opposite can say black is white and sit there and talk about everything else but the cost of living, but, far from being Australia's saviour, I think the best analogy is that he is the emperor with new clothes. In fact, nobody on that side of the chamber, including the Greens, has got the courage to tell him that he has no clothes on. The tragedy for all Australians, including Western Australians, is the reality that hardworking families, hardworking households and small businesses are doing it incredibly tough.</para>
<para>No matter how much those opposite refuse to tell the Prime Minister the truth, Australians are not stupid. They know exactly what has happened, after 2½ years, to their household budgets. Everything that they spend, every bill they have, has gone up around about 10 per cent or, in some cases, more. It never had to be this way. It hasn't just happened; it has happened because of the deliberate policies that those opposite have implemented.</para>
<para>What are some of the facts? In just 2½ years, 27,000 small businesses, which are the backbone of this economy, have been forced to shut up shop. In Western Australia, small businesses make up 97 per cent of all businesses, but over a thousand went to the wall because they could no longer afford the cost of doing business. For average Western Australians, in fact for all Western Australians, whether it's a trip to the supermarket, opening up their power bills, seeing the mortgage rise and rise or the cost of their insurance, everything has been going up.</para>
<para>We've also learnt, today, that Western Australia has endured the biggest fall in bulk-billing by GPs across the country under those opposite. For all of the rhetoric that it's all roses for those who need to access their GP, we have the biggest fall in bulk-billing. In fact, in WA, only 6.2 per cent of clinics are bulk-billing patients, meaning that is one clinic per 46,500 Western Australians that bulk bill. Western Australians are paying the most for a visit to a GP. The out-of-pocket expenses for one visit to a GP in Western Australia is now $42.66, and that is just for a standard GP appointment, which is putting even further pressure on Western Australian household budgets.</para>
<para>No matter what those opposite say, no matter how much they deny it, no matter how much they do not want to tell the Prime Minister that his new clothes are transparent, he thinks he's the great emperor, coming into this country to save Australians. But he's a bit like George Costanza. George Costanza learnt that he had to do everything that he said he wasn't going to do. All his instincts were wrong, so he had to go against his instincts. This Prime Minister's instincts for managing the economy, health, education, disability, mortgages and housing—we heard today that those opposite have not built a single house under their housing policy. Not a single house has been delivered, and that is to the detriment of all Western Australians. Shame on you! Western Australians and other Australians have woken up to you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Reynolds. The time for the debate 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>First Nations Australians: Totems</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to table a document.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</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 the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving that the documents be tabled.</para></quote>
<para>I've been given some documents that are very important for this parliament to have on record. They're from a number of traditional owners across the country. I think they are relevant to this parliament going forward, given that we've got the totem of the kangaroo in this room and the totem of the emu in this room, and I am unaware of any consent given to utilise totems of our people in the colonial project.</para>
<para>I've been asked by these elders to provide this to the government and to the parliament to have on record official law notice from grandmothers of law—the superior law, law of the land and of the continent known as Terra Australis and Australia. The senior tribal law man, Uncle Juma of the Larrakia, has served notices that are now in silent acquiescence by the Australian corporation. We know the government, which is a corporation, is registered in the US through an ABN. This whole parliament has an ABN, and the government has an ABN, and it's somewhere overseas. That's how the colonial project does its illegal occupation in this country, basically.</para>
<para>This document has fingerprints, and it has customary law notice. It also comes from the United Tribal Countries Land Alliance. It's a custodial tribal law council made up of self-governing original tribal countries from this continent, known as Terra Australis or Australia, that have reconvened their ancient pactums through their shared languages, Dreaming and songlines, which connect all tribes on this continent and beyond. They've re-established the original tribal councils and made public announcements. They are trading with international counterparts and countries as they are recognised as kings and queens of their own tribes, rather than the colonial king that this parliament refers to all the time.</para>
<para>So there have been a number of High Court proceedings in relation to the custodial tribal law council, and this is about putting this on the record to be an official account. It has been sent to the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organization. It has been acknowledged by that organisation. I think that, for the opposition, or the Libs, to not allow this important information to be tabled is very disrespectful when it's part of truth-telling in this country.</para>
<para>I seek the Senate's support for these elders and these true custodians of this country, in having the respect to provide this information to the Senate and to the parliament for your information. It's a statement of truths and it's a notice to principal in notice to agent. You need to know about the emu and you need to know about the kangaroo that you wear on your lapels and where they come from, the stories that they belong to and the country that they belong to. They certainly don't belong in this place; it's an act of treason and theft.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know that a lot of this is available online on some government sites. The document may have some valid points, and I don't take that away. Overall, as a document, it contains many claims that are not fully tested and maintains all sorts of things that would belong, if this were America, in the sovereign citizen movement. The entire document is not fully coherent. Whilst it does maintain some of the things as a single document, it looks to be the purpose of some of the contributors to this to serve it on the Parliament of Australia rather than to have any deliberative process or thoughts. So that is why we will not be supporting the tabling of this document.</para>
<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 Thorpe be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:28]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>35</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. (Teller)</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>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</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>Watt, M. P.</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>Babet, R.</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>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>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</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>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>5</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
              </names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table the documents relating to the trademarking of the sacred emblems of the First Peoples of this continent.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report on Australia's national interests in Antarctica, and, on behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 88th annual report of the committee and the committee's ninth report of 2024.</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>National Organic Standard Bill 2024</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">
            <a href="s1434" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Organic Standard Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Committee</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the National Organic Standard Bill 2024, together with accompanying documents.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Affairs References Committee</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Government Response to Report</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the government's response to the Community Affairs References Committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Ending postcode lottery: addressing barriers to sexual, maternity and reproductive healthcare in Australia</inline>. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the document incorporated into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The document read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report: <inline font-style="italic">Ending the postcode lottery—Addressing barriers to sexual, maternity and reproductive healthcare in Australia</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Overview</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 28 September 2022, the Senate referred the issue of universal access to reproductive healthcare to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Supporting, protecting, and promoting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of all Australians is critical to the Australian Government. The Government recognises the importance of ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health information, treatment and services that empower individuals to have choice and control in decision-making about their bodies. Ensuring appropriate access to sexual and reproductive health services and information is a key priority in the National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030 (Women's Health Strategy) and the National Men's Health Strategy 2020-2030.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to health equity and is supporting access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and services and maternity services. Through the 2024-25 Budget, the Government is investing over $160 million in measures which support a number of recommendations from the inquiry and demonstrates the Government's commitment to supporting the sexual and reproductive health needs of women. In addition, a range of initiatives are being implemented to respond to the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, which recommended significant changes to how primary care is funded and delivered.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The recommendations aim to enable quality, integrated and person-centred care for all Australians. The package of reforms includes a review of scope of practice to ensure all health professionals are utilising their skillset, including being able to effectively support individuals, families, and communities with their reproductive health needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will invest an additional $124.6 million over three years from 2025-26 with ongoing funding of $44.7 million per annum from 2028-29 to remove access and affordability barriers for long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs). This includes increasing the LARC item fees on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and creating new items for Nurse Practitioners in line with advice from the MBS Review Advisory Committee. A MBS loading item will also be implemented which can be claimable where a provider provides a bulk-billed LARC MBS service. The Government will also build on its commitment to increase training for health professionals in LARC insertion and removal by establishing Centres of Training Excellence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government, supported by expert advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), has also introduced changes to the dispensing and prescribing of mifepristone and misoprostol (MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline>) to make medical termination of pregnancy more accessible to those in need. The Committee's report highlights the roles of all levels of government in addressing the barriers to sexual and reproductive healthcare access in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some of the recommendations (12) fall within areas of state and territory responsibility or require collaboration between the Australian Government and jurisdictions. In-principle support indicates agreement with these recommendations but recognises state and territory governments are responsible for their funding and implementation. These recommendations were discussed at the 10 November 2023 Health Ministers' Meeting and all Health Ministers agreed in-principle to support the 12 recommendations related to jurisdictional areas of responsibility.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For a number of other recommendations where in-principle support is given, they may relate to matters where further collaboration with stakeholders is required or where there are existing activities underway which go to addressing the intent of the recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government response supports (or supports-in principle) 36 of the 40 recommendations, while 4 responses are noted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges other women related policies, such as Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality and the Senate inquiry into issues related to menopause and perimenopause which also reflect the Government's commitment to improve outcomes for women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">1: The Committee recommends that the Therapeutic Goods Administration reviews its approval processes to ensure that Australian consumers have timely access to the latest and safest contraceptive methods available internationally.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For a therapeutic good to be authorised for use and supply in Australia, the sponsor of the product needs to make an application to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to register the good on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). The Government cannot compel a sponsor to make an application for registration of a new medicine or medical device.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA works collaboratively with other international partners and has strong working relationships with many international agencies and overseas regulators. For new therapeutic goods, including contraceptives, the TGA is able to use assessments from comparable overseas regulators and international assessment bodies, in the regulation of medicines and medical devices. This can streamline the approval process and reduce the duplication of effort where an assessment has been completed internationally. Depending on the scope of the assessment provided to the TGA, the need for a new evaluation may be reduced or removed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA is a member of the Access Consortium along with Health Canada, Health Sciences Authority of Singapore, Swissmedic and the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. A key focus of the Access Consortium is to work collaboratively during the evaluation of a new registration application to minimise regulatory burden, by completing a global evaluation used by each partner participating in this work-sharing arrangement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Generally, therapeutic goods must be included in the ARTG before they can be imported into, supplied in or exported from Australia. Therapeutic goods not included in the ARTG (described as 'unapproved') have not been evaluated by the TGA for quality, safety, efficacy or performance. The TGA encourages the use of medicines which have been approved in Australia and included in the ARTG.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is recognised there are times when approved and available products may not meet the needs of all patients and clinical situations. There are provisions which allow health practitioners and patients to access therapeutic goods not included in the ARTG. These provisions include the Special Access Scheme, Authorised Prescriber or Personal Importation Schemes, and Clinical Trials. It is the responsibility of the prescribing health practitioner to determine the most suitable pathway for supply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">2: The Committee recommends that the National Scope of Practice Review considers, as a priority, opportunities and incentives for </inline> <inline font-style="italic">all health professionals working in the field of sexual and reproductive healthcare to work to their full scope of practice in a clinically safe way.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The independent <inline font-style="italic">Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce (Scope of Practice) Review </inline>was released on 5 November 2024. This review made recommendations to all Health Ministers regarding enabling health professionals, including Nurse Practitioners, to work to their full scope of practice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This includes recommendations relevant to health professionals working in the field of sexual and reproductive health such as:</para></quote>
<list>A bundled payment for maternity care to remove barriers for midwives to provide care across health settings (Recommendation 11).</list>
<list>New direct referral pathways to non-GP specialist Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items such as midwife referrals to non-GP medical specialists within their scope of practice (Recommendation 12).</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will carefully consider the findings and recommendations of this review alongside other recently released primary care and workforce reviews.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 3 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">3: The Committee recommends that state and territory governments work towards aligning supply quantities of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and non-PBS oral contraceptive pills allowed under state and territory emergency supply legislation.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will explore opportunities to work with states and territories to align jurisdiction emergency supply legislation to ensure equitable access for all Australians. The supply quantities of PBS and non-PBS oral contraceptive pills allowed under emergency supply legislation is a decision for state and territory governments. Health Ministers considered this recommendation through the Health Ministers' Meeting in November 2023, and all Health Ministers agreed in-principle support for the recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The emergency supply legislation ensures the supply of medicine when there is an immediate need and a patient cannot obtain a script. For PBS medicines, this is covered by national Continued Dispensing arrangements where the person has previously been supplied the medicine under the PBS in the last three months, their condition is stable, and the PBS prescriber is unable to be contacted or is unable to provide an electronic or owing PBS prescription.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Oral contraceptives subsidised under the PBS have been able to be supplied since the commencement of Continued Dispensing in 2013.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Supply of non-PBS medicines relies on jurisdictional emergency supply legislation. Depending on the jurisdiction, this ranges from three to seven days' worth of supply, or the minimum standard pack. New South Wales (NSW), South Australia (SA) and Tasmania have permanently expanded pharmacist scope of practice to allow for the resupply of the oral contraceptive pill without a prescription. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia (WA) have established pilots to trial the prescribing of the oral contraceptive pill without a prescription.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In late 2023, NSW expanded their Pharmacy Trial to allow eligible women to visit a participating pharmacy to get a resupply of their oral contraceptive pill. In November 2023, the ACT also commenced a 12-month pilot program which is being implemented through an agreement with the NSW Government to participate in their trial. NSW announced in September 2024 that the trial would transition to usual practice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In September 2023, Queensland announced an expansion of their pharmacy prescribing trial to cover the whole state, initially slated for Northern Queensland only, and to also include the oral contraceptive pill. Pharmacists who take part in the trial are required to undergo extra training and have suitable private consulting spaces. The trial will roll out over 2024 and 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From October 2023, Victoria commenced a 12-month state-wide pilot for participating and appropriately trained community pharmacists to provide continued supply of select oral contraceptive pills without a prescription for women under a structured prescribing model. The trial has subsequently been extended to June 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In May 2024, SA and WA announced that pharmacists who have completed appropriate training will be able to provide resupply of oral contraceptives as part of usual practice. Tasmania announced similar arrangements in July 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 4 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">4: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government reviews, considers and implements options to make contraception more affordable for all people.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports increasing access to affordable contraception. The Government provides relevant subsidised healthcare services through the MBS and some subsidised contraception options through the PBS. The MBS provides patient rebates for professional services delivered in private healthcare settings. There are a number of MBS items which provide patient rebates relevant to contraception services, including general attendance consultations during which contraception counselling could occur, as well as specific items that provide a rebate for the insertion and removal of long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government committed $5.2 million over three years to support health professionals, including regional and remote practitioners, to undertake free LARC training. Funding will ensure cost is not a barrier to health professionals—including GPs, Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, midwives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners—in undertaking LARC training, including if they need to travel to participate. This will ensure a larger number of providers can provide LARC services across Australia and support increased uptake of LARCs, particularly for women living in regional and remote locations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Also in the 2024-25 Budget, the Government committed to a review or 'gender audit' of the MBS items available for LARC insertion and removal as well as diagnostic imaging. Women should not face higher out-of-pocket costs for health services simply due to their gender, and this audit is examining these specific items and any gender bias in the rates of Medicare rebates and payments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 2025-26, the government will build on the 2024-25 Budget workforce measure by providing an additional $17.5 million over three years with ongoing funding of $6.6 million per annum from 2028-29 to create LARC Centres of Training Excellence. The LARC Centres of Training Excellence will leverage existing infrastructure to provide training for health professionals in LARC insertion and removal. This training will further enhance health professionals' ability to deliver appropriate care to a patient for LARC insertion and removal, including effective pain management options.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Centres of Training Excellence will also provide LARC services to the community for patients wanting a LARC inserted and removed and will be a referral point for providers not trained or confident in delivering these services. An outreach component will be included as part of this model to alleviate the barriers for both health professionals in accessing training and patients accessing LARC services in rural and remote areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition to this, Government will invest an additional $124.6 million over three years from 2025-26 with ongoing funding of $44.7 million per annum from 2028-29 to remove access and affordability barriers for LARCs. This includes increasing the LARC item fees on the MBS and creating new items for Nurse Practitioners in line with advice from the MBS Review Advisory Committee (MRAC). A MBS loading item will also be implemented which can be claimed where a provider provides a bulk-billed LARC MBS service.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Contraception can be accessed through primary care providers, gynaecology medical specialist practices, family planning services, and some sexual health services and hospital run contraceptive clinics.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are currently a range of contraceptive medicines listed on the PBS, including combined oral contraceptive pills, progestogen-only pills, intrauterine devices (IUD), hormonal implants and injections.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medicines dispensed through the PBS are subject to a patient contribution, known as a co-payment. The co-payment is the amount the patient pays towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The Government pays the remaining cost. Contraceptives that are not PBS-listed are dispensed as private prescriptions, and patient charges for private prescriptions are a matter for each pharmacy to determine. Prices can vary between pharmacies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under legislation, a medicine cannot be listed on the PBS unless the PBAC makes a recommendation in favour of listing. The PBAC is an independent and expert body, comprising doctors, health professionals, health economists and consumer representatives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When considering a medicine proposed for PBS listing, the PBAC is legally required to consider the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the medicine compared to other available therapies. The PBAC's consideration is generally initiated when the pharmaceutical company responsible for a medicine applies for PBS listing for specific conditions. Pharmaceutical companies usually hold scientific data and other information necessary to inform the PBAC's consideration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pharmaceutical companies are private entities, and each company makes its own decisions about availability of its medicines, pricing of its medicines in the private market (outside the PBS), and whether it will apply for PBS listing. In March 2024, the Department of Health and Aged Care wrote to pharmaceutical companies with contraceptive medicines that are TGA registered and available on the private market in Australia, requesting they consider applying to the PBAC to list these products on the PBS. The Department of Health and Aged Care has since met with various companies to discuss potential applications to list their contraceptive products on the PBS. However, the Government cannot compel companies to apply for PBS listing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government recognises the need for more contraceptive options to be listed for PBS subsidy. The Government is considering options for reform (including those made by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Policy and Methods Review) to encourage pharmaceutical companies to apply for PBS listing of medicines which address an unmet clinical need (which would include different contraceptive medicines).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government also provides funding contributions through the National Health Reform Agreement (NHRA) to assist states and territories with the cost of delivering public health and hospital services, including for contraception services delivered through emergency departments, admitted and non-admitted care, subacute care and some community health settings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 5 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">5: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensures that there is adequate remuneration, through Medicare, for general practitioners, nurses, and midwives to provide contraceptive administration services, including the insertion and removal of long-acting reversible contraceptives.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government committed to a review or 'gender audit' of the MBS items available for LARC insertion and removal as well as a review of any gendered differences in MBS items for diagnostic imaging services. As part of the review, consideration is being given to the appropriateness of the items to support equitable and affordable access for women to high quality, safe services provided by appropriately trained health practitioners, including doctors, Nurse Practitioners, midwives and nurses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The MRAC commenced this work and provided preliminary recommendations to the Government in August 2024.In line with the MRAC's advice, Government committed to investing an additional $124.6 million over three years from 2025-26 with ongoing funding of $44.7 million per annum from 2028-29 to remove access and affordability barriers for LARCs. This includes increasing the LARC item fees on the MBS and creating new items for Nurse Practitioners in line with advice from the MBS Review Advisory Committee. A MBS loading item will also be implemented which can be claimed where a provider provides a bulk-billed LARC MBS service. This better recognises the costs incurred by the range of providers involved in delivering these services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The MRAC's review work is ongoing to consider how a broader range of health professionals may be well placed to support access for patients for LARC insertion and removal, as well as to consider more broadly how the MBS may unintentionally create disincentives for health professionals to address women's health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medicare rebates are benefits paid to patients to provide financial assistance towards the costs of their health services. On 1 November 2023, new general attendance items for consultations of 60 minutes or more (known as level E) became available to support improved access and service affordability for patients with complex needs. These new general attendance items were accompanied by a tripling of the bulk billing incentives for patients with a Commonwealth Concession Card and children under 16 years of age for the most common GP consultation items that is:</para></quote>
<list>All face-to-face general attendance consultations more than six minutes in length.</list>
<list>All telehealth general attendance consultations which are between six and 20 minutes in length (known as Level B consultations).</list>
<list>Longer telehealth phone and video general attendance consultations where a patient is registered through MyMedicare and the service is provided at the practice where they are registered.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The tripled bulk billing incentive reflects the incentive scaling based on the rurality of the practice. This means the incentive increases for patients attending practices in regional, rural and remote communities. This investment increases benefits for healthcare provision for eligible patients for consultations which may include counselling and the prescribing of contraception, such as the oral contraceptive pill. For procedural items, such as the introduction of an IUD, standard bulk billing incentives continue to apply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 November 2024, Nurse Practitioners will have expanded requesting rights that will allow them to request further ultrasound services under Medicare to assist with patient care, including the before and after care requirements of the MS-2 Step medical abortion program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nurse Practitioners and Endorsed Midwives (EMs) have access to the MBS. Nurse Practitioners have time tiered items and EMs have several MBS items that may be applied to address contraception administrative services and counselling. From 1 July 2024, MBS rebates for Nurse Practitioners general attendance items increased by 30 per cent as part of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce reforms. From 1 March 2025, new general attendance items for Nurse Practitioners consultations of 60 minutes or more (to be known as level E) will be available to support improved access and service affordability for LARCs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ability of Registered Nurses and midwives to distribute, prescribe and administer medicines listed within the Schedules to the Poisons Standard, including some contraceptives, is regulated by state and territory legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition to renumeration, there are a range of Government supported programs and incentives to improve the availability of GPs with advanced skills and broader scopes of practice as part of a rural healthcare team, through the National Rural Generalist Pathway.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Workforce Incentive Program—Practice Stream (WIP-PS) aims to improve access to multidisciplinary care at a community level by providing financial incentives to help general practices with the cost of engaging nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners and health workers. In the 2023 -24 Budget, an additional $445.1 million over 5 years was allocated under the WIP-PS to help improve the financial sustainability of multidisciplinary general practice and support more accountability and transitions to new models of care that are responsive to community needs. This is on top of the financial incentives of more than $400 million per year already available through the WIP-PS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nurses are the largest health professional type engaged under the WIP-PS and are an integral and central part of many multidisciplinary teams around the country. As at the end of August 2024, there were 13,804 Registered Nurses and 266 Nurse Practitioners engaged under the WIP-PS program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 6</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">6: The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee work with the pharmaceutical industry to consider options to improve access to a broader range of hormonal contraceptives that are not currently Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidised, including newer forms of the oral contraceptive pill, the emergency oral contraceptive pills and the vaginal ring.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The listing of medicines on the PBS generally occurs at the request of the pharmaceutical company responsible for the supply of the medicine in Australia (the sponsor) via an application to the PBAC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under legislation, a medicine cannot be listed by the Government on the PBS unless the PBAC makes a recommendation to the Minister in favour of listing. To make a recommendation, the PBAC is required by the legislation to consider the comparative clinical effectiveness and costs of the proposed medicine with that of alternative therapies. The PBAC and the PBS listing process relies in part on the scientific assessment of evidence regarding safety and clinical effectiveness undertaken by the TGA when it evaluates medicines for approval and inclusion in the ARTG. Medicines are only listed on the PBS for the treatment of conditions for which they are registered by the TGA. The TGA does not make recommendations for listing medicines on the PBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Government can encourage sponsors to come forward, and in March 2024 the Department of Health and Aged Care wrote to sponsors of oral contraceptive pills and the vaginal ring which are not currently subsidised through the PBS to invite applications to the PBAC. However, as noted in response to recommendations 1 and 4, pharmaceutical companies are private entities and cannot be compelled by the Government to apply for PBAC consideration or list their medicines on the PBS. It is important to note that the Government does not interfere with the PBAC's considerations or processes to develop recommendations to Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In October 2024, at the request of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the PBAC convened a stakeholder meeting to discuss evidence available that may demonstrate additional benefits of newer contraceptives compared to older generation oral contraceptives. Invited participants included those representing professional organisations, pharmaceutical companies responsible for newer contraceptives, individuals representing PBAC and Department representatives. The outcomes from the stakeholder meeting are available on the PBS website.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At its November 2024 meeting, the PBAC recommended listing drospirenone 4 mg tablets (Slinda) on the PBS. The PBAC also provided further advice to its July 2024 recommendation to list the combined oral contraceptives 3 mg drospirenone with 20 micrograms ethinylestradiol (Yaz) and 3 mg drospirenone with 30 micrograms ethinylestradiol (Yasmin) on the PBS. When the PBAC recommends PBS listing and the sponsor agree to the terms of listing, the Government would support the sponsor to finalise arrangements and proceed to a PBS listing as quickly as possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">7: The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care considers and implements an option to subsidise the non-hormonal copper intrauterine device to improve contraceptive options for people with hormone-driven cancers and people for whom hormonal contraception options may not be suitable.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Copper IUDs are regulated by the TGA as medical devices and, unlike hormonal IUDs, do not contain medicines. As such, they are not appropriate for subsidy through the PBS, which subsidises medicines or medicinal preparations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will consider this recommendation in the context of the implementation of the Australian Cancer Plan. The plan aims to improve the lives of all Australians affected by cancer. The plan includes a focus on improving survivorship care, to better manage the longer-term impacts of cancer treatment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are a number of MBS items which provide patient rebates specifically for access to IUD services. These include MBS item 35503 which provides a patient rebate for the insertion of any type of IUD, including a copper IUD, used for contraceptive purposes, and item 35506 which provides a patient rebate for the removal of any type of IUD when an anaesthetic is required. GPs, Nurse Practitioners and EMs attendance items, as well as specialist consultation items, may also provide a patient rebate for consultations associated with insertion and removal of IUDs. These items are being reviewed as a part of the 'gender audit' of LARC insertion and removal MBS items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 8 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">8: The Committee recommends the Australian Government works with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Royal Australian and New Zealand </inline> <inline font-style="italic">College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to improve access to workforce training for the insertion and removal of long-acting reversible contraceptives to support their increased utilisation in Australia.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government committed $5.2 million over three years to support health professionals, including regional and remote practitioners, to undertake free LARC training. Funding will ensure cost is not a barrier to health professionals—including GPs, Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, midwives and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners—in undertaking LARC training, including if they need to travel to participate. This will support a larger number of healthcare providers to provide LARC services across Australia and support increased uptake of LARCs, particularly for women living in regional and remote locations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will provide a further $17.5 million over three years from 2025-26 and ongoing funding of $6.6 million per annum from 2028-29 to create LARC Centres of Training Excellence. The LARC Centres of Training Excellence will leverage existing infrastructure to provide training for health professionals in LARC insertion and removal. This training will enhance health professionals' ability to deliver appropriate care to a patient for LARC insertion and removal, including effective pain management options.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Centres of Training Excellence will also provide LARC services to the community for patients wanting a LARC inserted and removed and will be a referral point for providers not trained or confident in delivering these services. An outreach component will be included as part of this model to alleviate the barriers for both health professionals in accessing training and patients accessing LARC services in rural and remote areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has also provided $107.1 million between 2019-20 and 2025-26 for the Rural Procedural Grant Program (RPGP) to cover related costs of continuing professional development (CPD) for procedural GPs working in rural and regional (defined as Modified Monash Model 3-7) locations to ensure these communities have access to highly qualified health professionals. Under the RPGP, GPs with procedural skills in anaesthetics, obstetrics and surgery can access a grant of up to $2,000 per day for up to 10 days each year for CPD activities in their procedural discipline.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Health professionals in Australia are trained according to the accreditation standards for their specific profession which is approved by the profession's National Board.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Medical Council is responsible for the development of training standards and the assessment of training programs for medical professionals including GPs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medical colleges are responsible for maintaining standards for quality clinical practice, education and training, and research in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) sets standards for specialist training in obstetrics and gynaecology, including LARC training principles and standards for health practitioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM) and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) set the training curriculum for GP registrars and practice requirements, including for CPD. Both colleges require trainees to achieve competency in contraception advice, with the ACRRM curriculum requiring that trainees should be competent in the insertion of subcutaneous and intra-uterine contraceptive devices (IUCD). RACGP trainees who do advanced training in obstetrics and gynaecology gain competency in LARC insertion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 9</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">9: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers the </inline> <inline font-style="italic">continuation of funding for the Australian Contraception and Abortion Primary Care Practitioner Support Network (AusCAPPS) to provide ongoing support and professional development for practitioners.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the 2023-24 MYEFO, $1.1 million was provided to support the continued operation of the AusCAPPS Network to December 2026. This funding will ensure the AusCAPPS Network are able to continue providing essential support and professional development to providers of LARC and medical abortion services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 10</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">10: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers and implements a separate Medicare Benefits Schedule item number for contraceptive counselling and advice for all prescribers, including midwives.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to ensuring Australians have access to contraceptive counselling and advice. Relevant prescribers have existing MBS items which can be used for contraceptive counselling and advice. To support doctors to provide general practice services to patients, there are a number of service items and payments available under the MBS. These include time-tiered general attendance items, which are designed to allow doctors to use their clinical judgement and to support flexibility and responsiveness in providing patient centred care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As per recommendation 5, from 1 November 2023 new general attendance items for consultations of 60 minutes or more (known as level E) became available to support improved access and service affordability for patients with complex needs. Medical practitioners can also access higher bulk billing incentives for general attendance items when they bulk bill patients under 16 years of age and Commonwealth Concession Card holders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Telehealth services by GPs and prescribed medical practitioners specifically for blood borne viruses and sexual and reproductive health transitioned to permanent MBS items on</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 July 2024. These items are exempt from the existing relationship rule to allow patients to access health services relevant to their needs despite location or medical practitioner availability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nurse Practitioners can use time tiered general attendance items to discuss the contraceptive needs of their patients. The schedule fee for these items increased by 30 per cent on 1 July 2024. From 1 March 2025, the Government will introduce two new general attendance MBS items for Nurse Practitioners (face-to-face and telehealth) of at least 60 minutes duration. These items will further support service provision for LARCs. EMs can use the existing postnatal MBS items to discuss the contraceptive needs of their patients.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 11</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">11: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government and/or relevant organisations support research into the availability and development of contraceptive options for males.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to health and medical research and is investing in Australian research and its translation into practice to ensure Australia's entire health system is prepared for current and future challenges. The Government provides direct support for health and medical research through the complementary Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC):</para></quote>
<list>The MRFF funds priority driven research with a focus on research translation and commercialisation.</list>
<list>The NHMRC focuses on investigator-led research.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Decisions regarding the expenditure of disbursements from the MRFF are guided by the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy 2021-2026 and related set of Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities (2024-2026) (Priorities) developed by the independent and expert Australian Medical Research Advisory Board following national consultation in accordance with the <inline font-style="italic">Medical Research Future Fund Act 2015</inline>. The Government is required to consider the Priorities that are in force when making decisions on MRFF disbursements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Between 2000 and 2023 the NHMRC expended $24.9 million towards research relevant to male contraception, including investigating male hormonal and biochemical contraceptive targets, sexual health education and reproductive health policy frameworks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since its inception, the MRFF expended $1.5 million towards research relevant to male contraception, including a clinical trial of a next generation condom that has the potential to reduce condom avoidance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 12</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">12: The Committee recommends that the Australian, state, and territory governments ensure that maternity care services, including birthing services, in non-metropolitan public hospitals are available and accessible for all pregnant women at the time they require them. This is particularly important for women in rural and regional areas.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The planning and delivery of Australian maternity services is undertaken by states and territories with the Government providing significant funding through the NHRA to assist states and territories with the costs of public hospital and community health services, including maternity services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports this recommendation through its contribution to states and territories towards the costs of delivering safe and quality public health services under the NHRA. In return, the states and territories have agreed to the Medicare Principles, under which they have committed to provide all Medicare-eligible persons with the choice to receive public hospital services free-of-charge, on the basis of clinical need and within a clinically appropriate period. The NHRA also requires states and territories to ensure arrangements are in place to allow for equitable access to necessary reproductive health services, regardless of geographical location.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Woman-centred Care: Strategic directions for Australian maternity services (2019) (Woman-centred Care Strategy) recognises the diversity of funding and delivery arrangements underpinning maternity services in Australia. Of primary importance is that Australian families have access to safe, high quality, respectful maternity care. The Woman-centred Care Strategy is wide-reaching. On 21 April 2023, all Australian Health Ministers agreed the six priority areas for implementation of the Woman-centred Care Strategy. One of these priority areas is improving access to, and understanding the awareness of, maternity models of care to support greater choice for women in maternity care. This also includes midwifery continuity of care and maternity continuity of carer models.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To support implementation of the Woman-centred Care Strategy, Health Ministers tasked the Health Workforce Taskforce to develop a National Maternity Workforce Strategy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A National Maternity Workforce Strategy is being developed and co-led by Queensland and NSW.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 13 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">13: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implements outstanding </inline> <inline font-style="italic">recommendations made by the Participating Midwife Reference Group to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Review Taskforce regarding midwifery services and continuity of care.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The MBS Review Taskforce endorsed eight recommendations made by the Participating Midwives Reference Group. Three recommendations have been implemented and the remaining five were funded in the 2024-25 Budget and will be implemented on 1 March 2025. These include:</para></quote>
<list>Recommendation 1: minimum duration for initial antenatal attendances.</list>
<list>Recommendation 2: antenatal attendances of at least 90 minutes.</list>
<list>Recommendation 3: a new item for a complex antenatal attendance leading to a hospital admission.</list>
<list>Recommendation 9: postnatal attendances of at least 90 minutes.</list>
<list>Recommendation 10: mandatory clinical activities and increase the minimum time for a 6 week postnatal attendance.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Participating Midwife Reference Group also recommended that the need for mandated Collaborative Arrangements be removed. Following a review of the evidence, as recommended by the MBS Review Taskforce, and extensive stakeholder consultation, the Australian Government introduced the <inline font-style="italic">Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 </inline>to the House of Representatives on 20 March 2024. The Bill removes the legislated requirement for eligible midwives and eligible Nurse Practitioners to be in a specified collaborative arrangement with a medical practitioner, for that eligible midwife or eligible Nurse Practitioners to prescribe certain PBS medications or provide services under Medicare. This change came into effect from 1 November 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Midwives in Australia are educated and highly skilled to deliver specialised sexual, reproductive, maternal, and newborn healthcare including care of women and newborns with complex needs, working collaboratively within a multidisciplinary team. Midwifery continuity of care, with the same known midwife across the childbearing continuum to</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6-weeks postnatal, is the gold standard of maternity care and is demonstrated to have the best outcomes for women and their babies. Midwifery continuity of care is known to be of additional benefit for women at higher risk of stillbirth, First Nations women, and women from disadvantaged groups. Midwifery continuity of care improves clinical outcomes for both the woman and her baby, promotes maternal and midwifery workforce satisfaction and is cost effective, especially in rural settings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Health Ministers developed the Woman-centred Care Strategy to provide national strategic directions to support Australia's high-quality maternity care system and enable improvements in line with contemporary practice, evidence and international developments. The Woman-centred Care Strategy prioritises improving access to, and understanding and awareness of, maternity models of care available to women in their region, to support greater choice in maternity care, including midwifery continuity of care and other maternity continuity of carer models.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 14 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">14: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with the sector to increase birthing on country initiatives and other culturally appropriate continuity of care models.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Research has demonstrated that where trialled, Birthing on Country models of care contribute to better health outcomes for First Nations mothers and babies including a 50 per cent reduction in preterm birth rates and a reduction in child removals at birth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These outcomes directly contribute towards achieving Closing the Gap Outcome and Target 2, that babies are born healthy and strong within a healthy birthweight range.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In guiding the nation's maternity services, the Woman-centred Care Strategy recognises the importance of developing and implementing culturally safe, evidence-based maternity models of care in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women and communities, including but not limited to Birthing on Country models of care. Health Ministers have agreed a priority area of focus for implementation of the Woman-centred Care Strategy is the review and expansion of information available online to ensure information is culturally appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has invested $169.2 million over four years (2021-22 to 2024-25) under the Commonwealth's Closing the Gap Implementation Plan to support Outcome 2: babies are born healthy and strong and Target 2: by 2031, the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies with a healthy birthweight increases to 91 per cent. This investment includes:</para></quote>
<list>$32.2 million over four years (2021-22 to 2024-25), under the Healthy Mums Healthy Bubs budget measure, to grow the maternity health workforce, redesign maternity services and support Birthing on Country and culturally safe continuous midwifery care activities for women pregnant with a First Nations baby (this funding was allocated to 9 organisations).</list>
<list>$12.8 million over four years (2021-22 to 2024-25) to expand the Australian Nurse-Family Partnership Program (ANFPP) from 13 to 15 sites. The two new sites will support First Nations families in the Kimberley and Pilbara regions of</list>
<list>Western Australia.</list>
<list>$101.7 million over four years (2021-22 to 2024-25) for the continuation of the ANFPP in the 13 existing sites until June 2025.</list>
<list>$22.5 million over three years (2022-23 to 2024-25) for a dedicated Birthing on Country Centre of Excellence (the Birth Centre) at Waminda in Nowra, NSW.</list>
<list>The construction of the Birth Centre is expected to be completed in September 2026. Once operational, it will service up to 211 mothers in its first year, with this figure expected to grow to 246 by 2032; and grow the First Nations workforce by 70 positions, inclusive of midwives and nurses.</list>
<list>The Birth Centre will provide culturally safe care and wrap around services for First Nations families across the perinatal period, inclusive of case management services, drug and alcohol rehabilitation and accommodation when leaving custody or domestic violence situations.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government announced in the 2024-25 Budget measures to address longstanding gaps in insurance coverage for privately practising midwives providing intrapartum care, including homebirths. This will include coverage of these services provided under Birthing on Country models of care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, the Government is funding the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) to undertake the development of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Antenatal to School Ready Health Plan 2024-2034 (due October 2024). This work will guide future investment in culturally safe models of care across the perinatal and early-childhood period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workforce Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan 2021-31 (Workforce Plan) was co-designed in genuine partnership with the sector and has been endorsed by the Commonwealth, territory and state Health Ministers. The Workforce Plan sets the target that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are fully represented in the health workforce by 2031 and aims to strengthen the cultural safety of the health system more broadly.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Underpinned by the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the Workforce Plan outlines a number of recommendations and contains comprehensive information on retention barriers and enablers (across all health disciplines) specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in rural and remote areas. The Workforce Plan will directly impact multiple Closing the Gap targets, including Target 2: by 2031, the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies with a healthy birthweight increases to 91 per cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 15</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">15: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that all public hospitals within Australia be equipped to provide surgical pregnancy terminations, or timely and affordable pathways to other local providers. This will improve equality of access, particularly in rural and regional areas and provide workforce development opportunities.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">State and territory governments are the system managers of their public hospitals systems, responsible for the day-to-day administration and performance of their public hospitals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This management role includes determining the availability, types, and range of their public hospital services, including reproductive health services and the locations where they can be delivered safely in their jurisdiction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government does not have the power to direct states and territories to provide public hospital services at specific locations. The Government, however, remains committed to contributing to the cost of reproductive health services provided by states and territories in public hospitals</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">States and territories are also required to have arrangements in place to ensure equitable access to such services, regardless of geographic location.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to improving access to health and hospital services so that all Australians receive appropriate health care when and where they need it, particularly in regional, rural, and remote areas. The Government also supports efforts to increase pathways to timely and affordable surgical pregnancy terminations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Most reproductive health services are considered public hospital services, and the Government makes a contribution towards the costs of services delivered by states and territories.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is in ongoing discussion with states and territories regarding public hospital activity, demand, and performance. The scope for states and territories to increase the provision of surgical pregnancy terminations in public hospitals, and to better identify pathways to other local providers and support patients to access them where appropriate, was discussed at the Health Ministers' Meeting in November 2023. All state and territory Health Ministers gave in-principle support and committed to working together on the 12 recommendations that cross into their respective jurisdictional responsibilities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 16</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">16: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develops an implementation plan for the National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030 with annual reporting against key measures of success. This could include establishing a taskforce as part of the implementation plan.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has established the National Women's Health Advisory Council to provide strategic advice and recommendations directly to Government to improve health outcomes for Australian women and girls. The Council will also perform the role of a taskforce in providing advice on the implementation of the Women's Health Strategy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Monitoring and Reporting Framework for the Women's Health Strategy has been developed and will support implementation of the Strategy. It includes performance indicators to assess and report against key measures of success and implementation of Women's Health Strategy actions. An initial assessment using the Monitoring and Reporting Framework has also been developed to serve as a baseline scorecard to determine the Women's Health Strategy's progress to date. The Monitoring and Reporting Framework and baseline reporting were completed in late-2024 and will inform the Council's advice on implementation of the Strategy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 17</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">17: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with state and territory governments, implements a national support, information, and referral model for sexual and reproductive healthcare services.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The committee envisages that such a national telephone service would leverage the experiences of existing initiatives, such as 1800 My Options and healthdirect, to ensure that it is fit for purpose, delivers accurate local information, and builds on the experiences of services operating in those jurisdictions.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are well-established and known services (such as 1800 My Options or Children by Choice), and there is a risk that a new national model could duplicate these services and create confusion for health consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government will work with Healthdirect to improve advice (through web and phone services), and work with the sector to improve service information available through Healthdirect's Service Finder.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government will progress a feasibility study with jurisdictions on the concept of a national model, to be considered by Health Ministers in 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 18</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">18: The Committee recommends that the </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Government reviews the existing Medicare arrangements which support medical termination consultations with the aim of ensuring adequate remuneration for practitioners to deliver these services while also ensuring patient privacy.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 November 2023, new general attendance items for general practice consultations of 60 minutes or more (to be known as level E) are available to support improved access and service affordability for patients with complex needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GP general attendance items can be used to support medical termination consultations. Government policy in relation to GP general attendance items (Level A to D consultations and, from 1 November 2023, Level E consultations) support complex consultative care across the full range of patient presentations, including patients who require support in association with a termination procedure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As contained in the response to recommendation 5, the Government is supporting GPs to bulk bill their patients by providing a bulk billing incentive for services for patients with a Commonwealth Concession Card and children under 16 years of age, and from</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 November 2023 the bulk billing incentive was tripled for the most common GP consultation items, that is:</para></quote>
<list>All face-to-face general attendance consultations more than six minutes in length.</list>
<list>All telehealth general attendance consultations which are between six and 20 minutes in length (known as Level B consultations).</list>
<list>Longer telehealth general attendance consultations (known as level C and D consultations) where a patient is registered through MyMedicare and the service is provided at the practice where they are registered.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Following investment in the 2024-25 Budget, the Medicare GP telehealth item for blood borne viruses and sexual or reproductive health became permanent from 1 July 2024. This helps to ensure adequate remuneration for practitioners, while also providing a vital service—often for rural and regional women who seek privacy if they require a medical termination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Also from 1 July 2024, MBS rebates for Nurse Practitioners general attendance items increased by 30 per cent as part of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce reforms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 November 2024, requesting rights for Nurse Practitioners will be expanded to enable them to request additional ultrasound items to support patients in the before and after care requirements of MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 March 2025, new general attendance items for Nurse Practitioners consultations of 60 minutes or more (to be known as level E) will be available to support improved access and service affordability for patients with complex needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Authorised Nurse Practitioners and Authorised Eligible Midwives with the appropriate qualifications and training are able to prescribe MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline> through the PBS, subject to state and territory prescribing rights.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 19</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">19: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continues current Medicare Benefits Schedule telehealth items for sexual and reproductive healthcare, including pregnancy support counselling and termination care.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Medicare GP telehealth item for blood borne viruses and sexual or reproductive health (BBVSRH) became permanent from 1 July 2024. This continuation will enable accessibility to time-critical treatments including medical termination and specialised medicines including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The availability of these telehealth services will ensure patients' access to approved prescribers and help patients who have privacy concerns about discussing sexual-health matters with their regular GP. Patients can continue to receive telehealth consultations for BBVSRH from any GP or prescribed medical practitioner, if safe and clinically appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The BBVSRH services complement a range of other GP telehealth services which may also provide information and access to medical termination if appropriate, including non- directive pregnancy support counselling and non-specific general attendances. From</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 July 2024, GP non-directive pregnancy support counselling telehealth services have the requirement for an established clinical relationship that applies to most common telehealth services. This means eligible patients have received at least one face-to-face service from their telehealth practitioner in the 12 months preceding the telehealth attendance, or from another medical practitioner who is located at the same medical practice. Where clinically relevant, BBVSRH items, which are not subject to the established clinical relationship requirement, can be used instead of non-directive pregnancy counselling items. For services relating to antenatal care which cannot be performed under BBVSRH items, GPs may consider specific antenatal items available to them. For perinatal mental health care, the Better Access items may also be a consideration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes implement recommendations from the independent clinician-led MRAC Post Implementation Review of MBS Telehealth. The review considered the range of telehealth services, their efficacy, safety and potential access issues. The MRAC provided interim advice to the Government in late 2023, and a final report in May 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 20</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">20: The Committee recommends that the Therapeutic Goods Administration and MS Health review barriers and emerging evidence to improve access to MS-2 Step, including by:</inline></para></quote>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">allowing registered midwives, nurse </inline> <inline font-style="italic">practitioners, and Aboriginal Health Workers to prescribe this medication—including pain relief where indicated; and</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">reducing training requirements for prescribing practitioners and dispensing pharmacists.</inline></list>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA has approved an application from the sponsor of MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline> amending restrictions to prescribing and dispensing MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline>. From 1 August 2023, healthcare practitioners with the appropriate qualifications and training, including Nurse Practitioners are able to prescribe MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline> subject to state and territory prescribing rights and pharmacists no longer require certification to dispense. Nurse Practitioners (as of 1 August 2023) and EMs (as of 1 September 2023) are now able to prescribe MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline> through the PBS, subject to state and territory prescribing rights.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">State and territory laws regulate the safe storage, prescribing, supply, and use of medicines in their jurisdiction. These jurisdictional laws describe who can lawfully distribute, prescribe, and administer scheduled substances. Legislative amendments to enable Nurse Practitioners and EMs to prescribe MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline> are being considered by jurisdictions. A key action in the Nurse Practitioner Workforce Plan (the Plan) is to review regulations that allow Nurse Practitioner medication prescribing, with the outcome to remove variations and limitations on Nurse Practitioners' ability to prescribe medication. Endorsed by Government, the Plan was released in May 2023 and implementation has commenced.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Further consideration of expansion of the prescribing workforce to include those without prescribing rights, such as Registered Nurses, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners and Workers, should be discussed with the relevant authorities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) has responsibility for developing standards, codes and guidelines which together establish the requirements for professional and safe practice by nurses and midwives in Australia. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council establishes education standards for nursing and midwifery education on behalf of the NMBA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 21</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">21: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with </inline> <inline font-style="italic">relevant training providers, reviews the availability, timing, and quality of sexual and reproductive healthcare training in undergraduate and postgraduate tertiary health professional courses, including vasectomy procedures, terminations and insertion of long-acting reversible contraception.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency regulates Australia's registered health practitioners in partnership with 15 National Boards, to ensure the community has access to a safe health workforce across all professions registered under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These matters will be referred to the National Boards who are responsible for setting the standards required for educational programs for health practitioners. Accreditation standards for undergraduate and postgraduate training programs are regularly reviewed, best practice is a 5 yearly review, for content and relevant updates can be included in this process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As outlined in recommendation 8, medical colleges are responsible for relevant medical training, and are also responsible for maintaining the standards for quality clinical practice, education and training in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Medical Board of Australia sets codes and guidelines to guide medical practitioners as to what is appropriate professional conduct. In addition to this, some states and territories have specific guidelines which may inform clinical judgements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Governments do not have the levers to direct accreditation authorities. The Independent review of complexity in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme is currently underway. Its Terms of Reference include whether additional levers should be available to governments to direct accreditation authorities. The final report is expected in April 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is acknowledged that there are a range of topics that health students could learn to better align with community expectations. It is important that accreditation standards keep step with advances in health care and community expectation of care and conduct by health practitioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 22</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">22: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commissions work to improve its collection, breadth, and publication of statistical data and information regarding sexual and reproductive healthcare, particularly in relation to pregnancy terminations, both medical and surgical, and contraceptive use across Australia.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) receives funding for the National Maternity Data Development Project 2023-26 to provide nationally consistent maternal and perinatal data.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the recent 2024-25 Budget, the Australian Government invested $8 million for data and evaluation activities on miscarriage, early pregnancy loss, and sexual and reproductive health. This includes:</para></quote>
<list>$5.5 million over three years for the AIHW to develop a sexual and reproductive health data set. This will support an understanding of service access deserts, regional needs, contraception uptake and preferences, and pregnancy outcomes. The AIHW has access to a range of data sources, analytical expertise and validated methodologies to develop such a dataset. The development of this data set will help inform sexual and reproductive health policy and ensure improved access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services for all Australians.</list>
<list>$1.5 million over two years for a national audit of Early Pregnancy Assessment Service (EPAS) clinics. This will provide baseline data to measure EPAS clinics' service provision, staffing levels, patient numbers, satisfaction levels, and accessibility over time, including areas of shortfall where targeted interventions are required. A service listing will be developed that can be used by healthcare providers to refer women experiencing miscarriage to an appropriate service in their local area for treatment and follow-up care.</list>
<list>$1 million over two years for the AIHW to undertake a miscarriage data scoping study. This will provide clarity around definitions of miscarriage for data collection purposes, establish existing and potential data sources, and report on options for national collection of miscarriage data.</list>
<list>Recommendation 23</list>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">23: The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care works closely with its state and territory counterparts to consider the effectiveness of local programs providing free menstrual hygiene products.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges that access to menstrual hygiene products is essential to support full participation for women, girls, and gender-diverse people in education, employment and social activities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Several states and territories are providing or trialling access to free sanitary products, mainly through schools. State and territory education authorities are responsible for managing schools and ensuring appropriate measures are in place so students can learn in safe, healthy, and supportive environments. Some jurisdictions, for example, NSW, Tasmania, and Victoria, are also providing free menstrual hygiene products in public spaces and/or healthcare settings. It should be noted that any evaluation of the jurisdiction programs to determine effectiveness nationally would require consultation with jurisdictions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Through the 2024-25 Budget, $12.5 million over four years will be provided to the NACCHO to provide free menstrual hygiene products to rural and remote First Nations women and girls. This will enable NACCHO to facilitate community-led, fit for purpose distribution of free menstrual hygiene products that best meets the needs of rural and remote First Nations communities. In many rural and remote communities' menstrual hygiene products are expensive, the cost is often double that of metropolitan items and can be hard to access.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 24 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">24: The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with the relevant medical and professional colleges to support the development and delivery of training to health practitioners providing sexual, reproductive and maternal healthcare on:</inline></para></quote>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">engaging and communicating with people with disability;</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">providing culturally aware and trauma-informed services to culturally and linguistically diverse migrants and refugees; and</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">ensuring culturally safe healthcare for First Nations people in mainstream non-community-controlled organisations, by ensuring practitioners are aware of intergenerational trauma, cultural norms and taboos.</inline></list>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Addressing inequities in healthcare, between and within different priority population groups, is a key focus of the Women's Health Strategy and National Men's Health Strategy 2020-2030. To support this the Government has:</para></quote>
<list>Invested $5.6 million in the 2024-25 Budget to continue delivery of Health in My Language (HIML), which will pivot its program to specifically target CALD women on sexual and reproductive health issues. The program will run across all jurisdictions.</list>
<list>Awarded a contract of $5.9 million from 2022-23 to 2023-24 to update the Clinical Practice Guidelines: Pregnancy Care and develop new Postnatal Care Guidelines. The project includes targeted consultation and guidance for priority populations including CALD and First Nations people. Practice support tools will also be developed to assist health professionals to translate both sets of guidelines into practice.</list>
<list>Funded education and awareness of stillbirth, and bereavement support in relation to stillbirth and miscarriage including tailored approaches for First Nations and CALD women. This includes cultural adaptation and translation of resources.</list>
<list>Funded the Migration Council of Australia (now the Social Policy Group) in 2019 to develop and launch:</list>
<list>Competency Standards Framework which provides cultural responsiveness competency standards for working with people from migrant and refugee backgrounds. This framework has been widely endorsed by peak professional bodies for clinicians.</list>
<list>A guide for clinicians working with interpreters in healthcare settings which provides evidence-based recommendations for effective communication in the event of doctor-patient language discordance, specifically with regard to engaging and working with interpreters. This guide is officially recognised as an accepted clinical resource by the RACGP.</list>
<list>Provided more than $16 million from 2022-23 to 2025-26 to the GP Colleges to form the Joint Colleges Training Services Pty Ltd (JCTS). The objective of this funding is to:</list>
<list>Support the delivery of GP training in First Nations health settings.</list>
<list>Ensure that the training program is culturally safe for all participants (through cultural education and mentoring).</list>
<list>Support First Nations registrars to achieve GP Fellowship.</list>
<list>Provided funding of $0.89 million from 2024 to 2025 to the Indigenous General Practice Trainee Network (IGPTN) to provide independent, culturally appropriate support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander GP registrars. This includes the design, development, coordination and management of professional development activities and education resources; provision of independent advice and mentoring; and representation of First Nation registrars' interests in vocational GP training.</list>
<list>Provided funding of $0.54 million from 2022-23 to 2025-26 to the Cultural Educators and Cultural Mentors Network to provide capacity building and professional development activities; independent representation, coordination and support mechanism for all cultural educators and cultural mentors to deliver culturally appropriate in GP training.</list>
<list>Provided funding of $29.5 million from 2021 to 2025 towards the Flexible Approach to Training in Expanded Settings (FATES) program. The FATES program responds to priorities in the National Medical Workforce Strategy (NMWS) to rebalance supply and distribution of many specialities by improving systems and structures to encourage training in regional, rural, and remote areas, and to increase the number of First Nations doctors, as well as ensuring Australia's medical workforce can provide culturally safe services.</list>
<list>Through the FATES, program funding of $350,000, from 2023 to 2025, is being provided to support RANZCOG's First Nations Trainees and Fellows through financial support, attendance at workshops, and the development of peer networks outside their usual work settings.</list>
<list>Funded the Australian Indigenous Doctors' Association Specialist Trainee Support Program $4.92 million from 2023 to 2028. The program complements the NMWS and is a consortium project led by the Australian Indigenous Doctors' Association with all 13 non-GP Specialist Medical Colleges. The program aims to improve recruitment, selection, and retention of First Nations specialist trainees, increase the focus of cultural safety in medical college-led training, and provide tailored one-on- one support to current and prospective trainees. The program will help grow the First Nations workforce, reduce barriers for doctors to work and train in rural and remote communities, and increase the number of trainees in undersupplied specialities.</list>
<list>Funded the Australian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis and Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM) to deliver online training resources that assist health workers to provide meaningful, accessible and culturally appropriate sexual health advice and care to First Nations people and CALD groups. ASHM has expertise in training and resource development to support the health workforce, including training accredited with a variety of professional colleges to meet CPD requirements that healthcare professionals complete as part of their continuing registration.</list>
<quote><para class="block">There are a number of existing guidelines and training on providing culturally safe care to First Nations people, and migrants and refugees. These include:</para></quote>
<list>The RACGP 2022 curriculum, which includes a core unit on First Nations health and a contextual unit on migrant, refugee and asylum seeker health.</list>
<list>The Migrant and Refugee Health Partnership Competency Standards Framework—Culturally Responsive Clinical Practice: Working with people from migrant and refugee backgrounds.</list>
<list>The Clinical Practice Guideline for Care Around Stillbirth and Neonatal Death includes guidance on cultural safety and highlights the importance of providing services in a culturally safe way, including awareness of vulnerable groups who may have a history of trauma and loss.</list>
<list>The Clinical Practice Guideline: Pregnancy Care include clinical recommendations around pregnancy care for:</list>
<list>First Nations women acknowledging the importance of working in partnership with women, First Nations health professionals and communities, noting this should be informed by cultural safety training for health professionals.</list>
<list>Migrant and refugee women, acknowledging the importance of understanding the issues facing families from migrant and refugee groups to improve the care and to use accredited health interpreters and multicultural health workers, wherever possible.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is also supporting the further development of training to provide culturally safe care to CALD, migrant and refugee women. This includes funding of $699,000 over three years (2023-24 to 2025-26) to the Multicultural Centre for Women's Health (MCWH) to establish a national Community of Practice and develop and deliver training for health professionals to increase the Australian health workforce's ability to address the health impacts of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has invested in several programs to support the development and delivery of training to health practitioners providing trauma informed care. This includes:</para></quote>
<list>Increased support to primary care providers to assist in the early identification and intervention of family, domestic, sexual violence and child sexual abuse through $48.7 million over four years from 2022-23 to 2025-26 including:</list>
<list>$45.5 million to extend and expand a Primary Health Network (PHN) pilot. The pilot focuses on the development and delivery of training, resources and capacity building activities for primary care to enhance the capacity to recognise and respond to family, domestic and sexual violence as well as a range of system integration activities to improve the quality of support provided to victim-survivors.</list>
<list>$450,000 to develop nationally consistent sexual violence resources to support the primary care workforce and its engagement with victim-survivors.</list>
<list>$4.75 million for Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT to support development of the family, domestic, sexual violence service sector to support and educate women with disabilities.</list>
<list>$34 million from 2022-23 to 2026-27 to Lifeline Australia to deliver DV-alert, a free nationally accredited training program to help health, allied health and community frontline workers better understand and identify domestic and family violence and improve their referral and support skills. DV-alert also offers accredited specialised streams to train frontline workers in the specific needs of particular cohorts, including First Nations, CALD and women with disability, and in specific skills such as working with interpreters and recognising complex forms of violence.</list>
<list>$6.4 million from 2022-23 to 2026-27 for Monash University to deliver the Accredited Training for Sexual Violence Responses program, including to medical professionals. This training educates medical professionals on how to respond to victims of sexual violence in a way supports the victim's safety and autonomy and covers responding to sexual violence in at-risk patients.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has invested in several programs to increase the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce, and to support the development and delivery of training to health practitioners providing care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This includes:</para></quote>
<list>Funding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Professional Organisations $52.96 million over four years (2022-23 to 2025-26) to support and develop the growing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workforce. Funding also supports work to increase the cultural capability of the broader health workforce, to support better care of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.</list>
<list>Investing $54.3 million over five years (2022-23 to 2026-27) for the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program. The program will support up to 500 First Nations trainees to become Aboriginal Health Workers or Health Practitioners and work across various health settings to deliver culturally appropriate care.</list>
<list>Funding the Indigenous Health Workforce Traineeship Program to provide $20.5 million over five years (2020-21 to 2024-25) to approved NACCHO affiliates. The program aims to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health through building the capacity of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services to provide culturally appropriate health care.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Further, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workforce Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan 2021-31 (Workforce Plan) was co-designed in genuine partnership with the sector and has been endorsed by the Commonwealth, territory and state Health Ministers. The Workforce Plan sets the target that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are fully represented in the health workforce by 2031 and aims to strengthen the cultural safety of the health system more broadly.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 25 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">25: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider options and incentives to expand the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) sexual and reproductive health workforce including leveraging the success of the 'Health in My Language' program.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to expanding representation of Australia's multicultural population in the health workforce including sexual and reproductive health workforce.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Funding of $18.9 million has been provided over four years (2021-22 to 2024-25) for the delivery of the national bicultural health educator program, Health in My Language (HIML). The program provides people from CALD communities, including migrants and refugees, with opportunities to talk with trained professionals about COVID-19 and other health and wellbeing matters. Through funding provided in the 2024-25 Budget, valued at $5.6 million, the program is pivoting to specifically target CALD women on sexual and reproductive health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An evaluation of the HIML program is being supported by $0.94 million provided in the 2023-24 Budget to review activities undertaken by multicultural communities to support CALD communities throughout the COVID-19 Vaccine rollout. The Review will build an evidence-base to inform a co-designed COVID-19 engagement strategy to activate culturally safe responses to address factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake across CALD communities and to inform future public health responses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The 2023-24 Budget provided the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA) with $2.5 million over four years in seed funding towards the Australian Multicultural Collaborative (the Collaborative), to support the engagement of health consumers from CALD backgrounds in the design and implementation of the Strengthening Medicare reforms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Additionally, the 2023-24 Budget allocated $20 million over two years to establish a new PHN Multicultural Access Program for PHNs to commission services to support CALD communities to access primary care services. Sexual and reproductive health services, support, navigation, and information is in scope for the funding if it is identified as a need based on local needs assessments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 26 and Recommendation 27</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">26: The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care consider sexual and reproductive healthcare for LGBTIQA+ people in the context of the 10-year National Action Plan for the Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ people.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">27: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consult with people with innate variations of sex characteristics regarding surgical interventions in the context of the 10-year National Action Plan on the Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQA+.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports these recommendations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Issues related to sexual and reproductive healthcare for LGBTIQA+ people are highlighted in the 10-year National Action Plan for the Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ People 2025-2035. The LGBTIQA+ Action Plan was guided by the LGBTIQA+ Health and Wellbeing 10 Year National Action Plan Expert Advisory Group (EAG) and co-designed with LGBTIQA+ people with lived experience through extensive consultations. The LGBTIQA+ Action Plan was delivered by Government in December 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will provide initial investment of $15.5 million to commence system-wide improvements to give LGBTIQA+ people access to safe, appropriate and stigma-free health and wellbeing care. To support the implementation of the Action Plan, the Government has made a series of investments, including:</para></quote>
<list>Establishing a $13 million grants program to scale up dedicated LGBTIQA+ services and support successful initiatives that build the health and wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ communities.</list>
<list>Investing $2 million to collect data to underpin priority areas for action through La Trobe University's 'Private Lives' and 'Writing Themselves In' health and wellbeing surveys.</list>
<list>Providing $500,000 to expand InterAction for Health and Human Rights InterLink program, a community-led professional psychosocial support service for people with innate variations of sex characteristics.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government consulted closely with people with innate variations of sex characteristics regarding surgical interventions in the context of the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan. Intersex Human Rights Australia is a member of the EAG guiding development of the LGBTIQA+ Action Plan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 28</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">28: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commissions research into reproductive coercion and abuse with a view to developing clinical guidelines, resources and training for primary care providers.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government collaborated with state and territory governments to develop the National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence (National Principles). The National Principles establish a shared understanding of coercive control, including reproductive coercion, and outline guiding considerations to inform responses to coercive control. The National Principles were launched in September 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To inform development of the National Principles, the Government engaged the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to conduct a literature review on coercive control, which includes research on reproductive coercion. The literature review is available on the AIFS website (www.aifs.gov.au).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Principles are supported by a range of resources, including two quick reference guides for healthcare practitioners to promote and create awareness of coercive control within the health section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some practice guidelines already exist which address reproductive coercion, notably the recent AIFS Reproductive coercion and abuse Practice Guide. The Government has also funded the revision of the RACGP White Book, which includes information on reproductive coercion and case studies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 29</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">29: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with the sector to develop sexual and reproductive health education programs and resources for people with disability and their families and carers that are accessible, disability inclusive and empowering for young people with disability.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to ensuring reproductive health services are disability inclusive and empowering for young people with disability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A priority of the Women's Health Strategy is to increase access to sexual and reproductive health care information, diagnosis, treatment and services, and acknowledges women and girls living with disability and carers as a priority population.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 recognises that women and girls with disability are at particular risk of forced or coerced sterilisation, forced contraception or limited/no contraceptive choices, menstrual suppression, poorly managed pregnancy and birth, and forced or coerced abortion. The <inline font-style="italic">First Action Plan 2023-2027 </inline>(Action Plan) provides a roadmap towards achieving the vision of the National Plan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Responding to recommendation 8.23 of the Disability Royal Commission, the Government has committed to applying a disability lens to implementation of the Action Plan, to support policy, program and service reform and change that responds to the needs of women and girls with disability, and associated communication material and resources that are accessible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Roadmap for Improving the Health of People with Intellectual Disability (the Intellectual Disability Roadmap) (released in August 2021) includes a short-term action for the Commonwealth to work with PHNs, the National Disability Insurance Agency, and other advocacy organisations to better promote mental health and reproductive health services to people with intellectual disability and connect existing services to a National Centre of Excellence in Intellectual Disability Health (the Centre).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is providing $22 million over four years from 2022-23 to 2025-26 for the Centre. The Centre has been established by a consortium of nine organisations, led by the University of NSW. People with intellectual disability are directly involved in the establishment and running of the Centre.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Centre's core functions include, but are not limited to:</para></quote>
<list>Providing online support, including an online portal to help connect people with intellectual disability to appropriate health services, and providing quality, accessible health resources and information for people with intellectual disability and their families.</list>
<list>Establishing a central hub of expertise, resources, and research in the healthcare of people with intellectual disability and information for people with intellectual disability and their families, to help deliver its core functions.</list>
<list>Serving as a source of expert advice for implementing other measures under the Intellectual Disability Roadmap. It is anticipated the Centre may undertake some of the other actions in the Intellectual Disability Roadmap.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The response to recommendation 24 contains additional information on support for people with disabilities concerning sexual health, respectful relationships and consent training concerning sexual violence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 30 and Recommendation 31</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">30: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with state and territory governments, consider options for ensuring the provision of reproductive health and pregnancy care services to all people living in Australia, irrespective of their visa status.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">31: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with relevant overseas health insurance providers to </inline> <inline font-style="italic">amend Schedule 4d of the Overseas Student Health Cover Deed to abolish pregnancy care related wait periods.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle these recommendations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Eligibility under Medicare is governed by the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973 </inline>and is generally restricted to people who are residing in Australia, and are either:</para></quote>
<list>Australian citizens.</list>
<list>Permanent visa holders.</list>
<list>New Zealand citizens.</list>
<list>In certain circumstances, applicants for a permanent visa.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Visitors to Australia are strongly recommended to make their own arrangements for private health insurance, regardless of whether it is a visa condition, to ensure they are fully covered for any unplanned medical and or hospital care they may need while in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When an individual requires healthcare assistance in Australia and are not covered by an appropriate level of private health insurance cover, as a non-resident and non-citizen of Australia, a person will be considered a private patient and will be required to pay any costs at the time of treatment. This will apply whether a person seeks healthcare treatment in either the public or private healthcare system. For routine medical treatment in Australia, out-of-hospital treatment from a GP is normally the most cost-effective solution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As outlined in the response to recommendations 12, the planning and delivery of Australian maternity services is predominantly undertaken by states and territories with the Australian Government providing national direction and supporting efforts to improve care and outcomes, which includes developing and implementing culturally safe and responsive, evidence-based maternity care in partnership with CALD women and communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There has been consultation with insurers and international student representative organisations in the context of improvements to the next Deed for Overseas Student Health Cover (OSHC), commencing 1 July 2025. The intention is that the next Deed will remove waiting periods for pregnancy, birth, miscarriage, and termination, for OSHC products with a duration of two years or more. This accounts for the majority of OSHC products.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The benefits paid for pregnancy related conditions are generally significant, requiring higher premiums to ensure adequate cover. The level of benefits paid by insurers reflects the fees charged by doctors and hospitals. Insurers have advised pregnancy related conditions are a key driver of hospital treatment benefits expenditure, particularly public hospitals, given this is the usual setting for care provided to international students. It is anticipated the removal of the waiting period will result in premiums which are slightly higher than otherwise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 32 and Recommendation 33</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">32: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government explores the feasibility of Medicare rebates for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) services for cohorts not currently eligible for subsidised services.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">33: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement the recommendations of the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review regarding removal of the exclusion of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) services for altruistic surrogacy purposes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle Recommendation 32 and Recommendation 33.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will further consider implementation issues relating to this recommendation, including the scope of any legislative or other changes that may be required. This will also take into account consideration of recent changes to the sector's definition of infertility adopted by the Australian and New Zealand Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, RANZCOG and the Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand. The Government notes this revised definition encompasses a broader consideration of a patients' sexual orientation, reproductive history and circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 34</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">34: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with jurisdictions to improve the quality of sexual health and relationships education in schools including building capabilities of educators to deliver this training.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government has committed $83.5 million through its Consent and Respectful Relationships Education initiative, to partner with jurisdictions and non-government school systems to deliver expert-developed, high quality, age-appropriate, evidence-based respectful relationships education, including consent and sexuality education, in states and territories. This includes, for example, the delivery of whole-school approaches and building capability of educators. Funding will be provided to states, territories and the non-government school sector from 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A National Respectful Relationships Education Expert Working Group was established in June 2023 to support the schooling sector to deliver the Consent and Respectful Relationships Education initiative. Membership includes independent experts and representatives from the Australian Government, state and territory governments, and the Catholic and independent education sectors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Implementation has been informed by a rapid review on how respectful relationships education is being delivered in schools, identifying gaps and opportunities, and the development of a Respectful Relationships Education Framework. These activities were undertaken by the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre at Monash University, in consultation with the National Respectful Relationships Education Expert Working Group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, under the Australian Curriculum, students study Health and Physical Education from Foundation to Year 10 enabling students to develop skills, understanding and willingness to positively influence the health and wellbeing of themselves and their communities. The relationships and sexuality content in the curriculum addresses physical, social and emotional changes that occur over time and the significant role relationships, identities and sexuality play in these changes. The content supports students to develop positive and respectful practices in relation to their reproductive and sexual health and their identities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Fourth National Sexually Transmissible Infections (STI) Strategy 2018-2022, endorsed by Australia's Health Ministers, include the recommendation that effective culturally and age- appropriate sex education should be delivered to Australian school students to improve knowledge and awareness of healthy relationships and STI, and reduce risk behaviours associated with the transmission of STI. The Fifth National STI Strategy 2023-2030 was released for public consultation on 22 November 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 35 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">35: The Committee recommends the Department of Health and Aged Care work with jurisdictions and the health sector to implement options for targeted public awareness and sexual health literacy campaigns in target communities, including for the LGBTIQA+ community, community-led initiatives for First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse groups, and sexually transmitted infections campaigns in vulnerable cohorts.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As outlined in the response to recommendations 26 and 27, the Government has committed to community investment to support LGBTIQA+ health literacy in implementing the LGBTIQA+ Health and Wellbeing Action Plan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A national STI campaign, titled 'Beforeplay', launched on 14 January 2024 and aims to educate and raise awareness of STI prevention, with a focus on regular testing and promoting safe sex behaviours. The campaign is highly targeted to priority groups, including members of the LGBTIQA+ community, First Nations people, and CALD populations. In addition, media partnerships with LGBTIQA+ and First Nations publishers extend the reach to these audiences. Specialists in multicultural communication adapted and translated campaign materials, while a tailored public relations strategy for First Nations audiences was developed to engage and educate through trusted voices, community engagement and meaningful content. The Department of Health and Aged Care has undertaken a pilot to collaborate and co-design below the line First Nations assets with the Northern Territory and Queensland governments that can be delivered nationally.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2023, the Government established the HIV Taskforce to develop recommendations on priority areas of action that would contribute to the elimination of HIV transmission in Australian by 2030.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The HIV Taskforce discussed a range of issues including education, prevention, testing, treatment, workforce, legal issues, stigma and discrimination, and government relations. These findings were incorporated into the HIV Taskforce Report, which was released on 30 November 2023. The report sets out the Taskforce's finding and recommendations, organised into 6 sections addressing prevention, testing, treatment, awareness, decriminalisation and partnership.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government provided $43.9 million to support the implementation of a number of recommendations from the HIV Taskforce. These measures address the most pressing actions required to eliminate the transmission of HIV in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This includes the establishment of a new program to provide subsided PrEP preventive medication for people who are not eligible for Medicare, as well as a range of initiatives aimed at reducing the transmission of HIV in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Budget also included a national rollout of HIV testing vending machines and the expansion of the national HIV self-test mail out program to ensure any individual who wishes to test for HIV is able to do so. These programs are working to bring together community and industry, to reduce barriers to HIV testing nationally.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is funding the University of Queensland to implement the 'Young Deadly Free' (YDF) Program which aims to increase awareness of STIs and blood borne viruses (BBVs) in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities through sexual health literacy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The 2017 Action Plan: Enhanced Response to Addressing STI/BBV in Indigenous Populations also considered opportunities to improve sexual health education for 13-19 year olds in schools and investigate options for starting sexual health education from age 10. It found sexual health literacy in Australia was mostly decentralised and controlled by individual states, territories and schools in some instances. In response, the Department of Health and Aged Care partnered with Australian Education Services to upload Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sexual health material, developed through the YDF Program, on the Student Wellbeing Hub—which is a repository of information for teachers, parents and students on a wide range of curriculum relevant material.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 36 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">36: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers commissioning research and policy responses on the impact of reproductive health on women's participation in the workforce and the adequacy of existing leave entitlements under the National Employment Standards.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The 2024 MRFF Emergency Priorities and Consumer-Driven Research Initiative Infertility, Pregnancy Loss and Menopause Grant Opportunity closed on 6 November 2024, with funding expected to commence from June 2025. Stream four of this Grant Opportunity has a focus on the impacts of perimenopause and menopause research to investigate impacts on workforce engagement and retention, including on paid and unpaid employment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Terms of Reference for the Senate inquiry into the issues related to menopause and perimenopause includes 'the level of awareness amongst employers and workers of the symptoms of menopause and perimenopause, and the awareness, availability and usage of workplace supports'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government funds Jean Hailes for Women's Health to undertake an annual study designed to increase understanding of the issues that affect women in Australia, attitudes and behaviours, and the health information and policy changes that will help improve women's health and wellbeing. The 2023 National Women's Health Survey included questions to assess the impact of reproductive health on women's participation in all areas of life, including work, and attitudes to menopause and menstrual leave. Three reports from the National Women's Health Survey have been published, <inline font-style="italic">Pelvic Pain in Australian Women</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The impact of symptoms attributed to menopause by Australian women</inline>and <inline font-style="italic">Australian women's attitudes to menstrual and menopause leave</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government provides core funding to the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). The population-based survey examines the health and wellbeing of over 57,000 Australian women across 4 cohorts. The study has provided data on the health of Australian women since 1995 and supports evidence-based policy and practice in many areas of women's health. ALSWH data is being used in a research project examining reproductive events and workforce participation across the life course, with outcomes expected in 2026.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009 </inline>National Employment Standards (NES) provide permanent employees with an entitlement to paid personal/carer's leave, which can be taken when an employee is unfit for work because of a personal illness or injury, or caring responsibilities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges that reproductive health leave provisions are being adopted in some workplaces in Australia, directly by employers or through enterprise agreements.The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has captured IVF/reproductive leave, menstrual leave and menopause leave in its database of approved enterprise agreements since 2023. This information will continue to be captured, providing insights into the implementation of reproductive health leave entitlements in Australian workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 </inline>amended the Fair Work Act to make gender equality an object of the Fair Work Act, a Modern Awards Objective, and a Minimum Wages Objective.</para></quote>
<list>The Fair Work Commission must now consider gender equality when making decisions. For example, gender-responsive workplace conditions such as those in relation to reproductive health may be relevant considerations for the Fair Work Commission when dealing with modern awards. This is because the modern awards objective requires the Commission to ensure modern awards, together with the NES, provide a fair and relevant safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account several factors including the need to achieve gender equality in the workplace by providing workplace conditions which facilitate women's full economic participation.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms also improved access to bargaining through the supported bargaining stream. This will help workers in lower paid and feminised sectors to negotiate better pay and conditions for themselves. This could include negotiating for more generous leave entitlements, including in relation to reproductive health. Supported bargaining may also assist in influencing the prevalence of leave arrangements within these sectors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Secure Jobs Better Pay reforms also improved access to flexible work arrangements, which may help individuals manage reproductive health issues in their workplaces. The Fair Work Commission can now deal with disputes about eligible employees' requests for a flexible working arrangement, including by arbitration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Greens Recommendations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Greens 1: That the Australian Government funds the free provision of all approved contraceptive methods.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Refer to the response to recommendation 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Greens 2: That the Australian Government work with states and territories to:</inline></para></quote>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">ensure abortion services are provided at no cost; and</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">maintain locally-administered public funds to assist patients to cover indirect costs where services are not provided in the local hospital.</inline></list>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Greens 3: That the Australian, state, and territory governments work towards the harmonisation of pregnancy termination legislation across all Australian jurisdictions, based on best practice models of care.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes these recommendations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government provides funding for pregnancy termination services via:</para></quote>
<list>Public hospitals funding through the NHRA</list>
<list>MBS items for surgical terminations and for face-to-face and telehealth consultations for access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, and</list>
<list>PBS listings for medical termination medication.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Fees charged by private providers are not set or controlled by the Government, but MBS rebates may apply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Access to pregnancy termination services is a state and territory responsibility and the laws relating to pregnancy termination are a matter for individual jurisdictions. Laws relating to pregnancy termination vary between jurisdictions, including the legal conditions under which a termination can be performed and the requirements for patients to access termination services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The responses to recommendations 15, 18 and 20 provide further information on pregnancy termination in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Greens 4: That the Government remove legal barriers to accessing IVF and altruistic surrogacy arrangements by:</inline></para></quote>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">amending the definition of infertility to align with the International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies' definition of infertility; and</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">deleting the word 'particular' from subsection 12(1) of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002.</inline></list>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Refer to the response for recommendations 32 and 33.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002</inline>, subsection 12(1) states:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">A person commits an offence if the person intentionally creates a human </inline> <inline font-style="italic">embryo by a process of the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm outside the body of a woman, unless either both of the following apply:</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(a) the person's intention in creating the embryo is to attempt to achieve pregnancy in a particular woman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">…</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 12 is intended to address ethical concerns around the creation of a human embryo outside the body of a woman for reasons beyond an attempt to achieve pregnancy in a particular woman. The feasibility of amending this legislation would depend on whether the broader ethical concerns in the creation of an embryo at a time when a particular woman is not identified for the purposes of achieving pregnancy can be managed in an alternative way.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Abbreviations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">AusCAPPS = Australian Contraception and Abortion Primary Care Practitioner Support AIFS = Australian Institute of Family Studies</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ART = assisted reproductive technology</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ARTG = Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods BBV = blood borne viruses</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">BBVSRH = blood borne viruses and sexual and reproductive health CALD = culturally and linguistically diverse</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">CPD = continuing professional development EAG = Expert Advisory Group</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">FATES = Flexible Approach to Training in Expanded Settings FTE = full time equivalent</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GP = general practitioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HWT = Health Workforce Taskforce</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Intellectual Disability Roadmap = National Roadmap for Improving the Health of People with Intellectual Disability</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">IRTP = Integrated Rural Training Pipeline IUD = intrauterine device</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">IVF = in vitro fertilisation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">LARC = long-acting reversible contraception</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">LGBTIQA+ Action Plan = 10 year National Action Plan on the Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ people 2025-2035</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MBS = Medicare Benefits Schedule</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MCWH = Multicultural Centre for Women's Health MRAC = MBS Review Advisory Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MRFF = Medical Research Future Fund</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MS-2 Step<inline font-style="italic">[©]</inline> = mifepristone and misoprostol MSAC = Medical Services Advisory Committee MYEFO = Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NACCHO = National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation National Centre = National Centre of Excellence in Intellectual Disability Health</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">National Principles = National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NES = National Employment Standards</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NHMRC = National Health and Medical Research Council NHRA = National Health Reform Agreement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NMWS = National Medical Workforce Strategy NP = Nurse Practitioners</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NSW = New South Wales</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">OSHC = Overseas Student Health Cover PBS = Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PBAC = Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee PHN = Primary Health Network</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PReP = Pre-exposure Prophylaxis</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">RACGP = Royal Australian College of General Practitioners</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">RANZCOG = Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">RN—Registered Nurses</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">RPGP = Rural Procedural Grant Program STP = Specialist Training Program</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TGA = Therapeutic Goods Administration</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Woman-centred Care Strategy = Woman-centred care: Strategic directions for Australian maternity services</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Women's Health Strategy = National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030 WIP-PS = Workforce Incentive Program—Practice Stream</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">YDF = Young Deadly Free</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</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 document.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Government Response to Report</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the government's response to Community Affairs References Committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Issues related to menopause and perimenopause</inline>. I seek leave to incorporate the document in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The document read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Issues related to menopause and perimenopause</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">FEBRUARY 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Overview</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 6 November 2023, the Senate referred an inquiry into the Issues related to menopause and perimenopause to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee (Committee).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee report highlights the challenges women experience in relation to perimenopause and menopause. This included issues related to accessing adequate healthcare and also the challenges experienced within workplaces. The Australian Government would like to thank those that gave their time and expertise to the Committee, particularly the women who shared their lived experience.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Supporting, protecting and promoting the health of all women, girls and gender diverse people is a key priority for the Government. This includes addressing the key risk factors that can reduce the quality of life, and better manage the varied needs of women, as they age. That is why the Government established the National Women's Health Advisory Council (the Council) in 2023, to bring together diverse expertise to examine the unique challenges that women and girls experience in the health system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Council provides advice and recommendations directly to Government to improve health outcomes for women and girls in Australia, along with advice on the implementation of the National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030 (the Strategy). The Strategy outlines a national approach to improving health outcomes for all women and girls. A key action identified in the Strategy is to support women and their healthcare providers to manage the effects of menopause, which includes increasing training for health professionals. The Government recognises the importance of improving the awareness of, and encouraging further research and support services, for women experiencing perimenopause and menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That is why the Government is investing $64.5 million over three years from 2025-26 to increase access to specialist care for women's health with a focus on perimenopause and menopause. This includes:</para></quote>
<list>the development of a national campaign to raise awareness of the symptoms and management options for menopause,</list>
<list>increased training and support for health professionals, including the development of national guidelines to provide consistent advice and support to women,</list>
<list>expanding the scope of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinics to include specialised support relating to menopause and perimenopause,</list>
<list>a new Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) health assessment service for menopause and perimenopause.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is also continuing to invest in treatments for menopause through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This builds on the Government's 2024-25 Budget investment of over $160 million in a tailored women's health package to tackle gender bias in the health system, upskill medical professionals and improve sexual and reproductive care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government continues to support women experiencing perimenopause and menopause through a number a national policies, funding for public hospitals through the National Health Reform Agreement, MBS rebates for relevant health services including consultation and telehealth, subsidies for approved medications through the PBS, and funding for mental health services outside the MBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government also provides access to health information, investment for clinical care tools, health professional training, and provides funding for research initiatives and data collections relevant to menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's response supports (or supports in principle) 16 out of the 25 recommendations, and notes 9.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A number of recommendations given in-principle support, may relate to matters where further collaboration with stakeholders is required or where there are existing activities underway which go to addressing the intent of the recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges other women-related policies, such as Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality and the Senate inquiry into universal access to reproductive healthcare also reflect the Government's commitment to improve outcomes for women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">1: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care commission research to establish a comprehensive evidence base about the impacts of menopause and perimenopause on women in </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Australia, including:</inline></para></quote>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">Menopause differentiated from midlife stressors.</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">Mental health impacts of menopause.</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">Early menopause.</inline></list>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The research should also establish an understanding of experiences for:</inline></para></quote>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">Culturally and linguistically diverse women.</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">First Nations women.</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">LGBTQIA+ individuals.</inline></list>
<list> <inline font-style="italic">Women living with a disability.</inline></list>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government recognises the importance of increasing the evidence base in women's health including the experiences of women from priority populations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government provides direct support for health and medical research though the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which focuses on supporting investigator-led research.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Between 2010 and 2023 the NHMRC expended $23.5 million towards research relevant to menopause and perimenopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To further support research development, up to $25 million of funding over four years from 2024-25 has been made available for the 2024 Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Emerging Priorities and Consumer Driven Research (EPCDR) Infertility, Pregnancy Loss and Menopause Grant Opportunity which includes a focus on perimenopause and menopause research. The Grant Opportunity closed on 6 November 2024. Application outcomes are expected by May 2025, with research projects anticipated to be undertaken from 2025 to 2029.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Through the Grant Opportunity, two streams have a focus on perimenopause and menopause research and applications were invited for a large-scale multidisciplinary project, co-designed with consumers, to identify and evaluate the impacts of perimenopause and menopause on health and wellbeing, that will:</para></quote>
<list>Investigate menopause symptoms that impact on physical health, mental health and wellbeing, including psychosocial factors.</list>
<list>Investigate impacts on workforce engagement and retention, including on paid and unpaid employment.</list>
<list>Include research participants from metropolitan areas (MM1) and regional, rural and/or remote locations (MM2-7), according to the Modified Monash Model.</list>
<list>Consider diverse populations (e.g. individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse communities).</list>
<list>A research project to investigate the biological mechanisms or risk factors that underpin early or medically induced menopause.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is also investing $5.5 million over three years from 2024-25 for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) to establish a sexual and reproductive health data set to help inform sexual and reproductive health policy and improve healthcare access outcomes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Perimenopause and menopause will be a key priority area in this work program, which will include an extensive consultation process to identify the information needs and data gaps (including those identified in the Senate Inquiry report), scope options for improved data collection and commence data development and collection where applicable. This work will contribute to the evidence base on perimenopause and menopause in Australia, including for populations groups such as women from CALD communities, First Nations women, women living with a disability and LGBTQIA+ individuals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">2: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government launch a national menopause and perimenopause awareness campaign, providing information and resources for women and communities across Australia. This awareness campaign should be designed in consultation with experts and people with lived experience.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recognising the low level of awareness and understanding of menopause in the general community, and even at times, the medical community, the Government will invest $12.8 million over two years from 2025-26 to undertake a public health campaign to help raise awareness of perimenopause and menopause symptoms and management options. The campaign will aim to increase understanding of the impact perimenopause and menopause can have on the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of women, seek to address misinformation, and support women to adopt preventive actions. The campaign will also target health practitioners to increase their understanding of the impacts of this life stage and promote resources for the treatment of menopause symptoms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government continues to support the provision of factual, evidence-based and trusted health information. There are several existing sources of government-funded information on women's health, including through key life stages such as perimenopause and menopause, such as:</para></quote>
<list>Healthdirect Australia, a consumer health information website, app and telephone line providing free resources related to menopause, including information on perimenopause, early menopause, Hormone Replacement Therapy/Menopausal Hormone Therapy and post- menopause.</list>
<list>Jean Hailes for Women's Health, a national, not-for-profit organisation providing free, evidenced-based information on women's health with a particular focus on menopause. Funding to Jean Hailes for Women's Health supports the development and publication of resources on menopause symptoms, causes, risk factors and management options. This includes tailored information for First Nations women, women from multicultural communities and Easy Read resources.</list>
<list>Health in My Language (HIML) a national health education program delivering multilingual information to migrant and refugee communities from trained bicultural health educators across Australia. The program is conducted in culturally-safe conversations, in person and in their languages. HIML is managed by the Multicultural Centre for Women's Health.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">3: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that, in the next review of the Australian Curriculum, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) consider how menopause can be expressly referenced in the menstrual health and reproductive cycles content within the Health and Physical Education learning area.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Curriculum, Version 9.0 was signed off by Education Ministers on 1 April 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Curriculum addresses reproductive and sexual health as part of the Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum in an age-appropriate way across the years of schooling from Foundation to Year 10.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In HPE, students learn about the different changes and transitions they may experience including physical, social and emotional changes associated with puberty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Whilst the terms 'menstruation', 'period' and 'menopause' are not mentioned explicitly in the HPE curriculum, it is expected that menstruation and period would form part of the learning about the changes associated with puberty. Menopause may be addressed depending on the needs and interests of the local school context.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Education is a shared responsibility between the Government and state and territory governments. State and territory governments and the non-government school sector have responsibility for the implementation of the curriculum within their schools, including in the choice of resources to support teachers to implement the curriculum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">4: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commission research to undertake a comprehensive study to assess the economic impacts of menopause which clearly delineates the impact of symptoms of menopause on women's workforce participation, income, superannuation, and age of retirement.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The 2024 MRFF EPCDR Infertility, Pregnancy Loss and Menopause Grant Opportunity (stream four, refer recommendation 1 response) has a focus on perimenopause and menopause research to investigate impacts on workforce engagement and retention, including on paid and unpaid employment. The Grant Opportunity closed on 6 November 2024, with funding expected to commence from June 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government provides core funding to the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). The population-based survey examines the health and wellbeing of over 57,000 Australian women across 4 cohorts. The study has provided data on the health of Australian women since 1995 and supports evidence-based policy and practice in many areas of women's health. ALSWH has commenced collecting data on the potential impact of menopause on workforce participation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">5: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce reforms to allow the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) to </inline> <inline font-style="italic">re-commence data collection on the supports employers are providing, and their usage, for employees experiencing menopause and perimenopause, including specific workplace policies.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is considering options to enable WGEA to collect data on the supports employers are providing for employees experiencing menopause and perimenopause, including specific workplace policies. This may require amendments to WGEA's legislative framework. The Government recognises the need to understand the nature of existing workplace supports and their impact on gender equality and the role WGEA could play in collecting this data as recommended by the Senate Inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 6 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">6: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider amendments to Section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009, to ensure women can access flexible working arrangements during menopause.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to gender equality and has implemented a number of reforms to help more employees access flexible working arrangements including through the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022</inline>. An independent statutory review of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act has commenced. It will consider whether changes to the right to request flexible working arrangements are operating appropriately and effectively and whether there are any unintended consequences of the reforms. Any further changes to flexible work arrangements should be considered in light of the outcomes of this review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Flexibility entitlements within the Fair Work Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Employment Standards (NES) in the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009 </inline>include a right to request flexible working arrangements for eligible employees. The Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms, strengthened the right including by:</para></quote>
<list>Introducing a new procedure for how employers must respond to requests such as requiring employers to respond within 21 days and only refuse on reasonable business grounds after taking certain steps.</list>
<list>Enabling the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes.</list>
<list>Expanding eligibility to employees who are pregnant as well as to situations where employees or members of their family, or household, are experiencing family or domestic violence.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Employees who are 55 or older and meet eligibility criteria have the right to request flexible working arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is also committed to protecting and facilitating workers' access to their entitlements. Recent legislative reform to the Fair Work Act as part of <inline font-style="italic">the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No.2) Act 2024 </inline>included measures to change the defence to sham contracting and restore a fair, objective definition of employment and casual work which seeks to ensure fewer workers miss out on entitlements, including their right to request flexible working arrangements, due to misclassification.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other mechanisms for accessing flexible working arrangements</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government recognises many employees experiencing menopause will be under the age of 55 and may not meet any of the other circumstances to have a right to request flexible working arrangements under the NES. Employees without a right to request flexible working arrangements under the NES may be able to access flexible work in other ways.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In May 2023, employees whose wages are set by modern awards or registered agreements made up 57.2%of Australian employees. These employees can access flexible work through Individual Flexibility Arrangements which enable an employee and employer to agree to vary the effect of the award or agreement to meet the genuine needs of the employee and employer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Employees may also be able to access flexible working arrangements through workplace policies, conversations with their managers or by bargaining for access to better entitlements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has improved access to bargaining through the supported bargaining stream which will help workers in lower paid and feminised sectors to negotiate better pay and conditions for themselves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Fair Work Commission is currently considering including a working from home term in the <inline font-style="italic">Clerks—Private Sector Award 2020 </inline>which set the pay for 91,506 employees (80.8%of whom are female) in May 2021. The Fair Work Commission has indicated that this may serve as a model term for other awards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">7: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee encourages Australian workplaces develop perimenopause and menopause workplace policies in consultation with their employees.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation recognising it is directed towards all Australian workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a model employer, the Government supports Australian Public Service (APS) agencies to establish policies that will progress gender equality and contribute to positive economic and work outcomes for Australian women. The Australian Public Service Commission will support APS agencies to develop workplace policies on perimenopause and menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, APS agencies can leverage existing entitlements to support employees experiencing symptoms associated with perimenopause and menopause. This includes the forward leaning ability to request flexible working arrangements and accrual of at least 18 days paid personal leave per year for full-time employees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 8</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">8: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government task the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to undertake further research on the impact and effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health leave </inline> <inline font-style="italic">where it has been implemented in Australia and overseas, while giving consideration to introducing paid gender-inclusive reproductive leave in the National Employment Standards (NES) and modern awards.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations monitors and considers developments related to sexual and reproductive health leave using publicly available information. This includes high-level monitoring of domestic and international examples of reproductive health leave.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is aware some countries have legislated menstrual leave and some are considering reproductive leave. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations will continue to monitor these at a high-level but notes evidence of effectiveness may be limited or inaccessible. The relevancy of international examples may also be low given many countries have very different workplace relations contexts. For example, Spain has implemented menstrual leave however it is social security based not employer funded like</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian personal/carer's leave entitlements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009 </inline>NES provide permanent employees with an entitlement to paid personal/carer's leave, which can be taken when an employee is unfit for work because of a personal illness or injury, or caring responsibilities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges that reproductive health leave provisions are being adopted in some workplaces in Australia, directly by employers or through enterprise agreements. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has captured IVF/reproductive leave, menstrual leave and menopause leave in its database of approved enterprise agreements since 2023. This information will continue to be captured, providing insights into the implementation of reproductive health leave entitlements in Australian workplaces.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government notes the Fair Work Commission, Australia's independent industrial relations tribunal, is responsible for setting award wages and conditions for national system employees. While the Government does not have standing to apply to vary modern awards, employees and employers covered by an award, or organisations entitled to represent their industrial interests, can apply to the Fair Work Commission at any time to vary award wages and conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 9</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">9: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government encourage the Australian Medical Council to consider explicitly including menopause and perimenopause in the Graduate Outcome Statements of the Standards for Assessment and Accreditation of Primary Medical Programs. The committee further recommends that menopause and perimenopause be included in graduate outcomes for other health professionals, including nurses and physiotherapists.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Changes to the Australian Medical Council (AMC) accreditation standards including graduate outcomes will require a consultation process (including public consultation). This is a requirement under the <inline font-style="italic">Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 </inline>as in force in each state and territory. This recommendation links with recommendation 10.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Health and Aged Care has raised with the AMC opportunities to further strengthen accreditation processes to improve medical practitioner, knowledge and skills on menopause/perimenopause and broader women's health issues. The department has recently written to the AMC requesting formal consultation on improvements to Accreditation standards to include references to menopause and perimenopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 10</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">10: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Medical Council work with Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand to ensure that menopause and perimenopause modules are included in all medical university curriculums.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports-in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In its formal request to the Australian Medical Council (AMC), the Government will encourage the AMC to work with the Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand to prioritise health practitioner knowledge and skills in menopause within upcoming <inline font-style="italic">accreditation reviews of medical programs of study, </inline>undertaken by AMC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand attended a roundtable on health care to support diverse communities in June 2024, where they discussed strategies to address bias within the health system for women and diverse population groups, including through education curricula.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As part of its 2024-25 workplan, the National Women's Health Advisory Council have agreed to an activity to support an audit of health and medical education curricula to ensure the inclusion of sex and gender awareness, to help address bias in the health system for women and diverse population groups. This could include ensuring that topics specific to women and gender diverse people, like menopause and perimenopause, are included in all medical university curriculums.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This recommendation links with recommendation 9.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 11</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">11: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that all governments and the medical colleges work together to require and facilitate further education on menopause and perimenopause for physicians practising in the public health system across Australia.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports-in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medical colleges are independent membership-based organisations. Governments do not have authority to direct medical colleges. The Independent review of complexity in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme is currently under way. Its Terms of Reference includes whether additional levers should be available to governments to direct accreditation authorities. The final report is expected in April 2025. This recommendation links with recommendation 9.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is also investing $2.9 million over three years from 2025-26 to develop national clinical guidelines for perimenopause and menopause. National clinical guidelines will ensure information for clinicians is nationally consistent, evidence based and readily available to support consistent care for women experiencing perimenopause and menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 12</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">12: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers increasing funding and expand the recipient base for the delivery of incentivised continuing professional development to medical practitioners on perimenopause and menopause.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medical practitioners are responsible for choosing continuing professional development that aligns with their patient and community needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The 2024-25 Budget included investment of approximately $1.2 million over two years from 2024-25 to support training for up to 11,000 health professionals to better treat, care and manage women's health during menopause and perimenopause. The measure aims to support placements for health professionals on a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course on managing menopause, offered by Jean Hailes for Women's Health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An additional investment of $1.5 million over three years from 2025-26 has been provided for targeted promotion and incentive opportunities to encourage more health professionals to undertake CPD training to prioritise menopause specific professional development.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">13: </inline> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider how to expand the scope of practice of nurse practitioners to ensure better support for women experiencing menopause in rural and regional areas.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nurse practitioners support women with menopause and perimenopause, across all settings, including rural and remote. The Government recognises barriers exist which prevent nurse practitioners providing complete care and health services to women. Accordingly, it has implemented the following measures to increase access to nurse practitioner care:</para></quote>
<list>From 1 July 2024, patient benefits for general attendances by a nurse practitioner increased by 30 per cent.</list>
<list>From 1 July 2024, nurse practitioners became eligible to participate in multidisciplinary case conferences for patients with chronic conditions.</list>
<list>From 1 November 2024, nurse practitioners no longer need to be in a legislated collaborative arrangement with a medical practitioner to render MBS services or prescribe PBS medications.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Initial and subsequent consultations with women experiencing perimenopause and menopause symptoms are often complex and require longer appointments for comprehensive consultation, assessment, planning of care, and any interventions that may be required. Women in rural and remote areas often travel long distances for appointments. From 1 March 2025, the Government will introduce two new general attendance MBS items for nurse practitioners (face-to-face and telehealth) of at least 60 minutes duration. These measures will support the time needed for women seeking support for perimenopause and menopause to engage meaningfully with a nurse practitioner and time for a nurse practitioner to provide comprehensive, high-quality care for women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, the independent <inline font-style="italic">Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce (Scope of Practice) Review </inline>was released on 5 November 2024. This review made recommendations to all Health Ministers regarding enabling health professionals, including nurse practitioners, to work to their full scope of practice. The Government will carefully consider the findings and recommendations of this review alongside other recently-released primary care and workforce reviews.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 14 and Recommendation 15</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">14: The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care, through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Continuous Review, review existing MBS item numbers relevant for menopause and perimenopause consultations, including for longer consultations and mid-life health checks, to assess whether these items are adequate to meet the needs of women experiencing menopause.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">15: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider whether a new MBS item number or the expansion of criteria for the mid-life health check, is needed to support greater access to primary care consultations for women during the menopause transition.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports these recommendations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will establish a new MBS health assessment service for women experiencing menopause or perimenopause. The Government has committed funding of $26 million over two years, commencing from 2025-26, to introduce temporary items for this assessment service.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ongoing arrangements for the item will be informed by outcomes from the review of MBS health assessment services within primary care, expected in 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All MBS health assessment items, including the 45-49-year-old health assessment (referred to by some as the mid-life health check), are currently being reviewed with a view to ensuring they align with current evidence and support contemporary clinical practice. As part of this, a systematic literature review of the evidence base supporting health assessments and a detailed analysis of MBS data have been undertaken. A public consultation period on the items and potential changes closed on 30 September 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The key MBS items for the management of all health conditions in primary care, including menopause are currently under review through the MBS Continuous Review process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The MBS Review Advisory Committee (MRAC) commenced a review of time-tiered items for primary care in August 2024. The review will consider issues such as item consistency, opportunities to streamline, and whether the current time-tiers appropriately support contemporary clinical practice. The review is anticipated to be finalised and provided to Government at the end of 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As part of the MBS Continuous Review, the Government has also committed to undertake an evidence review on bone densitometry testing for women experiencing menopause. This review will complement other review processes and will ensure existing MBS items are adequate to meet the needs of women experiencing or transitioning to menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendations are expected to be provided to Government in early 2025. Any recommendations will need to improve the framework in relation to alignment with current evidence and supporting contemporary clinical practice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 16 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">16: The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Aged Care, including the Therapeutic Goods Administration, consider action to address the shortages of menopause hormonal therapy (MHT) in the Australian market and consider options to secure sufficient supply, including a review of the supply chains and pricing trends of MHT, with a view to enabling universal affordable access to treatment and care.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Medicine shortages</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recognises the importance of Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT) and Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) medicines and the need to have reliable access. Shortages of these medicines have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of many women in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mandatory reporting of medicine shortages commenced in January 2019, with pharmaceutical companies required to report to the TGA any current or anticipated supply disruptions for all prescription medicines and certain over the counter (OTC) medicines. The TGA publishes shortage information on the medicine shortage reports database and works collaboratively with medicine sponsors, wholesalers and health professionals to determine whether additional actions are needed to mitigate supply impacts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA proactively manages medicine shortages to reduce the impact on patients wherever possible. Depending on the cause of the shortage, the TGA can take the following management actions:</para></quote>
<list>Working with medicine sponsors and other stakeholders to manage inventory, including supporting the fair distribution of stock in Australia.</list>
<list>Approving the supply of overseas-registered alternative products under section 19A of the <inline font-style="italic">Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 </inline>(Act).</list>
<list>Allowing pharmacists to dispense certain identified substitute medicines when a medicine is in shortage, by making a Serious Scarcity Substitution Instrument.</list>
<list>Working with pharmaceutical companies to expedite regulatory processes that may otherwise delay the supply of medicines.</list>
<list>Collaborating with health professional and consumer groups to provide guidance on managing demand during a shortage, including on prioritising prescribing for certain conditions.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA has been notified of shortages for numerous HRT patches, including all strengths of Estradot, Estraderm MX and Estalis products, as well as the discontinuation of Climara patches.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ongoing shortages of HRT patches is a global issue and is driven by various factors, including manufacturing issues and unexpected increases in demand. The discontinuation of the Climara brand of patches put additional strain on supply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To support ongoing access for patients, the TGA has provided temporary approval for the supply of multiple HRT medicines from overseas under section 19A of the Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 1 June 2024, the Estradiol (Sandoz, USA) brand of HRT patches (several strengths) is also listed on the PBS to provide subsidised access to this alternative product.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Health and Aged Care has also issued a Notice under the Community Service Obligation (CSO) Deed, enabling CSO Distributors (CSODs) to constrain available supplies and facilitate equitable distribution of PBS-listed estradiol transdermal patches. This notice allows individual CSODs to utilise their expertise in relation to the supply of medicines, to independently determine the practices they can adopt to support equitable supply of these patches and prevent stockpiling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Up-to-date supply details, comprehensive background information, and advice about the HRT patch shortages is available on a dedicated 'HRT shortage' webpage on the TGA website.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are currently no reported shortages of alternative HRT presentations such as tablets, topical creams or pessaries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medicine sponsors are private businesses and make their own decisions regarding if and how to market a product in Australia. The TGA cannot compel them to register, market, manufacture or continue supply of a medicine in Australia. However, the TGA does work with these companies to try to minimise the effects of medicine shortages on patients.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The department continues to consider ways to better anticipate, manage and communicate medicine shortages and discontinuations. Following a 2021 consultation on proposals to help ensure reliable supply of important medicines, the TGA initiated mechanisms to prioritise evaluation of applications for registration of medicines vulnerable to shortage. In 2024, the TGA extensively consulted to better understand challenges and barriers experienced by consumers, health professionals and industry relating to medicine shortages and discontinuations. This feedback is being used to develop a work-plan for potential future reform.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medicine shortages occur for many reasons and, unfortunately an uninterrupted supply chain can never be guaranteed. Medicine sponsors generally maintain continuity of medicine supply through demand forecasting, stock control, and back-up supply routes. However, situations may arise where a disruption to the supply of a medicine cannot be avoided. The Government administers several policies to ensure pharmaceutical companies supply PBS-subsidised medicines where possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For newly listed products on the PBS, pharmaceutical companies are required to provide an assurance of supply, undertaking that sufficient stock of the product to meet demand will be available in time for the first PBS listing day. In addition, Guarantee of Supply requirements outlined in Division C, Part VII of the <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953 </inline>apply to newly listed brands that are bioequivalent or biosimilar to an existing listed brand and where a pharmaceutical company offers a lower price. The Guarantee of Supply period ends after 24 months or until another brand assumes the obligation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the event of a serious shortage, the TGA may also publish a Serious Scarcity Substitution Instrument (SSSI) which allows community pharmacists to substitute specific medicines without prior approval from the prescriber. The Government has implemented changes that allow PBS subsidy in circumstances where the TGA has issued a SSSI. A list of scarce medicines that may be substituted with specific medicines under the PBS is available on the PBS website at: www.pbs.gov.au/info/browse/medicine-shortages.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Where an overseas marketed medicine has been approved under Section 19A of the Act for import or supply in Australia, these medicines (s19A products) may be subsidised on the PBS via one of the following methods:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. Eligible for existing subsidy: the s19A product may be automatically listed on the PBS, if the drug, form, brand and manner of administration, as well as the cost are all the same as the PBS-listed product in shortage. The responsible person of the PBS-listed product and the s19A product must also be the same.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. Recommended listing: where the supplier of the s19A product and the PBS-listed product are not the same, or the form, brand and/or manner of administration differ the supplier of the s19A product must make an application to list the item on the PBS. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) advises the Government on whether the s19A medicine should be subsidised through the PBS and under what conditions. The PBAC, an independent expert advisory body, advises the Government about whether the section 19A medicine should be subsidised through the PBS and under what conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Where the TGA has provided temporary approval for supply of an alternative brand of a medicine under s19A, the Government works with the sponsor to expedite subsidisation of that brand through the PBS. However, ultimately it is a decision made by the sponsor to list their s19A product. A sponsor cannot be compelled by the Government to list a medicine on the PBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A list of current s19A products that are PBS listed is available on the PBS website at: www.pbs.gov.au/info/browse/section-19A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To date, there are three strengths of s19A estradiol patches [brand Estradiol Transdermal System (Sandoz, USA)] temporarily listed on the PBS since 1 June 2024 to mitigate the shortages of estradiol patches. The Department of Health and Aged Care is working with s19A suppliers to list additional s19A estradiol patches on the PBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 17</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">17: The Committee recommends the Therapeutic Goods Administration continue to monitor the advertising of alternative medicines and treatments in Australia and take </inline> <inline font-style="italic">action as appropriate. The committee further recommends the Department of Health and Aged Care consider reviewing the labelling of TGA approved medicines.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports the recommendation for the TGA to continue to monitor advertising alternative medicines and treatments in Australia as appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Detection and deterrence of the unlawful import, advertising and supply of medicines and medical devices advertised as traditional or alternative treatments remains a TGA compliance priority in the 2024-25 financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA will continue to monitor for potential unlawful advertising of therapeutic goods, including alternative medicine and treatment products, in line with our regulatory compliance framework.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A range of monitoring strategies are used to support the TGA's compliance programs, which are both proactive and responsive. This is important, given that areas of non-compliance are not limited to current compliance priorities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA will also continue to work with online platforms, including social media platforms, to deter and disrupt potential unlawful advertising via proactive engagement and monitoring of online activity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes the recommendation for the Department of Health and Aged Care to consider reviewing the labelling of TGA approved medicines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The TGA will continue to monitor and review the labelling of TGA-approved medicines in Australia and take action as appropriate. There are legislative requirements governing the information that must be included on the labelling of therapeutic goods. Changes to these requirements would require further consideration and public consultation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 18</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">18: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government examine options to implement a means of ensuring that MHT items are affordable and accessible, including consideration of domestic manufacturing and alternate means of subsidising costs to the consumer. Such examination should include, but not be limited to, considering ways to encourage pharmaceutical sponsors to list a broader range of MHT items, such as body identical hormone therapy products, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to ensure appr</inline> <inline font-style="italic">opriate access and lowered costs for all women who need it.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government understands that there are legitimate concerns from clinicians and consumers about subsidised access to Menopausal Hormonal Therapy (MHT). The Government supports MHT being affordable and accessible for all who need them. The PBS is the main mechanism through which the Government subsidises medicines, including MHT.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under legislation, the Government cannot list a medicine on the PBS unless the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) makes a recommendation in favour of listing. The PBAC is an independent and expert body, comprising doctors, health professionals, health economists and consumer representatives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To address barriers to accessing MHT, the Minister for Health and Aged Care referred the matter to the PBAC for review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When considering a medicine proposed for PBS listing, the PBAC is legally required to take into account the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the medicine compared to other available therapies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PBAC's consideration is generally initiated by the pharmaceutical company responsible for a medicine, applying for the medicine to be considered for PBS listing. Although nothing prevents other stakeholders from lodging PBAC submissions, the responsible pharmaceutical company usually holds the scientific data and other information necessary to inform the PBAC's consideration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pharmaceutical companies are private businesses that make their own decisions about whether to apply for subsidy through the PBS. The Government cannot compel pharmaceutical companies to seek PBS subsidies for their medicines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At its November 2024 meeting, the PBAC recommended PBS listing of estradiol gel (Estrogel®), the micronized progesterone product Prometrium®, and Estrogel Pro, a combination product containing Estrogel and Prometrium<inline font-style="italic">. </inline>The outcomes from the November 2024 PBAC meeting are available on the PBS website.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Alternate means of subsidy outside the PBS would risk undermining health technology assessment processes that ensure value-for-money for taxpayers. The Government will continue to consider how policies can encourage the appropriate availability of subsidised MHT.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 19</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">19: The Committee recommends that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) reforms comparator selection during evaluation of new MHT items to include quality of life health impacts. The committee also recommends that the PBAC regards body identical hormone therapy products in a separate drug class to remove the lowest cost comparator to synthetic therapies.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Measures of quality of life are routinely considered by the PBAC in its assessment of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a new medicine compared to alternative therapies, as required under the <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953</inline>. The PBAC considers the information that is provided in submissions, including information on quality-of-life impacts. Comments from consumers and other stakeholders about a medicine are also provided to the PBAC for consideration. The PBAC is committed to understanding consumer perspectives and integrating them into its consideration of medicines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PBAC guidelines provide guidance to applicants regarding choice of appropriate comparators. The <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953 </inline>requires that for the PBAC to recommend PBS listing of medicine that is more costly than alternatives, it must be satisfied that the new medicine delivers better health outcomes than these alternatives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government recognises the importance of ensuring that Health Technology Assessment (HTA) policies and methods are continually evaluated and updated so that they remain fit for purpose, keep pace with rapid advances in health technology, maintain the sustainability of the PBS, and minimise barriers to access. The HTA Policy and Methods Review (HTA Review) was completed on 4 May 2024, and the final report published in September 2024. The HTA Review makes 50 recommendations for reform to the Australia's health technology assessment and funding arrangements. An Implementation Advisory Group chaired by the former Chair of the PBAC, Professor Andrew Wilson, will guide the reform process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 20</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">20: The Committee recommends the Australasian Menopause Society regularly review and update their guidance for medical practitioners around best practices in the treatment and management of mental health symptoms.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation, recognising it is directed towards the Australasian Menopause Society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 21</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">21: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to implement or leverage existing women's health facilities with multidisciplinary care, including in the public health system, to better support women during the menopause transition across Australia.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Health Reform Agreement (NHRA) recognises state governments are the system managers of their public hospital systems, responsible for system-wide public hospital service planning and performance, and for determining arrangements for the delivery of public hospital services within their jurisdiction. The NHRA does not provide the Government with a role or powers to intervene in state government decisions regarding the organisation and delivery of their health and hospital systems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">From 2025-26, the Government will invest $19.6 million over three years to expand the number of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinics (EPPCs) across Australia and continue service delivery for the existing EPPCs. Funding will also enable expanded scope of services to include perimenopause and menopause. The EPPCs deliver improved access to a range of support mechanisms, education, and assessment from a multidisciplinary team. Evidence received from several existing EPPCs highlights an increased confidence in providers to successfully establish and deliver comprehensive and holistic services for women in the community. This will bring the total number of clinics to 33—amounting to one in each Primary Health Network (PHN) across the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Funding for the additional EPPCs will be implemented through PHNs with priority given to setting up clinics in locations with greatest need that have been identified through consultation with PHNs and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has also committed $79.4 million over four years (2023-24—2026-27) for PHNs to commission multidisciplinary team care, as part of the Strengthening Medicare reforms. All PHNs were eligible to receive this funding to commission allied health professionals, nurses, nurse practitioners, midwives, and/or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers or Practitioners. Multidisciplinary care will fill an identified need in each PHN region. Each PHN will determine the priority for commissioning based on their health needs assessments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 22</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">22: The Committee recommends that organisations tasked with improving menopause care utilise learnings from international best practice.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation, recognising that it is directed towards organisations tasked with improving menopause care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To support best practice and to improve menopause care, the Government is investing $2.9 million over three years from 2025-26 to develop national clinical guidelines for perimenopause and menopause. National clinical guidelines will ensure information for clinicians is nationally consistent, evidence based and readily available to support consistent care for women experiencing perimenopause and menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 23</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">23: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate improvements to the collection and use of data to assist with research into the experience of menopause and perimenopause, and surveillance of the outcomes of the use of MHT.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Health and Aged Care Data Strategy 2022-25 outlines the Department of Health and Aged Care's commitment to ongoing data quality improvement and data integration activities for evidence-based policy and programs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commonwealth safely and securely shares health data for public benefit. For example, MBS and PBS data are integrated in the National Health Data Hub (managed by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW)) and the Person-Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA, managed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics). These types of data linkages enable approved government and non-government researchers to analyse patient journeys and to derive whole-of-life insights about various population groups in Australia, such as the interactions between their characteristics, use of services like healthcare and education, and outcomes like improved health and employment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Linked data regarding Menopause Hormonal Therapy (MHT), for example specific PBS and/or MBS items (if applicable), could support population-level insights regarding MHT use, trends and health outcomes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the 2024-25 Budget the Government provided $5.5 million over three years from 2024-25 for the AIHW to establish a sexual and reproductive health data set to help inform sexual and reproductive health policy and improve healthcare access outcomes. Perimenopause and menopause will be a key priority area in this work program, which will include an extensive consultation process to identify the information needs and data gaps (including those identified in the Senate Inquiry report), scope options for improved data collection and commence data development and collection where applicable. This work will contribute to the evidence base on perimenopause and menopause in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To further support research development, the Government has made up to $25 million of funding over four years from 2024-25 available for the 2024 Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Emerging Priorities and Consumer Driven Research (EPCDR) Infertility, Pregnancy Loss and Menopause Grant Opportunity which includes a focus on perimenopause and menopause research. The Grant Opportunity closed on 6 November 2024. Application outcomes are expected by May 2025, with research projects anticipated to be undertaken from 2025 to 2029.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 24</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">24: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government task the National Women's Health Advisory </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Council to assist state and territory governments to deliver a National Menopause Action Plan which considers best practices in menopause care.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports-in-principle this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Women's Health Advisory Council (Council) was established in 2023 to provide strategic advice and recommendations directly to Government to improve health outcomes for Australian women and girls. The Council also provides advice on the implementation of the National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030 (Strategy).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Strategy outlines a national approach to improving health outcomes for all Australian women and girls, particularly those at greatest risk of poor health, and aims to reduce inequities in health outcomes. This includes actions to improve the awareness of, and encourage further research and support services, for menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will consider the feasibility of this recommendation in the context of the Council's advisory capacity and in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including state and territory governments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> Recommendation 25 </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">25: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government task the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to monitor international best practices to ensure Australia is at the forefront of menopause and perimenopause care.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government supports this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations monitor international policies, expert advice and academic publications to inform and shape its health, employment and workplace relations policy advice to Government, including in relation to menopause.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Coalition Senators Recommendation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Senate Education and Employment Standing Committee to review the adequacy of existing legal frameworks, including Section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009, to ensure women can access flexible working arrangements during menopause.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Decisions on Senate Committee reviews are a matter for the Senate.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</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 document.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>100</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australia's sanctions regime, together with accompanying documents. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Being relatively new to this committee, I wanted to acknowledge the work of the previous chair of the committee, Senator Chandler, in compiling this report, as well as that of other senators who are no longer present on the committee but who helped in the preparation of this report, including Senator Birmingham and Senator Green.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also wish to speak on the same report, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DELEGATION REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>100</page.no>
        <type>DELEGATION REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand and Vanuatu</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the report of the committee on its delegation to New Zealand and Vanuatu, which took place from 26 to 31 August last year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Belgium and Norway</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Belgium and Norway, which took place from 1 December to 6 December 2024. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statement read as follows—</inline></para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statement was unavailable at the time of publishing.</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>101</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Attorney-General's Department, Treasury, Local Content Broadcasting, Stronger Communities Program</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>101</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning upgrades to Erindale Road and the Reid Highway, native title, Rex Airlines, Bruce Highway upgrade funding, Australian content quotas, the Stronger Communities Program, the federation funding agreement for land transport infrastructure projects and the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>101</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Employment Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>101</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Senator Hodgins-May replace Senator Faruqi on the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the provisions of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 and that Senator Faruqi be appointed as a participating member.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>101</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>101</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="r7275" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>101</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>101</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 establishes a world-leading and whole-of-ecosystem approach to combat scams in the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will lift obligations on industry, enable enforcement action by regulators, and deliver strong protections for consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will make Australia one of the toughest places in the world for scammers to operate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Human Impact of Scams</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Over the last two years, I have talked to thousands of Australians across the country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In every room, so many have been touched by the scourge of scams.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Allow me to share some of these stories:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Investment scams</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mark received advice from what he thought was a legitimate financial advice advertisement which encouraged him to invest in cryptocurrency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mark was directed to set up multiple accounts to transfer his investment into. After three payments, he started to get concerned that nothing was appearing in his cryptocurrency account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">He was told he had insufficient funds in the account so needed to make another payment for the crypto to appear.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It was only then that he realised that he'd had over $5,000 stolen by criminal scammers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Romance scams.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sam had thousands of dollars stolen in a romance scam. They met online before quickly moving to communicating by text and email.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The criminal scammer claimed to have been locked out of his bank account and needed urgent funds as his sister had been rushed to hospital.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It was only after transferring more than $14,000 that Sam realised that the scammer had been impersonating someone else.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The money was stolen with limited hope of getting anything back.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Online Scams.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick found a vehicle advertised online and contacted the seller to make arrangements to purchase.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The criminal scammer sent a through an official-looking invoice and payment details and Nick transferred $18,000 to purchase the car.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The car was being shipped from interstate and the arrival date came and went without a car in sight.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The money was stolen with limited hope of getting anything back.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These stories, and thousands like it, are the product of a non-existent legal framework which has abandoned consumers and does not require businesses within the scams ecosystem to disrupt and prevent scams.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Scale and Nature of the Problem</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These stories point to a criminal pandemic with deep economic and social consequences. It is not a new problem. Losses had been increasing every year since 2016. They became supercharged during the pandemic.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2021, scam losses increased by 84%.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In 2022, an extraordinary $3 billion was lost to scammers—a 75% increase on the previous year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When the Albanese Government came to office, scams were out of control and urgent action was needed. A business-as-usual approach could have seen losses approach $6 billion on their trend at the time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We moved quickly to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre, a Sender ID registry, and a website take-down capacity with ASIC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The early results are good. In 2023, scam losses did not increase as they had under the previous government. In fact, they decreased for the first time in nearly a decade to $2.74 billion—but this is still an extraordinary amount stolen by scammers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some people still think of scammers as conmen peddling easy-to-spot schemes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this framing, it is convenient to blame the victims for falling for 'obvious' scams.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, this is an outdated view. Scams have become industrialised and promulgated by sophisticated, transnational criminal operations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want to give a sense of the magnitude and industrialisation of these operations. In May this year, a report prepared by the ASEAN-Australia Counter Trafficking program looked at the relationship between human trafficking, forced labour and the cyber-scam industry in Cambodia, and found:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">"As many as 100,000 people from around Asia, and as far away as East Africa, are trapped in cyber-scam compounds around the country. In these guarded compounds, thousands of individuals, many of whom are recent university graduates, are forced to engage in cybercriminal activities, ranging from romance and cryptocurrency scams to online gambling and fraudulent investment scams, for up to 16 hours per day".</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The criminals do not discriminate. There are scams targeted to specific demographics: ticket scams for concert goers, investment scams for retirees—but there are scams across the entire spectrum of age, education and socioeconomic status.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If you have a phone, an email address, a social media account, or a bank account, you are a target.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">International Response</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">International criminal activity of this scale requires a coordinated international response, and we have prioritised our relationships in this area.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Earlier this year, I attended the first international summit convened in the United Kingdom. Signatories to the communique from that summit committed to working together to improve our cooperative efforts, including in the areas of intelligence sharing and money recovery.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have followed this up in our region, including in a recent visit to Singapore with our colleagues from New Zealand and from the banks where we met with regulators, the Singapore Anti-Scam Centre, digital platform providers and a range of other key stakeholders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We exchanged information and ideas on regulatory and law enforcement responses to the challenge.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These are all important initiatives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But there are limitations to a traditional law enforcement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Scams Prevention Framework Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill sets out what we must do at home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is about prevention—and has the consumer at the centre of it. It looks across the entire scams ecosystem which has a requirement to take the fight to scammers. The best approach is to protect a consumer from a scam before it happens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It also provides clear pathways for redress if a victim is scammed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government believes the government must play an active role in keeping Australians' money and information safe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The first phase of our work—establishing the National Anti-Scam Centre (NASC)—is an investment in consumer protection infrastructure to bring together the expertise and capability of government agencies, law enforcement and the private sector to detect, disrupt and prevent scams. The NASC is a function operated within the ACCC. It will have a key role as an information exchange in the operation of the new framework.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is the next step. It establishes the legal framework setting out the legal obligations for business. The Scams Prevention Framework—the SPF, for short— will drive a significant uplift in the obligations and expectations on businesses to keep the Australian community safe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Key features of the Scams Prevention Framework (SPF) include:</para></quote>
<list>the SPF principles that apply to regulated entities;</list>
<list>provision to establish sector-specific codes that apply to regulated sectors;</list>
<list>strong, active regulator oversight;</list>
<list>clear dispute resolution procedures, and the ability to set guidelines for apportioning liability between parties where they have not met their obligations; and</list>
<list>strong enforcement powers and penalties for breaches by regulated entities.</list>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The definition of scams</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Preventing scams means understanding the nature of the threat. Scam activity is quickly evolving and becoming increasingly sophisticated and diverse. There are many different methods scammers use to harm the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill recognises this in the definition of scams, by setting a broad definition to capture the wide range of activities which may form part of the deceit and manipulation used by scammers. They are deceptive attempts to engage a consumer, which if successful would cause loss or harm, such as by obtaining personal information or financial benefit, from the consumer or their associate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The SPF seeks to stop scammers at every step of their deceptive activity, and therefore captures both successful scams which have caused loss or harm, and scam attempts which have not yet resulted in loss or harm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Who is </inline> <inline font-style="italic">protected?</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill is about protecting consumers, broadly defined. This includes people or small businesses that are provided services by regulated businesses in Australia, as well as people ordinarily residing in Australia that may use a service outside of Australia, where that service is provided by a regulated entity in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Who are the Regulated Entities?</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On a number of occasions, I have described our prevention approach as whole of eco-system. This is an important concept in the preparation and operation of these laws. Our banking system is part of that ecosystem, but there is much more to it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In December last year the peak international body for Consumer Organisations issued a statement which called on Governments to take this approach:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">"We </inline> <inline font-style="italic">are calling on governments to ensure adequate protection against the growing risks of scams on technology platforms. Governments should require platforms to take effective action in the prevention, disruption and detection of scams, which should be continually improved. There should be significant consequences if technology platforms fail to meet the following essential requirements..."</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The essential requirements include measures, disruption strategies and response and support for victims. The statement is endorsed by the Australian Consumer organisations Choice and the Consumer Action Law Centre.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government agrees. The SPF will do this.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Just last month the UK's peak consumer body called on their government to implement a cross sectoral scams and fraud reporting framework. A framework that joins up intelligence from government, telco, banking and social media sources.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government agrees. This is what the SPF will achieve.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The scam ecosystem looks at the environment in which scams are generated, how they are transmitted, how they reach their intended victim and the location of the money or information which is the end goal of the criminal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While scam techniques will change over time, they are overwhelmingly distributed through a publication on a social media platform, a call or message sent over the telecommunications network, and a transaction through a bank account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We understand that the vectors and targets of scam activity will change over time. This is why the Bill provides for the responsible Treasury Minister to designate a sector of the economy that will be subject to the obligations of the Scam Prevention Framework.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Once a sector is designated, the Minister will be able to make an enforceable SPF code that provides the designated sector with prescriptive obligations tailored to that sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will designate telecommunication providers, banks and digital platform services relating to social media, paid search engine advertising and direct messaging initially.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Each of these sectors represents a significant vector of scam activity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The SPF is responsive and adaptable, enabling other sectors to be designated in the future. We have put the superannuation, insurance and cryptocurrency industries on notice that they will be fast followers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They do not have to wait for Government designation to start the work on improving consumer protections.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">SPF Principles</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The SPF principles set-out requirements for regulated entities to implement governance arrangements to combat scams and take reasonable steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">SPF Principle 1: Governance. </inline>Regulated entities must document and implement policies, procedures, metrics and targets for combatting scams.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">SPF Principle 2: Prevent. </inline>Regulated entities must take reasonable steps to prevent scams. This is aimed at stopping scams from reaching or impacting consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For banks, this could mean enhanced verification procedures, such as confirmation of payee for transactions. For digital platforms, could require strict advertising policies and require them to verify and validate the advertiser. Is the business legitimate? Is the person placing the ad an authorised representative of that business? If this cannot be validated—then no ad will be able to be placed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">SPF Principle 3: Detect. </inline>Regulated entities must take reasonable steps to detect scams both as they are happening and after they have happened. This may include implementing systems and processes to identify suspicious activity, timely investigations of actionable scam intelligence and identifying consumers that may be impacted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">SPF Principle 4: Report. </inline>Regulated entities must share actionable scam intelligence with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), who may then disclose that information to other parties including other regulated entities, regulators, and law enforcement to drive timely disruptive action in response to scam activity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill makes clear that actionable scam intelligence covers information where it is reasonable to suspect that a communication, transaction or other activity is conduct related to a scam.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">SPF Principle 5: Disrupt. </inline>Regulated entities must take reasonable steps to disrupt an activity suspected of being a scam and prevent losses to consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The legislation provides a 28-day protection (a safe harbour) for regulated entities taking proportionate action to disrupt scams in good faith. The safe harbour protection enables timely and decisive disruptive action, whilst setting clear guardrails and parameters to ensure third parties are protected from ongoing disruptive action where they are not involved in scam activity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Detecting and disrupting scams will require investment in advanced monitoring systems and prompt content removal or other relevant disruptive action. It will also involve providing consumers with better education and awareness activities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">SPF Principle 6: Respond. </inline>Regulated entities must have an accessible way for consumers to report scams, raise a complaint about a scam or about the regulated entities conduct relating to scam activities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Internal dispute resolution processes are intended to provide regulated entities with an opportunity to assess their conduct and resolve the consumer's complaint in a timely manner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Regulated entities must have regard to processes prescribed by the SPF rules and any guidelines for apportioning liability arising from the complaint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Regulated entities must also be a member of an external dispute resolution scheme authorised by the Minister which provides consumers a pathway to escalate scams related complaints.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has announced that it intends to authorise the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) as the single external dispute resolution scheme for the three initial sectors to offer an independent, free, impartial and fair mechanism for consumers to escalate their complaints. AFCA will be required to report serious and systemic scam issues to regulators, as well as report circumstances where parties fail to give effect to a determination in a complaint case.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will provide clear reporting channels and support for victims. It will also embed transparency and accountability in the process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Codes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The SPF principles will be supported by SPF codes tailored for each regulated sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An SPF code will set out detailed obligations specific to a regulated sector. This recognises that each regulated sector faces unique challenges with respect to scams and enables obligations to reflect those relevant circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The obligations in an SPF code are not intended to be an exhaustive list of requirements that an entity must follow to comply with SPF principles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SPF codes create only minimum standards for that sector, which an entity may be required to go beyond to comply with the SPF principles where it is facing a specific, targeted, and heightened risk of scam activity related to its regulated services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Regulation and Enforcement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill establishes a multi-regulator model for regulation and enforcement which recognises existing regulatory relationships and the existing roles and expertise of various regulators which is valuable for the effective administration of tailored sector obligations.</para></quote>
<list>The ACCC will oversee and enforce the SPF principles as well as the digital platforms SPF code.</list>
<list>The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) will oversee and enforce the banking SPF code.</list>
<list>The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will oversee and enforce the telecommunications SPF code.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill imposes strong incentives for regulated entities to prevent, detect and deter scams. Maximum civil penalties—which are currently set at over $50 million per breach—may be imposed in regard to obligations where breaches would be the most egregious and have the most significant impact on consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">High penalties are intended to be an effective incentive for compliance across all sectors of the economy and provide a deterrent where higher possible gains could be made by regulated entities by breaching the SPF.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Regulators will also be able to use other compliance tools such as infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, injunctions, public warnings and remedial directions. Additionally, regulators could seek redress for harm or damages on behalf of victims where they pursue court action for the breach of an obligation (s58FZC(2)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Consumers can also bring claims in court to recover loss or damages, where this occurs courts will be able to consider the role of multiple service providers connected to a scam and apportion liability between them. Courts are required to prioritise payment of redress to the scam victim over payment of penalties for breaches (s58FD).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The SPF is being introduced as part of a broader effort to modernise Australia's laws for the digital age and consumer protection agenda. This includes reforms to Australia's:</para></quote>
<list>privacy laws;</list>
<list>payment systems modernisation;</list>
<list>money laundering and cyber-security settings;</list>
<list>online safety measures;</list>
<list>safe and responsible use of artificial intelligence;</list>
<list>product safety standards;</list>
<list>unfair trading practices; and</list>
<list>the Digital ID system.</list>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will also support the Government and industry in international engagement and collaboration by enabling the sharing of scam intelligence across regulated entities, law enforcement and regulators in Australia, and supporting international enforcement action to disrupt illicit scam activities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the Bill and has approved them as required under the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Agreement 2002</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>105</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="r7240" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Assent</title>
            <page.no>105</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>105</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>105</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</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 following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 November 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The reasons for the Albanese Government's cancellation of the Hells Gates Dam and any missed opportunities for flood mitigation, drought proofing and economic development in Queensland.</para></quote>
<para>One Nation is proposing an inquiry into the cancellation of Hells Gates Dam west of Townsville, which this Labor government cancelled for reasons that are still secret today. Some in the Canberra bubble might not be aware that North Queensland is currently very wet. It's underwater. Hells Gates Dam was proposed on the Burdekin River north of Charters Towers and west of Townsville. Right now, downriver of the Hells Gates proposal, the Burdekin Falls Dam is at 217 per cent capacity, or three times what it's designed to hold. Right now, a torrent of water is flowing over its spillway. Right now, just under 1,600,000 megalitres is overflowing out of the dam and straight into the ocean. Do you want to know how much is a megalitre? It's one million litres. That's 1,500,000 megalitres of rain and water flowing into the ocean. That's 1,600 gigalitres. This is a lot of water. Using a common cliche, that's the equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowing over the dam wall into the ocean every day. Before all the climate scaremongers start to call this unprecedented and blame it all on cow farts, let's be clear: this is not unprecedented. It's happened many times before and has been worse. The dam still hasn't broken its record set in 1991. The Burdekin is seemingly receding after thankfully failing to hit the peak levels recorded in 2009, 1998, 1991 and in many more years in the hundreds before those records began. This is common.</para>
<para>What's unprecedented, though, is this government's incompetence in cancelling the Hells Gates Dam—one of the first things it did. Despite the claim of the former climate chief, Tim Flannery, in 2005 that drought conditions would become permanent in Eastern Australia and that 'the rain that comes won't fill our dams because of climate change caused by man's use of hydrocarbon fuels'. Australia continues to be a country of flooding rains. Inevitably, in the iconic Australian cycle of droughts and floods, another drought will come. That's why we build dams. At least, any responsible government who takes their duty to Australia seriously would build dams. The Greens have stopped that, and you're afraid to counter them. There will come a season, and Australians will think with envy about the time when an equivalent of three Sydney Harbours flowed out to sea every day from that river, the Burdekin. Those people will condemn the politicians of today, who have done nothing to try to capture a bit more of that liquid gold called water.</para>
<para>We know flooding rains will come again. We know seasons of drought will come again. Why is this government failing to build dams that would help us get through both droughts and floods and help us protect people? We seem to be forgetting that. In cancelling Hells Gates Dam, how many North Queensland homes and farms has the Albanese government condemned to flooding in the future? Every decade, there are fewer. How much blame does the coalition take for failing to start a single nation-building dam in their 10 years of government before Labor? Under the supercharged immigration policy being inflicted on the country, Australia will need much more water. Then I think of the rich farmlands that are potential irrigation areas that can be used and developed. That's why water is like liquid gold to our agricultural sector. When the next drought comes, our existing water reserves will be sucked dry far more quickly because no government has built water storage to keep up with the massively increased population. Mark my words: the next drought will be a man made disaster. It will be the fault of more than a decade of politicians who were scared of the woke foreign organisations that told them not to build dams. Many politicians seem more scared of being called unpopular than of their grandchildren dying of thirst.</para>
<para>That's why we need this inquiry—to get to the bottom of why Labor killed the Hells Gates Dam. The Labor Party has given no compelling justification—none—to the people of North Queensland, Queensland or Australia. It's the Australian economy that will be affected. All that Labor is saying is: 'It's gone. Good luck in the next flood and the next drought.' What happened in the department? What happened in the minister's office? What possible reason was there for ditching such an important piece of infrastructure for an area that receives so much rain so often? This is what I hope an inquiry would be able to peek behind the curtain on. We would send a strong message that potentially life-saving infrastructure cannot just be subject to government whim without a proper explanation. Lives are at stake. Livelihoods are at stake. A whole region is at stake. A whole state is at stake.</para>
<para>The people of North Queensland deserve better. The people of Queensland and Australia deserve better. As a servant to the people, One Nation will continue to push for Australia to exit the worldwide organisations that try to dictate that we can't build life-saving infrastructure, like dams. To protect people from floods, droughts and famines, One Nation will continue to push for work for dams that capture our flooding rains and sustain us through the precedented droughts to come. With our plentiful resources, Australia could be unbeaten on the world stage, but we can only make a start on more productively using our resources for the people's wealth once our life source, water, is secured for future generations.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, on a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Hells Gate Dam, be agreed to. Since we're past 6.30 pm, a division will have to be rolled over to tomorrow.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>107</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>107</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="r7237" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>107</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure the minister is gratified that he has the opportunity to participate in a committee process in relation to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024. By way of recommencement of the matters that we were discussing when we were previously in committee—we were looking at a number of matters—first, we were looking at the performance of the ART since it was stood up in October last year. In particular, we were looking at how the case backlog has actually worsened. It has gone backwards, rather than been improved, under the new legislation.</para>
<para>Another matter which we were looking at was the deeply concerning issue relating to the operation of section 25 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act, where public servants doing their job, faithfully, in the Department of Social Services who were involved in child support payments were having to redact hundreds and hundreds of pages of material because of the way section 25 operated under the act or new documents had to be provided to the ART within 28 days—and there was no exception. This was causing major, major issues for the Department of Social Services, particularly in relation to material where the department was concerned. The public servants performing this very, very important task were concerned that unredacted material may cause or have the danger of causing issues in relation to family matters. I note that that issue had been ventilated.</para>
<para>We heard from the minister who was participating in the committee process at the time that the government became aware of this in July and August last year. The government became aware of the fact that public servants in the Department of Social Services were having to redact hundreds and hundreds of pages of material because section 25 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act wasn't fit for purpose. It wasn't fit for purpose because there were additional documents being added to those files on a regular basis, and all of that material had to be provided to the tribunal within 28 days. This was causing huge logistical issues. But this was not a matter which was explained or referred to by the government, although it was the express basis for the amendment contained in the bill. This was a matter which was brought to the opposition's attention by certain parties who were concerned by what they were seeing. So, when we as the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee sat to review this legislation, we had absolutely no idea that this issue was occurring and that section 25 was causing these problems.</para>
<para>As I said previously, I respect the fact that this matter doesn't fall within the usual portfolio responsibilities of the minister and he needs to rely on the advice of the Attorney in this regard. I also respect the fact that he has, in good faith, sought further information during the course of this committee process and provided that further information to us during the course of the committee process. I thank the minister—through you, Acting Deputy President—for that cooperation in that regard.</para>
<para>But it is deeply disturbing that such an important issue was left to linger from July or August last year to February 2025, where we now are. I say with due respect to the minister—through you, Acting Deputy President—that it is no answer to say that the opposition is causing further delay because we're simply taking advantage of the appropriate scrutiny processes of this chamber to properly scrutinise the bill. We've been in committee for perhaps 1½ hours or two hours, but you had seven months to fix this matter and bring it before the Senate so we could fix it, and the Albanese Labor government failed miserably to do that.</para>
<para>Minister, I would like to refer to some discussion we had previously in the committee process and to some answers which you gave during the committee process. For the benefit of the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record, I would like to start by following up on some of the points that were made previously about the massive blowout in timeframes for the protection case load in the AAT. That blowout in case times was one of the many instances I refer to where the actual current performance of the ART has materially deteriorated compared to the performance of the AAT, on an objective consideration of the data. For those who weren't in the chamber, here is one example I gave, and I'll quote my previous comment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'll move on to another indicator with respect to whether or not the new ART is dealing quickly and fairly with cases that are coming before it, which was one of the aspirations of the Attorney when he introduced this reform—</para></quote>
<para>'quickly and fairly', which I think the minister rightly referred to. I continue my quote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If we look into the migration and protection case loads in particular, when the coalition left office, the median time to finalise a refugee matter was 113 weeks. The median time to finalise a protection matter under the Administrative Review Tribunal has now blown out to 232 weeks.</para></quote>
<para>Here is the question I put to the minister:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Again, Minister, I ask you: What went wrong? Why has the timeline doubled?</para></quote>
<para>Minister, you responded. Feel free to correct the record if I in any way misquote you, but the record of your response that I have is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Again, I disagree with your assessment on this, Senator Scarr. The work that the tribunal is doing is important. The Liberals left the AAT critically underfunded. We're still getting through the backlog that you left us. There are old cases that we inherited, and, indeed, thousands of the cases that we're dealing with are more than five years old.</para></quote>
<para>What the minister failed to mention, of course, was that the rushed and sloppy legislation that was pushed through this place by the Attorney affected the repeal of the Immigration Assessment Authority, which was specifically designed as a fast-track process to deal with refugee cases. When the coalition left office, the median time for resolving a refugee case was 113 weeks, but, under the Albanese Labor government reforms, that timeframe has now blown out to more than four years. In light of the evidence, do you now concede, Minister, the important role that the Immigration Assessment Authority played in bringing down timeframes for resolving refugee issues?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was a matter that was dealt with in the bill that was passed last year. We are obviously dealing with changes that are put forward in this legislation now, which are different matters.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that improving the performance of the then AAT with the new tribunal, the ART, was one of the core objectives of the bill, let me ask you about a comparison of the performance of the ART with that of the Immigration Assessment Authority. The Immigration Assessment Authority, the IAA, was tasked with the fast-track review of what are called fast-track reviewable decisions. As I understand it, these were generally decisions made by a delegate of the minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to a 'fast-track applicant'. A fast-track applicant is 'an unauthorised maritime arrival who entered Australia between 13 August 2012 and 31 December 2013 who has not been taken to an offshore processing country and has been permitted by the minister to make a protection visa application'. In short, they were the legacy case load that resulted from Labor's disastrous mismanagement of our borders under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Fast-track applicants who previously might have gone to the IAA are the cohort who would now fall in the protection case load of the ART. Is it correct that those matters which previously went to the IAA would now fall within the province of the ART?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's my understanding.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of the functions of the immigration assessment authority, that was the body specifically tasked to deal with that massive blowout in protection visa claims that arose under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, when the Labor Party was previously in government. Based on the evidence I ran through earlier, we're now in almost exactly the same scenario in terms of the backlog of cases before, now, the ART but without the Immigration Assessment Authority to actually assist with processing that backlog. Is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry; I missed the point of the question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will repeat the question. In terms of the functions of the IAA—that was the body that was specifically tasked to deal with the massive blowout in protection visa claims that arose during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—based on the evidence I ran through earlier, we're now in almost exactly the same scenario in terms of case backlog, but we don't now have the IAA to assist with processing those claims. The IAA no longer exists to assist with processing that backlog of claims. Is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is correct that the Senate voted to abolish the IAA last year when they voted for the establishment of the new ART.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also wanted to refer to the objectives of the Immigration Assessment Authority, which were set out in section 473FA of the Migration Act, until the ART bills were rushed through this chamber. That legislation made clear that, in carrying out its review functions, the Immigration Assessment Authority was required to provide a mechanism of limited review that was efficient, quick, free of bias, consistent with the procedural requirements set out in the Migration Act and independent of the minister and the Department of Home Affairs. I'll just repeat that. The objectives of the limited review to be undertaken by the IAA were to be efficient, quick, free of bias and consistent with the procedural requirements set out in the Migration Act and to be independent of the government.</para>
<para>Given that the wait times for protection visa matters to be processed by the ART have doubled since you took office, Minister, do you accept that that kind of quick, unbiased and independent process, which was previously offered by the Immigration Assessment Authority before it was abolished, could help the government address the unsustainable growth in its case load and that now is the particular time where we need the assistance of an IAA to assist with that backlog of cases?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. As I've already answered, the Senate voted to abolish the IAA last year. This bill before the Senate is dealing with other issues. You have other opportunities if you want to pursue those questions on the IAA.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that the minister is almost referring to the Senator as some sort of autonomous body independent of government. The fact is that the government actually introduced the legislation, supported by the Greens, to abolish the Immigration Assessment Authority, and it was because the government had the numbers in the Senate that the Immigration Assessment Authority was abolished. This wasn't some passive act of the Senate. This was an act of the Albanese Labor government to introduce legislation into this place to actually abolish the Immigration Assessment Authority.</para>
<para>For the benefit of the Senate I refer to the fact that the current median time to finalise a protection matter in the ART is 233 weeks, more than four years. It now takes more than four years to finalise a protection matter in the ART. What was the median time, Minister, to finalise a protection matter in the IAA's jurisdiction before it was abolished? What was the median time at the end of the 2023-24 financial year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not something I've been briefed on. Obviously we've established that the IAA was abolished last year when the original ART legislation went through. I dispute the fact that you're attempting to put here as cherry-picking numbers. I've detailed some of the reasons behind that in terms of the complexity of the cases that we're dealing with now and the increase in cases as well. Those points you're making have nothing to do with the bill that is before us tonight.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, isn't it true that some of the reasons why a majority in this place voted to abolish the coalition's fast-track system, the IAA, were that it was not required to observe even minimum standards of procedural fairness; that people didn't have a right to a hearing to present their protection claims; that fast-track decisions were generally based on a paper review of only the information the department held; that most people were only allowed to provide a maximum of a five-page submission despite having voluminous materials—which they were prohibited from presenting—that in most cases they were required to provide that submission within three weeks from the date their case was referred to the fast-track system from the department, despite the fact the fast-track system often then took two years to make the decision; and that people were generally prohibited from providing new information about their protection claims to the coalition's unfair fast-track proposal, again despite the fact that this so-called fast-track system often took up to two years? Isn't it also true, Minister, that one of the reasons the fast-track process was shambolic and worked against many of its perceived efficiency benefits was that it was so riddled with legal error that, in the period from 2020 to the middle of 2024, there were over 460 fast-track decisions that were overturned by the Federal Court because of legal error? Isn't it true that these were just some of the reasons why the coalition's pretend solution of fast track was not supported by a majority of members in this chamber?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Shoebridge, for that contribution. As I said, I don't believe we're here to talk about the IAA. The fact of the matter is that the Senate voted to abolish it last year upon the establishment of the new ART, and we believe that was the correct decision.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you referred to the fact that Immigration Assessment Authority was abolished by the Senate after the Albanese Labor government introduced the relevant legislation. I note that, for the 2023-24 financial year, the median time to finalise a protection matter in the Immigration Assessment Authority's jurisdiction before it was abolished was six weeks. It took six weeks for the IAA to resolve a matter, and that was as at the end of the 2023-24 financial year. Minister, do you know what the median time was to finalise a protection matter in the IAA during the 2022-23 financial year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I haven't been briefed on the IAA and their operations, Senator Scarr, because they're not relevant to this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer is nine weeks. Let's go back further. We have all this on the record. At the end of the 2023-24 financial year, the median time for the IAA to finalise a matter was six weeks. At the end of the 2022-23 financial year, it was nine weeks. Are you aware, Minister, of what the median time or the average time to finalise a protection matter in the IAA was during the 2021-22 financial year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No. As I said, I haven't been briefed on the operations of the IAA because they're not relevant to this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In that case, for the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, if I can, I will put on the record that the answer is seven weeks. Again, that's from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal annual report. We had a six-week average in the 2023-24 financial year, a nine-week average in 2022-23, a seven-week average in 2021-23, and we now have a situation where the current median time to finalise a protection matter in the ART is 233 weeks, or more than four years. That's the state of affairs that we're facing at the moment under the ART.</para>
<para>Minister, the issue I have is this. When the coalition was in power, we set up the IAA as an independent authority of just one senior reviewer and 26 reviewers. That small team reviewed 1,077 protection cases in a single year, with a median time to finalise of just seven weeks. Under your current arrangements, the protection case load before the ART has increased massively, and the median time to finalise is now more than four years. The proof of concept is there. Did the government consider re-establishing fast-track review processes, which are obviously sorely needed? Given the blowout in processing times under the ART, did you consider re-establishing fast-track review processes either in the development of the ART legislation or in developing this amendment bill which is currently before the Senate?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not to my knowledge.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, have you been briefed on the cost to the Commonwealth of defending, just in the two years 2021-22 and 2022-23, the more than 460 IAA decisions under the coalition's unfair Fast-Track that were challenged in the Federal Court, found to be unlawful and overturned? Do you know how many endless millions of dollars of Commonwealth money were wasted defending unlawful decisions from the unfair Fast-Track proposal put forward by the coalition? As I said, in just those two years, there were more than 460 decisions of the coalition's Fast-Track IAA process found to be unlawful and overturned.</para>
<para>If you have any idea about the millions of dollars the coalition wasted on legal costs defending the indefensible, do you also know how long it took, what the median time was, for the coalition to drag those cases through the Federal Court unsuccessfully? How many years was the median time was for the coalition to defend the indefensible in the Federal Court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I mentioned earlier, I haven't been briefed on the operations of the IAA, but I accept the points you're making about the legal challenges that resulted in it. If there is further information I can provide, I will.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, there's some further information I'd be interested in having, if you are able to provide it. You made a comment in relation to my previous question. Just for the record, I'll restate the previous question. Did the government consider re-establishing a fast-track review process, which is obviously sorely needed, on the basis of the backlog, either in the development of the ART legislation or the bill currently before the Senate? That was the question I asked.</para>
<para>Minister, I respect the answer you gave. You said that you weren't aware of any such matter being considered. Can I ask you, during the course of this committee process, if you can make inquiry through the advisers who are here and the relevant minister as to whether or not there was any such consideration of the implementation of that Fast-Track review process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. That's greatly appreciated. Let's look at performance. There were 880 appeals from an IAA decision lodged in 2021 to 2022. In 159 of those matters, the matter was remitted. That means that the decision doesn't necessarily change; it's remitted back for further consideration. There were just two cases in which the decision was actually set aside. I just want to repeat those figures. Senator Shoebridge has made comments in relation to the performance of the IAA and I think it is important to get this on the record. Of 880 appeals from an IAA matter decision lodged in 2021-22, 159 of those matters were remitted—sent back for further consideration. It doesn't mean the first decision was incorrect; it just means it was sent back for further consideration. There are just two cases, out of 880 appeals in which the decision was set aside.</para>
<para>This means that, in 880 different cases, a solicitor was prepared to certify to the court that their appeal had reasonable prospects of success, but the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority was upheld by a court in over 80 per cent of those cases. In over 80 per cent of those cases coming before the IAA, the decision of the IAA was upheld by the court. Those are just the cases that solicitors chose to challenge. No doubt there were many other cases where a solicitor acting ethically, as they have to do, was not able to give that certification.</para>
<para>In case the question arises, the performance in over 80 per cent of the cases the decision of the IAA was upheld by the court, is directly comparable to the performance of the AAT during a similar period. In 2021, decisions of the AAT were overturned in 14 per cent of cases. In the same year, the IAA decision rate of overturn was 18 per cent—14 per cent, 18 per cent. It was materially consistent in terms of the rate of overturn of cases determined by the IAA as opposed to that of the AAT. In fact, it's an extraordinary testament to the quality of the decision-making of the IAA, given that it was so quick and efficient. We've talked about timeframes of six weeks, seven weeks or nine weeks. It's a testament to the quality of the decision-making of the IAA that decisions were handed down—during that period, at least—in seven weeks. I ask again, Minister: why hasn't the government considered, during the course of preparing this amendment bill—and given the huge backlog of cases—a fast-track option like the IAA?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got nothing further to add on the IAA. The legislation before us deals with some important amendments. You talked earlier about the administrative burden that's being placed on Services Australia staff, which this bill seeks to address. If you've got other questions about the IAA, I'd encourage you to put them at the appropriate time, but we should get on with passing this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're in a situation here where we're seeking to appropriately scrutinise an amendment bill. The reason we're going through this process of scrutiny is that there was inadequate scrutiny in relation to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. I previously read onto the record the issues with respect to the lack of scrutiny that were raised by the Law Council of Australia during the scrutiny process.</para>
<para>I've also previously referred to the fact that the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in relation to the ART Bill, which was originally due in early July, was brought forward at the behest of the executive by a period of approximately two months. The opposition members on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee had barely one clear day to consider the government report in relation to that bill. As I've previously put on the record, we're talking about a bill that had over 500 pages of detailed, complex sections and concepts, with explanatory material also of over 500 pages.</para>
<para>It is my desire, and certainly the opposition's desire, that we undertake an appropriate scrutiny process with respect to this amendment bill to make sure that we're not back here again in another six or 12 months trying to fix some other error. We in the opposition make no apology for the fact that we're actually engaging and implementing the scrutiny processes of the Senate to make sure there is appropriate scrutiny of this legislation. If we'd had appropriate scrutiny of the legislation in the first place, we wouldn't be in a position where we had to consider this bill, but that's where we are. We have to try to fix a bill that was rushed through a shambolic legislative process, which was heavily criticised by a number of the key stakeholders, so the opposition makes no apology for engaging the scrutiny processes of the Senate.</para>
<para>In relation to High Court decisions, Minister, Senator Shoebridge referred in his earlier contribution to the way that the amendments to sections 347 and 348 of the Migration Act responded to a High Court decision. Can I please take you back to that discussion, because I want to query whether or not that evidence is consistent with what we heard during the committee process. As I understand it, some inquiry participants raised the question of whether or not the bill related to the then recent High Court decision in Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The relevant citation is [2024] HCA 13. As I talked—with all due respect—to Senator Shoebridge, that's how I interpreted the comment which he made, and I'm sure that if in any way I'm not giving justice to his comment or contribution he'll quickly correct the record. As I understand it—and it was certainly the case during the inquiry process—there was reference to a recent High Court decision in Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. But the Attorney-General's Department, in its submission, explained that the bill did not actually respond to that decision—or it didn't link the bill to that decision. That was specifically interrogated of the Attorney-General's Department. They were referred to that decision and they were asked as to whether or not the relevant changes in the bill were being proposed because of that decision.</para>
<para>So, for the benefit of the chamber today, Minister, I'd like us to be able to clear that up for the record. Could you please explain how the measures in this bill relate to the Miller decision, or is it the case that the measures in this bill do not in any way relate to the Miller decision?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding, Senator Scarr, is that those sections have been taken out by the amendment that was passed earlier today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to run through some points about the problems we're now dealing with in this bill, which is all about fixing the case load blowouts, which I've referred to previously during the committee stage on this bill, and the backlogs that have been created through the rushed and sloppy introduction of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. I want to quickly run through these points again for the record because I think they're very important.</para>
<para>The last annual report published before the Attorney decided to abolish the AAT was the 2021-22 annual report. Minister, I've raised this during estimates on previous occasions. Before the Attorney announced that he was going to abolish the AAT, the last annual report that had been published by the AAT was for the financial year ending 30 June 2022. From my perspective, and I think from the perspective of any reasonable analysis of that report, the annual report indicated that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was working hard to either meet or exceed its benchmarks. I referred earlier in the debate to user satisfaction. That isn't just the user satisfaction of the parties appearing but also the user satisfaction of their representatives. The user satisfaction rate to 30 June 2022 was 74 per cent—above the target of 70 per cent. That is quite an extraordinary figure when you think about it, because the users we're talking about here are those everyday Australians who are seeking review of decisions that have great consequence in relation to their lives. They're decisions in relation to the NDIS, Veterans' Affairs, child support payments—all sorts of extremely important decisions that have an impact on their lives, and 74 per cent of users were actually satisfied with the performance of the AAT. The AAT outperformed its user satisfaction target of 70 per cent—so 74 per cent satisfaction against a target of 70 per cent—and it continued to outperform the target in the 2022-23 financial year. It continued to perform positively in that respect. As I recollect, the user satisfaction of practitioners who were supporting users of the system was even higher than that of the users themselves. So for those who had more experience in dealing with matters before tribunals there was an even greater user satisfaction rate. So the AAT outperformed the target for the 2021-22 year.</para>
<para>It continued to outperform the target in the 2022-23 financial year, and, in that financial year—in that same year—just 1.3 per cent of appeals were allowed from all appealable decisions from the AAT. If one were to accept the narrative of the Labor government, that figure should not have been 1.3 per cent; it should have been much higher. But only 1.3 per cent of appeals were allowed. In other words, of the cases that went to the AAT in that year, in 98.7 per cent of cases the matter was resolved in the way the AAT said it should be resolved. To me, that is not a hallmark of an institution or a tribunal that is not fit for purpose. From my perspective, it's the hallmark of an institution that is fit for purpose and is performing well.</para>
<para>Let's look at some of the other performance measures. In relation to transparency, in the financial year to 30 June 2022 the AAT exceeded its performance benchmark of 5,000 decisions published. So there was transparency with respect to the decision-making processes of the AAT. It continued to exceed those benchmarks in the 2022-23 financial year. In relation to decision-making quality, in 2021-22 the proportion of appeals allowed by the courts was below that benchmark of five per cent, and the AAT continued to meet that threshold in the 2022-23 financial year.</para>
<para>We've spoken about backlog, and we've spoken about the need for there to be efficiency. So let's look at clearance ratios. In 2021-22 the AAT fell just short of its target, due primarily to the sudden jump in post-COVID lodgements. Having been at 119 per cent clearance ratio the year before, in 2021-22 it dropped to 95 per cent in the face of a sudden surge in lodgements. The number of lodgements dropped off significantly in 2022-23, and the AAT was then back to the position of finalising more cases than were in fact lodged. So it was actually turning over more cases than were being lodged, quite opposite to what is occurring today under the ART, where the backlog is growing by thousands and thousands of cases.</para>
<para>In terms of sheer output, the number of AAT applications and referrals finalised, the AAT reached 90 per cent of its target in the year 2021-22 in terms of cases finalised. Again, this was despite continued disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic such as lockdowns and other restrictions affecting operations in various locations during the reporting year. I must say, as a member of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, that we were—at least, I was—consistently impressed by the workarounds that were adopted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, by the registry and by the members of the tribunal. They worked very very effectively during that COVID-19 period.</para>
<para>In 2022-23, after the pandemic, the output target was reduced, and the AAT met that target. We, on this side of the chamber, do not say the AAT was a perfect body, but what is? Have a look at annual reports for any government agency—any tribunal—have a look at user satisfaction rates and find me a perfect body. You won't be able to find one.</para>
<para>The timeliness of decision-making remains a concern under the ART. This is driven by a range of factors including complex legacy migration cases from many thousands of unlawful arrivals during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor years of government.</para>
<para>These are not performance measures of a body so badly underperforming that the only possible option is to wipe the slate clean and start again. I believe there was a case for appropriate amendments and reforms to be made with respect to the operation of the AAT. It was not a case where the slate needed to be wiped clean.</para>
<para>Fast forward from May 2023 to today and we have increased delays. So, Minister, I ask you again: how does this bill, which is meant to fix your rushed and sloppy legislation, specifically address any of these concerns, in particular with respect to increased delays?</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>113</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 because I wasn't able to earlier this week.</para>
<para>Under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister Ed Husic we have produced a visionary plan that underscores the significance of revitalising and strengthening our domestic manufacturing sector and, under Minister Chris Bowen, of creating a renewable energy sector that all Australians can prosper under.</para>
<para>Manufacturing has long been the backbone of economies worldwide, and Australia is no exception. It's the country that was built on the sheep's back. However, over the past few decades, and particularly under the previous Liberal government, we have seen manufacturing leaving Australian shores, leading to increased reliance on imports. This shift has not only affected our economic stability but also compromised our self-sufficiency and national security. The Future Made in Australia policy aims to reverse this trend by fostering a robust and competitive manufacturing industry that can meet the needs of present and future generations.</para>
<para>One of the key pillars of this policy is job creation. Local manufacturing is a powerful engine for employment, offering diverse opportunities across various skill levels. By investing in manufacturing, we can generate thousands of quality jobs, from research and development to production and logistics. These jobs are not only pathways to economic stability for individuals and families; they also contribute to the broader economic health of our communities.</para>
<para>Moreover, the policy emphasises the importance of innovation and advanced manufacturing technologies. In an era of rapid technological change, it's imperative that our manufacturing sector evolves to remain competitive on the global stage. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting research and development in cutting-edge fields such as renewable energy, biotechnology and advanced materials. By fostering a culture of innovation, we can ensure that Australian made products are synonymous with quality, reliability and technological prowess. But we know that those opposite allowed the running down of manufacturing in this country.</para>
<para>I want to mention a few of the great local manufacturers in my home state of Tasmania, in particular those in northern Tasmania, including ACL Bearing Company, Waverley Mills, Rio Tinto's Bell Bay Aluminium and Definium Technologies. They are all leading local manufacturers which are key to the production, prosperity and stronger economy of the Tasmanian community. We have been, and will continue to be, at the forefront. For instance, the Waverley woollen mill can actually track the wool from the farms to production and through to blankets and other products, making Tasmania very important not only from a manufacturing point of view but as a destination for our tourists. These are companies worth supporting.</para>
<para>I would also like to acknowledge and give a shout-out to the amazing historic women's health package that was announced on Sunday, which is in stark contrast to Mr Dutton's no plan for Australia. There's an historic $573 million for collective health reforms, including the first PBS listings for new oral contraceptive pills, more choice and lower cost. There's more Medicare support for women experiencing menopause, with the first PBS listing of new menopause hormone therapies in over 20 years. This is more support for endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics treating more conditions.</para>
<para>Labor backs women and women's health. Mr Dutton was voted the worst ever health minister, not by people on this side—although we agreed—but by the Australian Medical Association. Do you want to trust Mr Dutton with your health? I know Australian women have waited too long for a package like this, and they won't trust him either. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Late last year, following the firebombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne, the member for Tangney, Sam Lim, became the centre of controversy. A WhatsApp message from Mr Lim to a local community group contained comments attributed to the Prime Minister. The message read:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Netanyahu should consider that the bombing of a synagogue in Australia is likely the manifestation of a few despondent radicals who had had enough of the continued aerial bombing of thousands of innocent children and women in Gaza by his single-minded troops. Australia is a robust democracy. We do not encourage violence to those whom we do not warm to. If he continues to blame me and other world leaders, he might well be remembered in history as another hegemon who blamed everyone else for his crime against innocent civilians.</para></quote>
<para>These disgraceful, divisive and apologist remarks sparked outrage among community leaders and rightly so. The Prime Minister's Office categorically denied the quote was genuine, and Mr Lim's office later claimed the quote was fake. But that raises even more questions. Who authored the message? How was it sent under Mr Lim's name? If his phone was truly compromised, as Mr Lim has claimed, has it been reported to the Australian Federal Police and Department of Parliamentary Services? As reported by the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline>, a letter sent to Mr Lim's office by the Australian Jewish Association chief executive, Robert Gregory, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"Your explanation, first blaming someone in Brisbane and then claiming your phone was compromised, raises serious questions …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Both propositions cannot be true simultaneously. Such discrepancies demand clarification, as they erode trust in your ability to take responsibility for your own communications.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"As a Federal Member of Parliament, you have taxpayer-funded staff and resources to manage your public communications. Despite this, these hateful words have made their way into the public domain, under your name, and the consequences have been damaging.</para></quote>
<para>Even more troubling is the Prime Minister's silence. There's no explanation for how a parliamentarian's secure government issued phone was supposedly compromised. If true, this raises serious national security concerns. If false, it's an attempt by an elected representative to mislead the public. There's no action to investigate if this was a case of misinformation or deliberate disinformation. This is coming from the very same government who wants sweeping misinformation laws. But when it comes to one of their own, they don't seem to care. There's no accountability for a Labor MP spreading inflammatory and hurtful rhetoric. If the Prime Minister won't even apologise for such horrendous comments, it's clear that this government sees the Jewish community as second-class citizens. There's no leadership in addressing the Jewish community's concerns and no response to my letter asking for answers. If there's nothing to hide, why the silence?</para>
<para>At the very least, regardless of who sent the message or how it was sent, the fact remains that a deeply offensive and dangerous message was sent from Mr Lim's phone or his WhatsApp account. The right thing to do here is clear. Mr Lim and Mr Albanese must apologise. Regardless of the origin of the text—and doubts remain over the origin of these, and they should be addressed by Mr Lim's transparency—a very hurtful message was sent under his name at a time when the Jewish community and the nation as a whole were still reeling from the attack on the Adass Israel synagogue. He should have the courage to apologise for the pain caused. The Jewish community, Tangney residents and Western Australia deserve it. In any other state, this kind of dodgy behaviour by an elected official wouldn't be ignored. But this is classic Labor when it comes to Western Australia. They systemically ignore concerns, dodge accountability, promise change at election time and hope no-one notices their incompetence. This is not an isolated incident; it's a pattern. Every Western Australian representative, including from Labor, has a duty to hold the Prime Minister accountable for WA's fair treatment and for honesty and transparency in government. In Mr Lim's first speech, he said it was his dream to unite people in harmony and peace, regardless of race, language or religion. By his actions, he tells a very different story. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Greens, Antisemitism</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Three years ago, Labor was elected to government on the promise of progressive change, of leaving no-one behind and holding no-one back. But, three years later, emissions are higher, the cost of living is soaring and housing is less affordable than ever. Labor have failed to deliver on their promise, particularly to the people of Victoria.</para>
<para>In the electorate of Cooper, renters are being gouged. Some have been hit with rent hikes of $300 a month. Meanwhile, public housing in Northcote is being demolished to serve developers, not communities. In Wills, bulk-billing clinics are disappearing and GP visits now cost $89, on average. Public schools are underfunded by $30 million a year. In Coburg, rents have jumped 41 per cent. To the west of Melbourne, in the electorate of Fraser, toxic truck pollution is endangering people's health, yet Labor representatives are doing nothing. In my home electorate of Macnamara, people are struggling to keep up with their ever-increasing home insurance premiums, due to climate risks. Meanwhile, Labor continue to hand millions of taxpayer dollars to coal and gas corporations.</para>
<para>But it's not just Labor failing Victorians. The coalition continues to prioritise corporations over the needs of the people. In Casey, where the risk of bushfires grows every single year, their Liberal representative continues to vote in favour of coal and gas.</para>
<para>It's clear we cannot keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. With the election around the corner, Victoria, here is your chance for change. Vote Greens in Wills for Samantha Ratnam, in Macnamara for Sonya Semmens, in Cooper for Tara Burnett, in Fraser for Huong Truong and in Casey for Merran Blair. If you want your voice heard in parliament, you want progressive women to represent your electorate and you want Labor to be held accountable and the coalition to be kept out of government, vote Greens at the next election. Nothing changes if nothing changes.</para>
<para>In solidarity with Jewish Australians, I condemn antisemitism in the most absolute terms. The Greens are utterly appalled by rising violence towards the Jewish community. There is no place for racism in our society. Attacks on the Jewish community in recent months—on schools, childcare centres and places of worship—are a disturbing escalation to the activity of neo-Nazi and far-right groups in this country. The Adass Israel Synagogue in my home electorate of Macnamara was firebombed in December, destroying sacred Torah scrolls and injuring community members. I condemn this act of cowardice and share my sincere condolences with the Adass congregation as they continue to rebuild and recover.</para>
<para>The increasing antisemitic violence here in Australia has not occurred in a vacuum. All of us witnessed Elon Musk perform a Nazi salute at the Trump inauguration. Extreme-right populists and their divisive rhetoric have emboldened hate groups the world over. As a result, we are witnessing a rise in hate and violence against our multicultural communities. Australians deserve to feel safe, and they deserve to be safe. Antisemitism, Islamophobia and all types of racism and vilification must be condemned and opposed in unequivocal terms.</para>
<para>We are calling on the government to do more. Australians need a coordinated national strategy to combat far-right extremism and address all forms of racial and religious discrimination. The Greens fought to establish a National Anti-Racism Framework. Now the government must ensure that this body and the Race Discrimination Commissioner are fully resourced. Racism is not a partisan issue. It is a threat to the integrity of our nation, and we must all work together to address it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tasmania is well known for its beautiful wilderness, friendly people and world-class agricultural products. Our whiskey and wine consistently receive global accolades, keeping pace with the best from Scotland and France, and our internationally recognised wagyu beef is on the menu at many high-end restaurants. Our cherries and crayfish are sought-after products, especially for international events like the recent celebration of the Chinese New Year, and our cheese and dairy products are consistently awarded fine food awards as among the best in Australia.</para>
<para>Tasmania's farmers have had the good fortune of living and working in areas that have abundant resources that make most of the state ideal for agriculture like good soil, moderate weather conditions and availability of water, but more recently our farmers have experienced drought, flood, famine and fires with more regular frequency than ever before. To secure our food bowl for generations to come and support our farmers with the tools they need to thrive, now is the time to act. This is why I was proud to join Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton and Liberal Lyons candidate Susie Bower in southern Lyons last November for their announcement that a coalition government would fund $150 million for the Greater South East Irrigation Scheme.</para>
<para>Tasmania is home to 13 irrigation schemes that have been developed through a tried-and-true strategy of a public-private partnership between the Commonwealth government, the Tasmanian Liberal government, Tasmanian Irrigation and local farmers. As a senator for Tasmania, I have been pleased to witness the progress of several of these initiatives including Scottsdale, Sassafras Wesley Vale and Don, all of which were proudly supported by coalition governments. Unfortunately, the latest tranche has not received the same support from the Albanese Labor government, who failed to provide critical funding for the Greater South East Irrigation Scheme in the 2024-25 budget. It marked a milestone for the Commonwealth as the first Tasmanian scheme to be denied funding after its business case was lodged, a business case that was modelled on the previous 12 schemes before it.</para>
<para>The Greater South East Irrigation Scheme is the largest proposed scheme and will augment three existing schemes into one to provide reliable and affordable water for more than 250 farmers. It will support up to 300 full-time jobs and enable on-farm investment of $120 million during construction, increasing to $183 million with water entitlements. For the Labor member for Lyons to say he was blindsided by this project's absence from the budget demonstrates a complete disregard for the needs of farmers in our community. It was also telling that within 48 hours of the opposition leader making the announcement Prime Minister Albanese was in Tasmania announcing matching funding for the Greater South East Irrigation Scheme, accompanied by his celebrity candidate Rebecca White—the same Ms White who was, during the critical stage of the development of the business case, the Tasmanian opposition leader. This is the same Ms White who had ample opportunity to pick up the phone and advocate to her federal Labor colleagues for this project when it did not receive funding in the budget but failed to do so.</para>
<para>In complete contrast, Lyons Liberal candidate Susie Bower's advocacy has resulted in bipartisan funding for this critical project. Ms Bower travelled to Canberra privately to seek an audience with shadow water minister Perin Davey to advocate and secure funding for this vital project for farmers in southern Lyons. These communities, which include Gretna, the Jordan River Valley, Brighton, Richmond, Dulcot, Cambridge, Colebrook, Campania, Tea Tree, Orielton, Pawleena, Penna, Sorell, Forcett, Elderslie and Broadmarsh, now have surety thanks to Susie Bower that this irrigation project will proceed.</para>
<para>This federal election, these farmers and other people across Tasmania and Australia will have a choice: another three years of ignorance and apathy from Labor towards our regional communities or a coalition government that will restore our standard of living, reinvigorate our regions and get Australia back on track.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>St John Ambulance</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McLACHLAN</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'For the faith and in the service of humanity' is the call to action for every brother and sister of St John Ambulance across the world. As a volunteer myself, I know firsthand that the mission of St John is one founded on love which drives our compassion and in turn our commitment to assist those in need. As the sun sets on the 47th parliament, I wish to express my thanks to all the volunteers of St John that have supported the Parliamentary Friendship Group. The co-chair, Senator Brown, and I and every parliamentary member greatly appreciate the support everyone has provided us. We especially appreciate the enthusiasm of the St John community in their engagement with the parliament.</para>
<para>St John Ambulance is blessed with exceptional leadership. I wish to particularly extend my thanks to the lord prior, Mark Compton, who leads us globally. It is fantastic that we have an Australian at the head of our organisation. On the home front, I extend my appreciation to the chancellor, Cameron Oxley, and national CEO Brendan Maher.</para>
<para>St John's impact is global. There are three leaders I wish to pay special tribute to. The first is Dr Ahmad Ma'ali, the CEO of the St John Eye Hospital, headquartered in Jerusalem, which provides health care to the West Bank and Gaza. I acknowledge his incredible leadership throughout the conflict in Gaza. His resolve, and that of the hospital staff, to continue to provide care to those in need, in the most desperate of circumstances and in spite of adversity, remains undiminished. The hospital is doing incredible work in the finest traditions of the venerable order. My thoughts and prayers are with all my St John sisters and brothers in the Middle East. You are never far from my thoughts.</para>
<para>Closer to home, St John Ambulance provides tremendous support to its sisters and brothers in the Pacific. I wish to acknowledge two exceptional Australians who are leading incredible endeavours in the Pacific. The first is the chief executive officer of St John Ambulance in the Solomon Islands, Michael Andrews. St John provides Solomon Islands' primary emergency ambulance services. Michael's vision has ensured that health care is no longer limited to the capital but now reaches out to the islands. With the assistance of St John Ambulance Australia and the Australian government, St John opened a new headquarters at Point Cruz late last year. This vital facility will improve the coverage of the ambulance service and facilitate the training of a volunteer network of first responders across the islands.</para>
<para>The second great Australian serving the Pacific is Matt Cannon, the chief executive of St John in Papua New Guinea. PNG St John provides the nation's primary emergency ambulance service as well as pre-hospital care, air ambulance services and disaster relief. Matt's leadership has been instrumental in providing vital emergency services to the remote regions of PNG, where geographical challenges often make access to health care incredibly difficult. Thanks to Matt's efforts, St John has strengthened its capacity to respond, especially in times of crisis—including a rapid deployment of Australian health professionals when needed.</para>
<para>On behalf of all the members of the friendship group, I thank these leaders and every volunteer of St John across the nation. Thank you for your dedication and service.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The state of our healthcare system in Western Australia and across the country is dire. So many are going without the healthcare supports that they need, and so many healthcare workers are being pushed to the brink and burning out. GP services and mental health services have become unaffordable and inaccessible. Emergency rooms are overwhelmed and understaffed, and vital sections of health care, like dental, aren't even covered under Medicare at all.</para>
<para>Half a million people across our community live in so-called GP deserts—areas which are so lacking in GP services that people in the community literally cannot get the healthcare supports that they need, whether they can afford them or not. My home state of WA has more GP deserts than any other state or territory. East Pilbara, West Pilbara, Kimberley, Esperance—they are among these communities. Now, they aren't just statistics. This is real for people; it has real effects on their lives. People in these areas are unable to access services like regular check-ups, screenings and seeing specialists when they need them. Western Australians living in GP deserts tend to have much worse health outcomes. People living in these areas in my state, areas where you just cannot get those GP services, are 1½ times more likely to die from preventable causes like infections and heart disease.</para>
<para>Medical services in these areas also tend to be some of the most expensive. East Pilbara, for example, has the second-highest average of out-of-pocket cost per GP visit, with patients paying on average over $60. This means that, even if you are able to find a doctor, you have to pay them more for the same services. This isn't just a problem in the regions, either. A report by Cleanbill showed that an adult without a concession would not be able to find a bulk-billing GP in 10 per cent of our electorates, including the federal division of Swan. Also in WA, the electorate of Burt experienced the greatest decrease in bulk-billing rates, going from 61 per cent in 2022-23 to 6.5 per cent in 2024-25. It is no wonder, then, that so many people aren't seeking medical support until it is an emergency. This then has a knock-on effect. Staff desperately trying to make things work in emergency rooms become overwhelmed, and our frontline medical staff all across the country struggle against the reality of being not only underresourced but also chronically underpaid.</para>
<para>This is one of the biggest challenges we are facing as a community in WA. It is also why I am so proud to be part of a movement that is focusing on listening to the community and on taking action. Over the past month, the Greens have announced plans that would see billions invested into our public hospitals, cutting wait times and ensuring high-quality health care is available to all Australians. We have announced a plan that would see access to free GP appointments greatly expanded by the opening of over 1,000 free local healthcare clinics where people can access GPs, dentists, psychologists and nurse practitioners. We want to see Medicare not just defended but fully expanded to cover dental and mental health care. It is ridiculous in 2025 that these are not considered areas of primary health care.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Schools</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's school funding war is continuing to wreak havoc. More than half of Australia's public schools are without additional funding, with the Prime Minister failing to secure funding agreements with New South Wales and Queensland public schools. This is a disgrace. This is an effective multibillion-dollar funding cut over 10 years. This is despite the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, setting a deadline of September last year to have these agreements signed with all states and territories. And now even the New South Wales Labor government has called out the Prime Minister for not showing the leadership needed to lock in a long-term school funding agreement. In an interview on Sky News on Sunday, Minister Prue Car said, 'We need you to come to the table because our kids are behind the starting block to begin with.'</para>
<para>This lack of leadership from the Prime Minister and the education minister on school funding is an absolute disgrace, and it's compounded by the fact that the education minister has not met with state and territory education ministers since April 2024. Ordinarily, education ministers meet every quarter, and so that goes to show that there has been a significant deterioration in relationships between state, territory and Commonwealth education ministers. It's no wonder that state Labor education ministers came to Canberra last year to protest against the Albanese government, with the Victorian education minister Ben Carroll declaring, 'When the coalition was in government, they did a better job funding public schools than the Albanese government.' Now, I do acknowledge, of course, that a deal has now been concluded with Victoria, but we sought and have obtained an order for all of the draft agreements of these school funding deals, and they have not been disclosed. Why is the minister keeping these agreements, including the renegotiation of these agreements, a secret? What other secret deals are being done behind closed doors?</para>
<para>The Australian people deserve full transparency when it comes to what is going on not just with the dollars being spent, not just about why not why more than half of all Australian public school students have been deserted by this government—we're talking more than 1.3 million students. What has happened to the reforms that the government promised? It is critical to get back to basics in the classroom. It is critical to focus on the fundamentals. That is the coalition's mission: explicit instruction in every classroom, the teaching of phonics and evidence based teaching methods. It is really concerning that the draft agreements that we have seen in the heads of agreement that has been concluded—and who knows what's going to happen now, because there's a non-discrimination clause, so they could be further changed. But it is very concerning that the requirement on the states and territories is so light on. It's so weak and it does reflect a real weakness of leadership by this government.</para>
<para>The government should be requiring explicit instruction in every classroom because the fact of the matter is that one in three children in this country is failing to meet minimum levels of proficiency in numeracy and literacy. We are going backwards, and that decline has accelerated under this government, particularly when you look at the attendance rates. Two decades ago, the average year 10 student was one year ahead in his or her learning compared to now.</para>
<para>So this is urgent. We do have a real crisis in classrooms across this country. Unlike the former coalition government, which nearly doubled annual school funding from $13 billion in 2013 to $25.3 billion in 2022 despite the untruths being told by the Albanese government in relation to the coalition's record—we want to see this government get on with it. Most importantly, we demand to see the school reforms that are so critical to ensuring that every young Australian can achieve his or her best potential in the classroom no matter where they learn in this great country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the 47th Parliament draws to a close, I wanted to take the opportunity this evening to reflect on the important but often understated work of the Joint Standing Committee on the Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, whose final report for this parliament was tabled a little time ago. The committee has been crucial in overseeing the performance of the National Redress Scheme, ensuring it provides justice and support to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. From the start, our role has been to identify ways to improve the scheme's accessibility and fairness to make the best possible experience out of what is often an incredibly confronting one. As chair and now deputy chair, I have seen firsthand the commitment of its members, who work tirelessly to listen to survivors, advocate for their needs and push for reform. Their dedication has been instrumental in identifying areas that work well and those that require improvement.</para>
<para>Established in 2019, the committee comprises eight members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, ensuring a diversity of perspectives. Our mission has always been clear: scrutinise the scheme, gather feedback from survivors and stakeholders and make recommendations on how to better serve those affected by institutional abuse. Over the years, we gathered information from a very wide range of sources. Written submissions from survivors, legal experts, support organisations and academics have provided invaluable insights into the scheme's strengths and shortcomings. Public hearings across the country offered a platform for survivors and advocates to share their experiences directly with the committee. These testimonies were delivered with great courage and, while often confronting, were very necessary. They revealed the very real challenges faced by those seeking redress.</para>
<para>Throughout this process, it has been clear that the work of organisations on the ground remains indispensable. One such organisation is Fremantle based Tuart Place, which provides vital counselling and support services to Western Australians who experienced out-of-home care during childhood. Now its patron, I've seen again and again its positive impact on survivors' lives and its unwavering commitment to supporting those who need it the most. The National Redress Scheme relies on organisations like Tuart Place—and there are many—to ensure survivors have the assistance they need as they navigate the process of healing and recovery.</para>
<para>In order to improve the administrative process, the committee focused its recent inquiry on several key and important areas: simplifying the application process to reduce stress and trauma for survivors; ensuring decisions by independent decision-makers are consistent, transparent and fair; expanding access to counselling and support services for survivors; and addressing the unique challenges faced by Australia's First Nations communities and ensuring culturally safe and appropriate support.</para>
<para>The National Redress Scheme, despite its flaws, has provided an avenue for many survivors. It has acknowledged past wrongs, offered financial compensation and provided access to counselling and psychological services. The direct personal response component has allowed some survivors to seek an apology or explanation directly from the institutions responsible for their abuse. These measures, of course, will never be perfect, but they have validated survivors' experiences and helped many step towards recovery.</para>
<para>However, our work as a committee has also uncovered significant shortcomings in the scheme that must be addressed. The most glaring is probably the inequity in accessing the scheme for First Nations survivors, who continue to encounter major barriers. Many, especially in areas like remote Western Australia, remain unaware of the scheme and how to access it. The application process doesn't sufficiently account for cultural practices, forcing survivors to recount trauma in ways that can be retraumatising. Discrimination over generations has also fostered mistrust of government institutions, deterring many from seeking redress in the first place. Additionally, there is a severe lack of culturally appropriate services, leaving survivors without the tailored support they need and deserve.</para>
<para>To address these issues, the committee has made several recommendations in its most recent report. We've proposed establishing a First Nations advisory panel comprised of community leaders and cultural experts which would guide improvements in cultural safety and accessibility. We also recommended targeted education campaigns for First Nations communities, to raise awareness about the scheme and the possibilities that it offers. Furthermore, we've called for the expansion of culturally safe support services, ensuring Aboriginal controlled organisations are properly resourced to provide trauma informed assistance. Access to services must be improved in regional and remote areas to ensure support for all survivors. Finally, we advocate culturally aware legal advice. Failing to address these inequities risks undermining the scheme's goals, as well as denying people the redress they very deservedly should have.</para>
<para>Beyond these issues faced by First Nations survivors, we identified other weak points worthy of improvement. The application process, while improved in recent years, is still too complex for many survivors. We've recommended further simplification and the introduction of alternative application methods, such as video submissions, to accommodate different preferences. Inconsistent decisions by independent decision-makers have also been a persistent issue, creating frustration, confusion and unfairness. We've called for better training of IDMs and stronger quality assurance measures to ensure decisions are fair and reliable, because survivors deserve clarity and confidence in the redress system.</para>
<para>Equally concerning are the recalcitrant institutions that continue to refuse to participate in the scheme. As of this year, a small number of organisations named in the royal commission have yet to join, delaying or even denying justice for survivors. This is unacceptable. The committee has urged the government to take stronger action, including legislative changes if necessary, to compel these institutions to meet their obligations.</para>
<para>As the scheme approaches its scheduled closure in June 2028, there's a pressing need to evaluate its impact and consider whether extensions or modifications are required and justified. Survivors must have sufficient time and support to access redress, and the government must remain flexible in responding to their needs. Beyond the scheme's closure, a long-term strategy is needed to ensure survivors continue to receive the support they need and deserve. This may include ongoing counselling services, public awareness campaigns and absolutely critical initiatives aimed at preventing future abuse. The work of the joint standing committee has been pivotal in highlighting both the successes and the failings of the National Redress Scheme. As the committee winds up its work in this parliament, the responsibility now lies with the government, and the next government, to act on these findings and implement the changes that are needed without delay.</para>
<para>I'd like to take a moment to thank my fellow committee members for their dedication and cooperation. They have approached these issues with the utmost diligence, courtesy, respect and professionalism. I would like to particularly acknowledge the chair of the committee in this parliament, my colleague Senator Catryna Bilyk, for her leadership, commitment and unswerving pursuit of justice and for her work in ensuring the voices of survivors have always been heard in this, the 47th Parliament. This has truly been a team effort, and each member has played an invaluable role. I'm sure we can all thank them for it.</para>
<para>Finally, to the survivors: as I noted, they displayed remarkable bravery throughout this process. I acknowledge your experiences, and I thank you for your contributions, as we all thank you for the constant courage you display in every day of living your lives. We appreciate your support and your courage. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Atlas Network</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right now, many good Australians who care about our planet, tackling climate change, healthy democracies and solving economic inequality are feeling increasingly anxious, fearful and cynical about politics. Confused, they have watched shocking recent developments with the election of the Trump administration. Their fears are increasingly mirrored here in our own divided polity. So many people I talk to tell me they are feeling increasingly helpless, caught up and swept away by it all. It is akin to swimming in a political riptide. It's overwhelming. Yale University's Professor Snyder has called the first weeks of the Trump administration a coup, and we should understand it as precisely that. It is a far-right-wing, fossil fascist coup against the democratic and constitutional order of the United States. It has very closely followed a preplanned strategy published and announced by shady, long-established and well-funded third-party interests and organisations. Many people are wondering why democracy seems so broken today. Why do we now have a government for elites, billionaires, oligarchs and big corporations? How did it get to this, and what happens now?</para>
<para>Tonight I wish to shine a light on and warn the Australian people of the international Atlas Network, a little-known but powerful global network of political actors operating in Australia, the United States, New Zealand and, indeed, 100 other countries. It is producing disinformation on a vast scale through its 580 partner organisations and working to infiltrate and take key roles in public institutions to achieve discipline and control over government policy, legislation, the media, the courts and the public service. It is a many-headed hydra, constantly changing its shape. Its tentacles firmly clutch Australia.</para>
<para>The forces at work creating this torrent of divisive, dishonest and dangerous politics are indeed deep, dangerous and murky, and you won't see them by looking at the surface. Staying afloat against such a toxic tide firstly requires a much better understanding of the forces shaping these dangerous undercurrents and where they want to lead us. We need to see with clear eyes what we are truly up against. The election and brazen madness of this Trump administration and the ascension of Mr Dutton in the polls didn't happen overnight. This happened over many, many decades. Let me explain. As was once declared on the website of the US based Atlas Network, the Australian Atlas partners include the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, the Centre for Independent Studies, the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance in Sydney, the Australian Institute for Progress in Brisbane—which, in the last Queensland election, was funded directly by coal mining—and the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation in Perth, which trains interns for so-called scholarships working on political campaigns all around the world. We all remember the cynical and dishonest recent campaign against the Voice to Parliament in Australia. Professor Marcia Langton recently described this campaign as 'vicious disinformation'. Evidence is emerging of the role played by third-party think tanks in this travesty, all affiliated with the Atlas Network, such as the Institute of Public Affairs, the Centre for Independent Studies, fossil fuel interests and, of course, the astroturfing group Advance.</para>
<para>Astroturfing is the intentional creation and fostering of ostensibly grassroots political action groups by strategic communications experts. The far right uses this tactic to build superficial authenticity in what are in fact highly elaborate, professional, socially and environmentally damaging PR and disinformation campaigns. Advance launders far-right ideology through fake grassroots organisations and Facebook pages, and Advance has no problems using its resources and millionaires' money to sow division and doubt. We saw this firsthand during the Voice; we are seeing it manifesting itself in many other ways now. Many Australians don't know it, but this Voice campaign wasn't led by Peter Dutton; the Voice campaign was led by two individuals who had their entire political careers generated from the Australian arm of the global Atlas Network of so-called free market think tanks and their spin-off campaign units.</para>
<para>Little information or media attention was ever provided to the Australian people or voters on the organisation Advance—who they were, who they represented and who was paying for it. To better understand Advance, we need to understand where Advance comes from. We need to understand who is behind Advance's mission to destroy climate action, stop progressive social policy and line the pockets of billionaires and multinational fossil fuel corporations at the expense of working Australians. Advance was spun out of two existing Atlas think tanks in Australia: the Centre for Independent Studies and the Institute of Public Affairs. Its donors include Sam Kennard, a multimillionaire on the board of the Centre for Independent Studies, Simon Fenwick, another multimillionaire on the board of the Institute of Public Affairs, Brian Macfie, a life member of the institute of Public Affairs, and a coal baron made rich by the privatisation of New South Wales coal assets, Trevor St Baker.</para>
<para>Advance campaigns pretending that it represents ordinary Australians rather than a small handful of multimillionaires and coal barons funding its work through Atlas think tanks in Australia. Advance claims to be financed and powered by grassroots donations, but AEC donation data shows this is far from the case. Some of the wealthiest Australians are recorded as Advance backers, having funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars through shady holding companies to fund Advance's campaigns to destroy climate action, defeat progressive social policy and stop First Nations justice. The ultimate goal of the Advance campaign was sabotaging the Voice referendum, as Warren Mundine candidly told us all on the website for the Centre of Independent Studies. It was to prevent traditional owners from speaking against the seemingly unstoppable rash of new coal and gas project approvals. Projects they'd approve would destroy country at the site of extraction and through ever-escalating, catastrophic climate change. Advance has let it be known that its purpose in sabotaging the Voice referendum was to roll out an all-out assault on the accelerating clean energy rollout.</para>
<para>Flush with half-a-million dollars from the Liberal Party's Cormack Foundation and another 14 million bucks from unknown sources, propaganda vehicle Advance is now spending huge sums critically attacking the Greens, attacking Labor, attacking climate, attacking integrity and independence and attacking moderates inside the Liberal Party and National parties—anyone with the courage, integrity and loyalty to this country to defend our common interests against global fossil fuel multinationals. Advance and a proliferation of other dodgy groups have campaigned against offshore wind farms, supposedly saying they kill whales, an entirely false claim that has been at the centre of exactly the same campaign against clean energy mounted by—guess who?—Atlas units in the United States like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which is funded by fossil fuel interests and climate denial specialists the Heartland Institute, which is, once again, funded by big oil.</para>
<para>This is particularly acute and relevant to us now, and I ask people who are interested in this subject to go onto the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee's public page for its inquiry into offshore wind, where there is some very telling evidence from Dr Jeremy Walker about how this all works and the extraordinary efforts and resources that have been committed in the United States and here in Australia to undermine the offshore rollout of wind and other renewable energies. The entire pro-nuclear campaign that is now dominating the headlines is also linked to Advance and to the Atlas Network.</para>
<para>I want to talk a little bit more about the news today. It was reported that Advance is now under investigation by the Victorian Electoral Commission for potential violations of campaign finance law after receiving half a million dollars from the Cormack Foundation, the same funding entity that donated a million dollars to the Victorian Liberal Party in 2023-24. The elite billionaire rich-listers backing Advance play as dirty as the coal they so desperately want to keep digging out of the ground. These people have no interest in progressing policy that would materially benefit working Australians, bring down the cost of living or make people's lives easier. Advance is not a mainstream voice for Australians; it is a Liberal Party aligned campaign group funded by coal barons and multimillionaire investment managers. It is using the divisive language and campaign strategies perfected by conservative American think tanks to do the Liberal Party's dirty work. Have no doubt: Advance wants to turn Australia into America. Is that what we want?</para>
<para>Advance are terrified because analysts are predicting a shared-power parliamentary arrangement after the next election, where the Greens will push to put dental and mental health into Medicare, build more affordable homes and stop new coal and gas projects paid for by Advance's billionaire donors. This election, the Greens are within reach of winning seats across the country, and Advance are desperately trying to stop that. We wear that as a badge of honour. But we know that, when the Atlas Network and Advance's mask is ripped off, people will see right through them and their wealthy elites and the way the LNP couples themselves to them and their donors.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an extraordinary spray that was! My goodness. I've just gone onto the website of Atlas Network, and this is their vision; I'll quote it for the record:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Atlas Network vision is of a free, prosperous, and peaceful world where the principles of individual liberty, property rights, limited government, and free markets are secured by the rule of law.</para></quote>
<para>What an outrageous proposition, Senator Whish-Wilson! As part of the general blurb you gave there, can I just say to my friends at the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies: what you're doing must be working. It must be working if you have a Greens senator getting up in this place and giving you such a spray. Keep doing what you're doing. When the people of Australia go to vote at the next federal election, they have every right to know the detail of the radical, extreme Greens' economic and social policies, because they'd have a devastating impact upon the Australian people. So more strength to your arm, I say.</para>
<para>Last week I stood up for the people of the Somerset Region and I called for an additional $20 million of federal funding for the Brisbane Valley Highway, and it appears as if I've inserted a stick into a hornet's nest. I want to be very, very clear: I am calling for an additional $20 million of federal government funding for the Brisbane Valley Highway. On 5 September 2024, Somerset Regional Council put out an announcement in which they called upon the state government to invest $84 million over the next four years to fix the notorious Brisbane Valley Highway. I want to quote from that press release from the mayor, Councillor Wendt. This is what he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Somerset is economically dependent on the Brisbane Valley Highway, a majority one-star safety-rated road that carries up to 11,000 vehicles per day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The condition of this highway is deplorable.</para></quote>
<para>I said in this place last week that I personally travelled the highway during a rainy day and felt quite vulnerable and very uncomfortable at certain sections of the highway. It needs to be fixed, and I call for an extra $20 million of funding.</para>
<para>When I call for an extra $20 million of funding, I'm referring to matching the additional $20 million of funding that was secured with the election of an LNP Queensland government. In that context, I tip my hat to the member for Nanango, Deb Frecklington, MP and the member for Lockyer, Jim McDonald, MP, who secured that extra $20 million of funding from the Queensland government. After that election, on 1 November 2024, the Somerset Regional Council said in their press release:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We recognise and appreciate the promise from the LNP to commit a further $20 million towards fixing the Brisbane Valley Highway and welcome this funding with a hope of more funding as time progresses, Cr Wendt said.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have already secured $40 m through the SEQ City Deal to fix this notorious highway and this additional $20m will be very welcome.</para></quote>
<para>In the next budget, I am calling for the Albanese Labor government to commit to match that additional amount of $20 million. Match it. Match the additional $20 million. I'm not talking about past funding under the SEQ City Deal, I'm talking about matching the additional $20 million of funding which the LNP state government put on the record and is committed to. Somerset Regional Council has said they need $84 million invested into this highway over the next four years, and we're only going to approximate that figure if the federal government matches the additional $20 million of funding which the LNP state government has promised. That's what I'm calling upon the federal Labor government to do.</para>
<para>Don't go to your drawer and picked out past pledges and commitments et cetera. Match the additional funding. Give them an extra $20 million to the council to invest in the Brisbane Valley Highway and fix that deplorable road. The people of the Somerset region are good people. They deserve for the Brisbane Valley Highway to be fixed. Fix this road.</para>
<para>On 27 January 2025, <inline font-style="italic">the Courier Mail</inline> published a story which revealed that Infrastructure Australia had written to the Queensland government with a proposed amendment to its infrastructure priority list. What did this proposed amendment to the infrastructure priority list indicate? It indicated that a number of projects absolutely integral to the development of the Ipswich region, in which my office is located, were to be cut from the infrastructure priority list. It included the Cunningham Highway upgrades between Warwick Road at Yamanto and Ebenezer Creek—I'll say more about that in a moment—the Ipswich city centre cross river project, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade between Rocklea and Darra and the Ipswich to Springfield Centenary Highway upgrades. These are all major infrastructure projects which the people of Ipswich deserve their fair share of, and they need these projects built as a priority, to accommodate the increase in population.</para>
<para>The Queensland government wrote to Infrastructure Australia and said this: 'As you know, Queensland is the most decentralised mainland state, the most disaster-impacted state and has the fastest growing population out of all Australian states. These factors mean significant infrastructure investment is required to meet the needs of our growing state, to connect and service our regional communities. Australian government investment will be critical to achieving these outcomes.'</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia said: 'Infrastructure Australia is currently consulting on its infrastructure priority list and has worked closely with states and territories throughout this process,' et cetera. Well, I say that the people of Ipswich deserve their fair share of infrastructure. The people of Ipswich are sick and tired of infrastructure spending going down to Melbourne, Victoria and New South Wales. The people of Ipswich are being asked to accommodate huge population growth, but they are not being provided with the infrastructure spending to accommodate that growth.</para>
<para>I salute Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding, who said in relation to the removal of these key projects from the draft infrastructure priority list, 'This is an incredible ask of council and our community—one made even harder without the support of the Australian government.' I salute the mayor for standing up for Ipswich and I say to the people of Ipswich: I'm looking here at a photo which was taken at 9.11 am, 12 May 2018. It shows Scotty Buchholz MP. It shows the then deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack; the now Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud MP; my friend and colleague Senator Stoker, who now serves in the Queensland parliament; and John Krause MP, the member for Scenic Rim. This photo was taken in 2018, and it's showing that the then coalition government put $170 million on the table back in 2018 to fix the Amberley interchange.</para>
<para>I ask the people of Ipswich: has the Amberley interchange been fixed? A coalition government put the money on the table. The people of Ipswich have had a Labor MP since 2007. For 14 out of the last 18 years, there's been a Labor state government. The coalition government put $170 million on the table back in 2018 to fix the Amberley interchange. Has it been fixed? No, it hasn't been fixed, just as the Mount Crosby interchange hasn't been fixed, just as the Brisbane Valley Highway hasn't been fixed. All of these infrastructure projects of key priority to the people of Ipswich and the people of the Somerset region have not been fixed.</para>
<para>The people of Ipswich and the people of Somerset have had a Labor MP since 2007. It might be time that they exercised their right at the next election to elect Mr Carl Mutzelberg as their newly elected LNP member and see if Carl can deliver the projects the sitting member has not.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pauline Hanson's One Nation</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone asked, 'Why can't conservatives all get on with each other?' The last few days remind me of these nine simple words made meaningless due to the actions of the very parties calling for conservative unity. These events remind us social media is often used as a form of coercive control through lies. It need not be. Social media can instead inform, inspire and save lives through the ability of social media to offer a community to those who feel life doesn't care about them—Australians who feel abandoned, vulnerable, alone. These may be divorced men, detransitioners, traditional wives, farming families, vaccine injured and so many others being abandoned in the rush to a woke society that degenerates with each day.</para>
<para>I'm concerned that social media may be the baby thrown out with the bathwater unless reason and self-control return to public discourse. Encouraging blatantly false statements for political objectives is disgraceful. After personally pointing out the lie, leaving false posts in public shows it's wilful. I ask those in this debate to consider Proverbs 15:4. 'Gentle words are a tree of life; however, a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.' We have an obligation to lead through example to inspire the best outcomes possible, and I will remain focused on doing exactly that.</para>
<para>One Nation understands that, while human rights are immutable, these are always tempered with common sense. As the saying goes, 'Just because one can does not mean one should.' This is the essence of conservatism: to consider we are part of a community composed of other human beings, who we have an obligation to treat with honesty, respect, courtesy and consideration not because the government makes us but because it is the conservative way. As a conservative party, One Nation stands opposed to any restriction on free speech—except one. Free speech stops where incitement to violence starts. That has been my position since coming into the Senate and it remains my position. It matters not who the parties are; violence has no place in a civil society, no place in a conservative society and no place in social media. I want to pay my compliments and extend my appreciation to Senator Babet, John Ruddick and Topher Field, who have in the last few days demonstrated decency, leadership and honesty.</para>
<para>I thank them for that. Representing the state of Queensland in this Senate is a rare honour shared with only 107 other Queenslanders since Federation. I am proud to be contributing to Queensland and to Australia. I am proud that, in seven years in the Senate, I've only missed one day of sitting, and that was spent in hospital. I am proud of how I have decided my vote on the 378 bills that have come before the Senate in that time. Positions are decided on the basis of data and empirical evidence and on the basis of what is best for our beautiful country, and I will continue to do so. You may not agree with every position I've taken. Then again, if votes were cast only for politicians with whom one is in perfect agreement, no-one would be elected.</para>
<para>I am proud of the work One Nation has advanced in the last six years. This includes, amongst many other things, wage justice for casuals in the coalmining industry. My bill shamed the Labor government into passing their own bill after years of delay, yet the Labor bill deliberately hid and failed to recover more than $5 billion stolen over the years from casual workers. This is something we're remedying. It also includes a bill to down-schedule medicinal cannabis so that every Australian with a medical need can access natural Australian whole-plant medicinal cannabis on prescription available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.</para>
<para>Our work also includes defeating and removing the cash ban bill, and defeating the misinformation and disinformation laws. Such laws will never work, since one person's misinformation is another person's missing information. It includes tabling legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of vaccine status, a bill to which we will return in the next parliament, as well as securing a committee inquiry into terms of reference for a royal commission into the COVID pandemic. I promise to hound down those responsible, and I will honour that promise. It also includes a bill to end child labour in the supply chain of products imported into Australia; blocking the Morrison government's so-called ensuring integrity bill, which unfairly targeted unions; and campaigning for and securing a dairy industry code of conduct.</para>
<para>Senator Hanson's personal representation resulted in the addition of Zolgensma, a drug to treat spinal muscular dystrophy and atrophy in children, to the PBS. Senator Hanson secured an inquiry into family law and the family court, which resulted in substantial improvements to the family law system. One Nation secured $500 million for regional road construction projects in Queensland, as well as Rockhampton stadium, Ipswich raceway, Yeppoon Aquatic Centre, $5 million for a driver training centre in Townsville and $12 million for community radio. We campaigned successfully on two occasions to extend community television licences. We are also leading the pushback against child mutilation as a so-called treatment for gender dysphoria.</para>
<para>This is just a sample of our work, much of it having a successful outcome after working with the government of the day. I look forward to continuing my work in the 48th parliament, if voters so choose, as a senator for Queensland—a senator with One Nation, a party with a leader who has fought tirelessly for the rights of everyday Australians at tremendous personal cost. So-called Liberal Party conservatives colluded with senior Labor Party members to send Pauline Hanson to jail on trumped-up corruption charges to shut her up—she was released on appeal—charges for which her protagonist Tony Abbott has now apologised. Pauline Hanson was Australia's first political prisoner, and here she is now, after 28 years, still casting a formidable shadow over those who advance themselves as alternatives.</para>
<para>I look forward to engaging the libertarians, the United Australia Party, the Liberals and Nationals, the Greens and the teals in a battle of ideas, and may the best team win. The preferences of our voters will, of course, go wherever each of our voters place them on their individual ballot papers. In a federal election, parties do not allocate preferences, voters do—for whoever you want. Personally, I will be preferencing third parties ahead of the majors, with the Greens and teals last, of course.</para>
<para>In the last few weeks I have set out One Nation's plan to put more money back in the pockets of all Australians while restoring wealth and opportunity for all. This is our entry in the battle of ideas. It's clearly gone over well, because our political rivals have panicked and have engaged in a classic straw-man play for almost a week. 'Don't look at this amazing plan to restore wealth and opportunity to this beautiful country,' they say. 'Instead, look over here at outrage confected with a bill that was decided before it came to the Senate in a Liberal, Labor, Greens and teals party stitch up.' I have yet to see any criticism of those parties that actually voted for the bill, because this isn't about the bill; it's about the outrage and the distraction. I'm pleased to see that so many of our supporters saw straight through it, as did our new members. In the last week, One Nation membership has risen. Thank you.</para>
<para>So what is One Nation's election platform that has our competition running scared? Let us go over what we've released so far, and can I say that the best is yet to come. One Nation's election platform starts with allowing Australians to keep an extra $40 billion of their money. This includes these costed policies: joint tax returns for couples with one child and one wage earner on the average wage, saving them as much as $9,500; a reduction in electricity prices of 20 per cent immediately and more than 50 per cent in the longer term once new zero-emission coal plants come online; a 26c a litre reduction in the fuel excise; cuts to the alcohol excise, to be announced shortly; allowing pensioners who meet the assets test to earn an income without losing the pension, adding as many as 600,000 experienced, motivated and dedicated older Australians to the workforce; allowing self-funded retirees to earn more before paying tax to encourage further self-funding of retirement. One Nation's basic policy here is simple: less welfare and more wealth. Other policies include ending mass migration to take the pressure off inflation, especially in housing, and deporting 75,000 illegal immigrants; and removing GST on building products for five years and eliminating the NDIS building code and the six-star energy code as a requirement for new homes, saving as much as $75,000 on the construction cost of a new home. The truth about these building codes is that, in an attempt to be inclusive, we are excluding many young Australians from the housing market. Letting Australians keep more of their own money will be paid for through cutting government spending by $90 billion—all costed—and adding $13 billion in additional gas excise from gas exports. I'll explain this in more detail closer to the election.</para>
<para>Finally, One Nation will build, baby, build, including Hells Gates Dam, on the Burdekin River, for irrigation and flood mitigation, to protect coastal Queensland; Emu Swamp Dam, to provide water security to Stanthorpe; the Urannah water project, to provide water security, irrigation and flood mitigation to Broken River in North Queensland, while supplying Moranbah with the water necessary for an expansion in employment and development in the area—watch for that announcement soon; Inland Rail, which will be extended along the forestry route to Wandoan, Banana and then the Port of Gladstone, along with an $8 billion container facility to turn Gladstone into Australia's premier container port and a multimodal just west of Gladstone; and public works in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. That will bring logistics benefits to all Australians. There will be cheaper and quicker goods going in and out of the country, through Gladstone port. The public works will be announced shortly.</para>
<para>Finally, with the cut in government spending, we will pay off our national debt by an additional $30 billion a year, the annual interest on which will hit $50 billion a year in 2026-27, making interest payments the single largest item in the budget. One Nation will put more money in your pocket and restore wealth and opportunity for our whole beautiful country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is the perfect time to talk about the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, because, in case you didn't know, there's an election on the way. If Labor or the Liberals want to show that they give a damn about Tasmania, it's time for them to take action. My inquiry into the TFES made one thing crystal clear: the TFES is broken. It's a clunky scheme that doesn't work.</para>
<para>The TFES began in 1976 to compensate Tasmanian businesses with no access to the mainland's national highway and rail networks. We have to get our produce across the ocean. That costs way more than highway freight. The scheme is supposed to make sure Tassie businesses aren't disadvantaged compared to their mainland counterparts, but for many businesses the scheme is more trouble than it's worth.</para>
<para>TFES is supposed to be a rebate, and that's the thing about rebates—they happen after the purchase and you get some money back after you spend it. The value of the rebate is growing but slowly—very slowly—and shipping costs are racing ahead, like they've got a rocket behind them. So, if your costs are going up twice as fast as your rebates, you're getting poorer every time. You're going backwards. The economist Saul Eslake said that he could only hope this snail's pace adjustment to the TFES rebate rate was not deliberate discrimination against Tasmania.</para>
<para>Fruit Growers Tasmania gave some hard numbers on it. They told us the cost of using sea freight over road travel has gone up by 2½ times in recent years, from $389 to $918, per container. Doesn't that sound like a scheme that's working! Here's the kicker. Not only are businesses getting a tinier rebate back; we're making it impossible for them to claim the rebate in the first place. People in business simply want to get stuff done. They don't have time to work with stupid levels of red tape for little or no return.</para>
<para>Wine Tasmania told us that 40 per cent of its members don't claim a rebate from TFES, because it's so hard to do for such a tiny rebate. A scheme that works doesn't make things so hard to navigate that you need a PhD to make heads or tails of the claims process. For big businesses, this isn't such a big problem. They have in-house accounts teams whose job it is to make sure these paperwork struggles get handled. For small players running their business from a kitchen table, between dropping the kids off and picking them from school there aren't enough hours in a day to find their way through the maze of bureaucracy being imposed on them. And, if they do, they get less now than they did two years ago. When they do make a claim, they have to wait as long as three months for the rebate to finally hit their bank account. What small business can afford to wait three months?</para>
<para>It's a scheme that does nothing to help small businesses or make things fairer for them, so here's what the committee recommended to fix. The first thing is to review the whole thing and how it can be made to work properly. It doesn't work as it should. We can make a flying start with this. Witnesses and stakeholders have already told us what needs to be put right and how to do it. The second is for the Tasmanian government to look at TasPorts and its part in the TFES and how it can change in the best interests of Tasmanian businesses. The future of TasPorts is already in question, so it's a perfect time to look at the needs of its stakeholders and not to its corporate dreams. The third is for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to review how trade works across the Bass Strait and its islands. It must look at both sea freight and airfreight routes and at commodity pricing for the fresh produce sector. There are two recommendations for Services Australia to fix the clunky and complex system for rebates. The first is to set up a helpline and resources to help claimants understand how the system can work for them and what they can claim. The second is to build an online tool for businesses to check if they can make a claim—and for how much.</para>
<para>We saw layers of complication emerge in what should have been a simple problem to solve. The problem is where politics and red tape collide, with people in business wanting to get on with the job they do so well. All but one of us on the committee were Tasmanian, and it was interesting to watch the eyes of my fellow committee members open up with the evidence given to us—Senator Anne Urquhart; Senator Richard Colbeck; Senator Claire Chandler; Senator Glenn Sterle, from WA; Senator Nick McKim; and me.</para>
<para>These recommendations are fine and will probably lead to improvements for the scheme, but, from where I sat as chair, I knew we could have done far more. The recommendations are the product of consensus from all parties. After all, major parties don't want to agree to strong reform written on paper for the world to see—they might actually be asked to implement it! I wanted us to take a giant leap for Tasmanian businesses, not small and timid steps. That's why I put forward my additional thoughts as an independent voice. Making payments to businesses must be simpler and straightforward. Every claim should be done with no delay, and systems can change to meet this need. Payments can be automated with an account system for regular shippers of regular consignments. If you added digital infrastructure that could integrate with a shipping application program interface for shipping providers, the admin burden would disappear for businesses and bureaucracy alike. We need to include airfreight in the scheme to get high-value, time-sensitive produce to its markets as quickly as possible, not stuck dockside waiting to be loaded onto a ship. Yes, it'll add additional costs, but it'll lift our export profile to more higher value products and bring better jobs and new industry to Tasmania. And it would be a game changer for Flinders Island and King Island.</para>
<para>I've worked on farms in all weather, and I know just how hard it is. Farmers and producers pour their heart into their work just to get smacked in the face with a bad system that costs them time and money, and that's not to mention how high freight prices mean we are spending even more money on food and essentials. We've all noticed how little we're getting in our baskets for a higher price at the check-out. Just ask the residents of King Island. They're paying $16 for two litres of milk. The supermarket owners don't have a choice. It costs that much money to get the products to the island in the first place. The same is true on the mainland too. The failure of the TFES is what makes it so costly to ship Tasmania's fresh produce to your mainland markets. It's like a cost-of-living tariff on communities who are paying to enjoy the best of Tasmania's food and drink, which, as you know, is really good. It's only fair that mainland families can enjoy it too—and at the price it should be.</para>
<para>We know the TFES is broken, but the question now is: will anyone step up to fix it? We need brave politicians that will step up and fully support these businesses so they can support the jobs they've made and the people they employ. If Labor gave a damn about Tasmania, they'd put the recommendations into play right now. There's no reason they can't announce it today. The TFES operates under ministerial direction. The minister could and can deliver most of the report's recommendations—and include mine as well—much faster than by going through parliament, where it can be bogged down in process and procedure. If the coalition were smart, they'd commit to the TFES recommendations before Labor does. Show Tassie businesses and producers that you are on their side, because—make no mistake—Tasmania is expecting the government to take action on this. I've put TFES on the agenda, and it's time to get it done.</para>
<para>The work the committee and its staff have put into the inquiry and its report is extraordinary, and I thank them for it. Chairing this inquiry, my very first, was an amazing experience. It gave me the chance to talk to Tasmanians about their businesses and how they think the TFES can be better. Between us all, we can bring lasting change to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, bring new jobs to Tasmania and bring more fresh produce to the rest of Australia. If we can get the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme right, it will bring better food at a better price to everyone in Australia. It might even bring Aldi to Tasmania, and that'd be a win for us all.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 20:51</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>