I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. The question is that committees be authorised to meet during the sittings of the Senate today.

Question agreed to.

It is with enormous pleasure that I rise to speak on Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 and the four associated bills, and to indicate the opposition's strong and passionate support for these bills. These bills represent the bookend, if you like, on the coalition's strong, aggressive and effective expansion of Australia's trade ties around the world—that our period in government was marked by success from its earliest days to its latest days in expanding the network of trade agreements that Australia has with the world and, in doing so, created a stronger and more open economy. The wealth of Australia, the record low unemployment Australia was enjoying when we left office and the opportunities for Australians were clearly enhanced by the trade network that we built.

In relation to these bills that touch on the Australia-UK trade agreement and the India-Australia economic cooperation agreement, I want to particularly acknowledge Dan Tehan who, as minister for trade in the final years of our time in government, concluded negotiations for these agreements. They're agreements that I have some personal satisfaction in seeing come to the fore as well, having launched the negotiations for the Australia-UK FTA and overseeing those through many of the negotiating rounds as, indeed, I pursued, in many different forums and discussions, options for how we may pursue agreement with India. I was delighted to see Dan able to execute one of those.

As I said, these are the bookend of a very adventurous and comprehensive range of agreements. Agreements were struck with the North Asia major economies—Japan, the Republic of Korea and China—in the early days of the coalition government. Agreements were then struck with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong, as well as regional agreements—PACER Plus, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. All of these created a far stronger and more vibrant network of agreements to enable Australian businesses to succeed in the world.

Together, these bills implement Australia's tariff obligations in particular. And whilst free trade agreements in the modern era encompass many different aspects, it is essential to remember that the core test of whether a trade agreement is a good trade agreement is whether or not it liberalises the movement of goods and services, investment and people—goods and services flows being the absolute core element. As the new government seeks to conclude the negotiations on the Australia–European Union Trade Agreement, I underscore that point: that the liberalisation of trade and movement in goods and services, as well as investment in people, is the core test for success of that agreement. We wish the government well in concluding that agreement, and we want to make sure that it's an agreement that is ambitious in all those elements.

Together, the agreements that will be enabled by this legislation put more Australian exports in front of some 1½ billion consumers around the world—across India and the United Kingdom. It increases Australian exports covered by FTAs to more than 80 per cent. Let me just pause on that point, Deputy President: when the coalition came to office in 2013, 27 per cent of Australia's exports enjoyed preferential market access around the world under free trade agreements. Once these agreements come into place, more than 80 per cent of Australia's exports to the world will enjoy preferential access. That is a seismic shift in relation to the advantage Australia has in trading with international partners, relative to other countries. These agreements demonstrate the ambition and capacity that we had to make a marked change. It was set out in our 2013 election policy and was delivered on successively by government throughout our term in office.

Australia's FTA with the United Kingdom, as negotiated and legislated here, is the most comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement that Australia has with any nation other than New Zealand. On entering into force, tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported to the UK will be eliminated, valued at around $9.2 billion. Under the agreement Australia will also eliminate almost all tariffs on goods originating from the UK, with a small number set to see tariff elimination over five years.

Australia's interim trade agreement with India strengthens our economic engagement with what is recognised as the world's fastest-growing economy—the greatest opportunity for Australia to diversify our trade network. Our aim in negotiating this agreement is to lift India into Australia's top three export markets by 2025.

There are five bills before us: two covering the preferential tariff obligations under the trade agreement with the UK and three covering our preferential tariff obligations under the India agreement, and a side letter relating to questions of double taxation. These bills, once passed, execute the legislative coverage required for Australia to advance ratification. What we see in relation to the Australia-UK FTA are changes that provide for rule-of-origin thresholds, enabling the application of agreed preferential tariff rates to customs duties. The bill implements the negotiated outcomes on rules of origin outlined in chapter 4 in annexes 4A and 4B of the UK FTA. The rules of origin specify which goods are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. This includes goods that are wholly obtained or produced in the UK or in the UK and Australia, enabling integrated supply chains and value chains across our markets. Product-specific rules outlined in annex 4B of the agreement determine the circumstances in which goods imported from the UK which have components or inputs from a third party are still eligible.

The amendments under part 1 define UK originating goods and will introduce a new division 1P in the Customs Act to cover for the origin arrangements. The bill seeks to eliminate almost all tariffs, on UK goods, on the agreement's entry into force. Only a small number of items will be phased out over five years. It ensures that an excise equivalent rate of customs duty applies to imports, as is convention, of alcohol, tobacco and petroleum to ensure parity of products produced domestically. In response to the UK's application of a safeguard tariff on Australian steel, the bill also introduces a safeguard provision that has the effect of maintaining the customs duty rate that applied to the commencement of the agreement while ever the UK has a comparable safeguard tariff rate in place on any Australian goods.

The UK's trade agreement with Australia was the very first trade agreement it reached following its exit from the European Union. The significance and scale of it should not be underestimated. We welcome the fact it's had wide applause from a range of industry groups—the National Farmers Federation, Seafood Industry Australia, the Australian Meat Industry Council, Sheep Producers Australia, Alcohol Beverages Australia, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Group of Eight universities, amongst many others.

We already enjoy a special and strong relationship with the United Kingdom, with deep-rooted business and people-to-people connections and very strong investment ties. It will only make Australian exports to the UK cheaper, once this trade agreement comes into force, creating yet more opportunities for businesses, workers and young people. It delivers a wide range of other trade and market access opportunities for exporters. Farmers and producers will have improved access to more than 65 million UK consumers—consumers who value safe, sustainably produced food and beverages with the strong provenance that Australia offers.

Around $43 million in customs duties will be removed from Australian wine when the agreement enters into force. Australian wine is already amongst the most consumed in the UK. From recollection, I think one in every five glasses consumed in the UK is a drop of fine Australian wine. This will only serve to make it more competitive and profitable for Australian winemakers. For beef, the tariff-free quota of 35,000 tonnes at entry into force grows to 110,000 tonnes; for sheepmeat, the tariff-free quota of 25,000 tonnes grows to 75,000 tonnes per annum; and for sugar, a tariff-free quota of 80,000 tonnes grows to 20,000 tonnes. Australian households and businesses will also save an estimated $200 million a year as tariffs on UK goods are almost universally eliminated on entry into force.

Professionals from Australia will have the same access to the UK's job market as their European competitors, providing Australian jobseekers with a fantastic opportunity to diversify their experience. Young Australians will have more time to travel to the UK for a working holiday and be able to stay longer, with eligibility to participate in working holiday opportunities raised from 30 to 35 years of age. Australian businesses will have the guaranteed right to bid for a greater variety of UK government contracts in a procurement market worth an estimated half a trillion dollars, and UK business will be more encouraged to invest in Australia thanks to best-practice investment rules, including being encouraged to set up regional headquarters in Australia to leverage that expansive network of free trade agreements that I spoke about at the beginning.

Under the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement we, again, see significant benefits. There are important steps, in relation to the treatment of income, through the definition of 'royalties' under the double taxation avoidance agreement and how the amendments to that will bring the tax treatment of Indian residents into line with Australia's approach, but this is also a boundless opportunity in terms of India. In 2020, when I led the last major trade delegation to India, our two-way trade was valued at $24.3 billion and India was Australia's 7th largest partner at that time. The aspiration with this agreement is to take that even further.

Tariffs will be eliminated on more than 85 per cent of Australian goods exports to India, rising to almost 91 per cent over 10 years. Australian households and businesses will also benefit, with 96 per cent of Indian goods imports entering Australia duty free on entry into force. Sheepmeat tariffs at 30 per cent will be eliminated on entry into force, providing a boost for Australian exports that already command nearly 20 per cent of India's sheepmeat market. Wool will have the current 2½ per cent tariff eliminated on entry into force. Tariffs on Australian wine will be reduced. Tariffs of up to 30 per cent on products such as avocados, onions, broad beans, kidney beans, adzuki beans, cherries, shelled pistachios, macadamias, blueberries, raspberries—you name it—will be eliminated over seven years. Tariffs on almonds, a key export to India, along with lentils, oranges, mandarins and pears, will also be reduced. On the agreement's entry into force, the resources sector will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on coal; alumina; metallic ores, including manganese, copper and nickel; and critical minerals. LNG tariffs will be bound at zero per cent, on entry into force, and tariffs on pharmaceutical products and certain medical devices will also be eliminated.

Australian service suppliers in 31 sectors and subsectors will be guaranteed to receive the best treatment accorded by India to any future free trade agreement partner, including across higher education, business services, tourism, travel and a range of other sectors.

There'll be new access for young Indians to participate in working holidays in Australia, helping to strengthen our tourism market as well.

This interim deal likewise has been welcomed by a range of industry sectors, including the NFF, Australian Grape & Wine, wool producers, the Minerals Council, Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, ACCI and many others.

Deputy President, passage of these bills will enable Australian officials to move swiftly towards ensuring full implementation of these agreements. We urge the government to do all possible in their diplomatic efforts to ensure that the United Kingdom and India, equally, move as expeditiously as possible to meet the processes required to achieve entry into force. The sooner these agreements take effect, the sooner the benefits will be realised for Australian businesses and businesses in the United Kingdom and India. The sooner that occurs, the earlier all of the gains that will accrue over the seven- to 10-year period of implementation will accrue to businesses in Australia, the UK and India. So we urge the government to make sure that in all of their dialogue it is a priority to get these agreements done quickly. We support their passage through the parliament promptly and look forward to seeing this final legacy item of the coalition's trade policy deliver great benefits for Australia into the future.

I rise to speak on the five bills relating to both the India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement and the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: the Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, the Customs Tariff Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022. Both of these agreements mark significant milestones in Australia's trade landscape. India has a unique approach to trade, one formed following decades of forced trade and colonial rule. As a First Nations woman whose land was colonised and subjected to forced rule and policy, I sympathise with this on a personal level and I understand why India is keen to protect its own after so many years of exploitation. On the other hand, the UK is finding its feet in trade, particularly post-Brexit.

A major highlight of both these agreements is a lack of investor-state dispute settlement clauses—or ISDSs, as they are called. These clauses allow companies to sue governments for changing their regulatory frameworks, which are more often than not in the public interest, to recoup the losses they claim occurred because of these changes. To put it in context, the only time such a clause has been used against Australia it was by a big tobacco company, Philip Morris, which attempted to sue the Australian government following the implementation of our plain packaging laws. The Greens welcome this change to the government's policy regarding ISDS clauses and look forward to the continuation of this policy in substantive agreements and the removal of existing ISDS clauses.

These trade agreements will bring benefits, but there are significant issues with both agreements that must be highlighted. Firstly, both agreements are bilateral. There is a growing trend of bilateral trade agreements, as opposed to plurilateral agreements, leading to an increasingly fragmented trade landscape. Big business may be able to navigate the complexity and the growing number of trade agreements, but many small and medium enterprises really struggle to do so, and most of them miss out on the benefits that these trade agreements bring. This means that big business and industry are often the ones benefiting from the international trade agreements.

The Indian interim agreement notably does not contain provisions relating to labour rights, environmental standards or, in fact, gender equality.

The UK trade agreement does include such provisions, but they are weak and less enforceable than other chapters and, in terms of gender equality provisions, remain merely aspirational. There are statements from all parties addressing forced labour and modern slavery, but, in fact, no real commitments. This agreement reaffirms mutual commitment to climate action and the Paris Agreement, but there are no specific emission reduction targets mentioned in this agreement.

The Greens are concerned about the removal of market testing requirements in the UK agreement that ensure temporary workers are filling genuine labour market shortages. This isn't the only issue relating to workers in the UK agreement. The agreement removes working holiday visa requirements which have previously required workers to undertake 88 days of farm work to extend their visas. Rural communities often rely on these workers to fill seasonal labour shortages. The removal of this provision has the potential to make an already stressed workforce worse.

Temporary workers are some of the most vulnerable to exploitation, and the Greens want to acknowledge this. But the solution is not to stop regional work incentives altogether. Workers' rights should be strengthened with greater enforcement provisions. Often the money that workers earn during their farm stay is spent in local communities—small regional communities that have been hard hit by COVID. Some members of the crossbench in the other place have raised this, which I also want to acknowledge here today.

In the India agreement, the lack of labour rights is a significant concern. The Greens recognise the benefits Australia has reaped from contributions made by temporary migrant workers. However, as I stated before, the temporary migrant worker visa system leaves workers extremely vulnerable to job insecurity and weaker workplace protections. These must be addressed in a comprehensive agreement.

Neither agreement contains an Indigenous inclusion chapter. In fact, there is no trade agreement that Australia has signed to date that contains an Indigenous inclusion chapter. An Indigenous inclusion chapter would enable First Nations businesses to access the benefits of these trade agreements. This is a choice made by our government to exclude First Nations people, whereas our friends across the ditch in New Zealand have negotiated multiple treaties with inclusion chapters. So we know it's possible to achieve this with our trade partners, if only our government would ask.

First Nations businesses are growing rapidly and are looking for new market opportunities. So it's a no-brainer to include them in these trade agreements, and this would be a game changer for First Nations businesses all over this country. Indigenous inclusion chapters have the potential to unlock significant capital, create jobs and offer careers on country.

The Indigenous Network for Investment, Trade and Export have been campaigning on this issue for some time, and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge their work, especially that of Darren Godwell, in this space. As they have stated, having an inclusive trade clause, or ITC, in the free trade agreement would be a step to ensuring all segments of society can access opportunities that flow from a free trade agreement.

First Nations businesses have been consistently left out of trade agreements for the last 230 years, to our detriment. The government must take a proactive approach to righting this wrong and ensuring that First Nations businesses have the same access and support for trade agreements.

The UK agreement does contain some provisions for First Nations businesses, which is a significant outcome. These include reciprocal arrangements which will ensure royalties are paid to Australian artists where their work is resold in the UK. The highest proportion of eligible resales occur among Indigenous art wholesalers.

The UK also commits to recognising the importance of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and cultural expression. This includes a commitment for both parties to make efforts to work with the World Intellectual Property Organization with respect to the protection of traditional knowledge. The Greens would like to note that, while these are all welcome additions, most of these provisions are limited to art only. First Nations people have far more to contribute to the GDP of Australia than just art.

The Greens strongly believe that any trade agreement that Australia agrees to participate in must contain enforceable and comprehensive provisions to protect economic, social and environmental rights, both within Australia but also within those countries we trade with, as well as support First Nations businesses, which have consistently been left out of our trade agreements.

Finally, the Greens continue to express deep concern about the lack of transparency and public scrutiny involved with the current procedure for making trade agreements. Negotiations are secretive, and the text of agreements is only released after it has been signed. There's no opportunity for trade unions and the broader civic society to have genuine input into these negotiations.

Ultimately, this was ratified with very little public scrutiny. The Greens are very disappointed that the text was not released to the community before it was finalised, because our communities in Australia deserve better. It is essential that proposed agreements be tabled in parliament and opened for wider public consultation prior to their signing in order to ensure consistency with domestic democratic policymaking principles and practice.

We maintain that the social, environmental and economic impacts of trade agreements must be independently examined and presented to the parliament prior to the commencement of these negotiations and also as part of the final agreement. One of the recommendations of the JSCOT report on this agreement was that:

… the Australian Government implements the recommendations of Report 193: Strengthening the Trade Agreement and Treaty Making Process in Australia, particularly in relation to greater consultation and transparency, and in providing independent modelling and analysis of trade agreements.

The Greens wish to strongly echo this and call on the government to amend this treaty-making process to allow for greater transparency and consultation to ensure that it does not just benefit specific sectors of the economy but in fact has input from civil society, unions, human rights groups, First Nations groups and environmental groups that is genuinely taken into account and reflected within our trade agreements. This government must ensure that trade agreements are inclusive and in fact not exclusive. They must benefit many, not just a few. The Greens will continue to fight for this.

The Greens have circulated a second reading amendment which relates to the three bills implementing the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement. This amendment is co-sponsored by my colleague Senator Steele-John and seeks to highlight the human rights abuses in India and the recommendations made by the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review. I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but, in respect of the India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation Bills, the Senate notes that:

(a) the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review process made recommendations on 10 November 2022 relating to human rights abuses in India including in relation to ending attacks against minority communities and vulnerable groups, tackling gender-based violence, upholding civil society freedoms, protecting human rights defenders and independent media, and ending torture in custody; and

(b) in negotiating trade relationships, Australia must ensure that human rights are upheld by negotiating parties".

I'll continue to advocate that human rights are non-negotiable and that, in negotiating trade agreements, Australia has a responsibility to ensure that human rights are upheld by all parties that we may trade with. We hope that this is a common-sense statement that the Senate agrees with and that all members of this place will vote to show their support for human rights and for the Australian government to ensure those we trade with also uphold these.

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the enabling legislation for these two agreements, the Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 and related bills. Indeed, the Albanese government is pursuing an ambitious and purposeful approach to trade policy and trade liberalisation. Minister Farrell, in particular, has worked very hard to secure passage of both the India and the United Kingdom agreements through the parliamentary processes to enable entry into force as soon as possible. This enabling legislation being worked through today is the final part of that picture.

I have two responses, really, from listening to the shadow minister Senator Birmingham's outline of the coalition's response to the bill.

Firstly, I'm pleased to hear that the opposition will be voting for the bill. That's a good thing. It'd be pretty inconsistent if they didn't. But mostly I'm overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of the opposition. They're in here talking about bipartisanship on trade policy, but their commitment to bipartisanship on trade policy is paper thin. I was astonished to read an article by Rosie Lewis in The Australian on 16 September 2022, entitled 'Labor "dragging its feet" on trade deals, says Dan Tehan'. The previous government signed off on these agreements with no plan to get them through the parliament, pulled up stumps and then started complaining about the slowness of the parliamentary process. I suppose that's okay. I suppose that's politics business-as-usual for this lot. But what really matters is when they do it in a way that undermines the national interest. That article quoted the former trade minister Dan Tehan in India:

The Coalition has accused the Albanese government of "dragging its feet" on ratifying free-trade agreements with Britain and India … Opposition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan, a former trade minister who has recently returned from the Australia-India Leadership Dialogue in New Delhi, said no one there could understand why Australia had not implemented the agreement.

There was no plan to work this through the parliament, and no urgency from the previous government to get these agreements through the parliament, but then they want to whinge in New Delhi and undermine the confidence of our partners in whether or not the deal is going to get done. What a disgrace!

He went on to say:

"(The AI-ECTA) is signed and ready to go. The only hold up is the new Labor government dragging its feet," Mr Tehan writes in The Australian. "Now Labor is in power and a free-trade deal that will eliminate tariffs on 85 per cent of Australian goods exports to India—valued at more than $12.6bn a year—is gathering dust. Every day that goes by costs our exporters millions of dollars. It is the same for the UK FTA—signed but gathering dust."

What hypocrisy! What dishonesty! What utter partisanship! There's no capacity to see the national interest. They're very happy to come in here and wring their hands and carry on about bipartisanship, but the moment they go over to New Delhi, the moment they are in Mumbai, they are undermining the confidence of customers and of overseas governments that these deals are going to work their way through the parliament—and why? To score a few little points in The Australian, to play to their conservative base and to pretend that somehow the new government isn't going to be as focused on these issues as it should be. What underhand, weak politics! What an illustration of how craven this new opposition are! What an illustration of their incapacity to be able to focus on what's in the interests of Australian exporters and of national interest! If you get between them and a few column inches in The Australian, you have to be careful, because there is nothing they won't say and nothing they won't do in their own partisan political interest.

I tell you what, if this is going to be the character of Mr Dutton and Mr Tehan and this new opposition—I know that the first few years of opposition are difficult, and there's nothing more of an empty vessel than a new opposition making policy. I've seen it, I've been on the wrong side of it and I understand it. Plato said, 'Empty vessels make the most noise,' and he was right. But what you can't do is damage the national interest when you do it. What you can't do is undermine our exporters and our firms. What you can't do is rat out the Australian interest overseas when you're over there on the public purse and you're supposed to be making a contribution in the national interest. Now, rather than an orgy of self-congratulations on the Labor side, I listened to shadow minister Birmingham congratulating himself. This is a very good development, and delivering these agreements through the parliament this side of Christmas does mean significant progress on tariff reduction and significant progress for exporters and importers. It's a good thing to get it through, but there is more work to be done. We're ready to commence the second wave, the more substantial wave of negotiations with India over the more substantial round of bargaining that needs to occur to establish the second wave India agreement.

I know that Minister Farrell is really looking forward to leading those discussions, and he's been in constant communication with his Indian counterparts, particularly Minister Piyush Goyal, who'll be leading those negotiations on the Indian side. We've got to progress negotiations for the Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement. We've got to work, rather than do the ribbon cutting that the other side always did—the ribbon cutting and then nicking off. We've got to work to deliver on both this agreement and the UK FTA to make sure it delivers on the promise. And there's a series of other very significant bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral challenges for the Australian government that we're going to work through. What we're not going to do is engage in an orgy of self-congratulations and what we're not going to do is play hyper-partisan politics. We're just going to do it in the national interest. We're going to do it carefully and methodically in the interests of Australian businesses and workers for a more purposeful and less political approach to trade policy.

I was going to speak about how today is a good day for team Australia now we're getting these bills through, but, in the parlance of the world cup football in which we find ourselves, I'll say: this may be a tap-in goal for Minister Ayres and Minister Farrell, but the hard work was done by Minister Tehan, of the previous government, in the midfield and Minister Birmingham in the back. It took lots of work and lots of time to get here, and what do we find? Those opposite may not like gas power but they like gaslighting. They're talking about different ways in which this is all their work. Well, this was completed somewhere in February, but there wasn't enough time to get it to parliament. We had problems getting it through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to get it here, and we had problems getting it registered here. But today it is here, and this is a good day for Australia.

The Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 and related bills implement Australia's tariff obligations under the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement and the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement. Together, these agreements put more Australian exports in front of over 1.5 billion consumers and increase Australian exports covered by free trade agreements to over 80 per cent. This is more money in the pockets of Australians and Australian businesses. Together, they demonstrate the ambition and capacity of a determined and capable coalition government to provide Australian exporters with more market opportunities to grow their business.

The Australia free trade agreement with the UK is the most comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement that Australia has with any other country, other than those across the ditch in New Zealand. On this agreement entry into force, tariffs of over 99 per cent of Australian goods to the UK will be eliminated. That comes at a value of $9.2 billion. Also under this agreement Australia will eliminate almost all the tariffs on goods originating from the UK, with a small number to see tariff elimination over five years. My Welsh wife will be pleased that PG Tips, proper tea, will come in cheaper under this arrangement.

This interim trade agreement with India strengthens our economic engagement with the world's fastest growing economy and what could be soon the world's largest populous country.

There are five bills before us—two covering our preferential tariff obligations under the trade agreement with the UK and three covering our preferential tariff obligations with India and a side letter dealing with double taxation. These bills once past execute the legislative requirement for Australia to advance ratification. We hope, on this side, that enough work has been in place with the UK and with India to be ratified in their places so that we get the benefit of indexation if they are ratified prior to the end of the year.

Rules of origin are also covered in this bill and also which goods are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. This includes goods that are wholly obtained or produced within the United Kingdom, or in the United Kingdom and Australia. Product-specific rules, PSRs, are outlined in annex 4B of the agreement. They will determine the circumstances for which goods imported from the United Kingdom which have components or inputs from a third party are still eligible.

The UK trade agreement with Australia must be noted. It is the very first trade agreement that the UK has reached following its exit from the EU. This is how important that relationship is to them, and it shows how important it is to us. The previous government stood ready to act quickly and put this in place, and that has paid off here. We're tapping in the goal, but it is a win for Australia. In Australia, this agreement has been wildly applauded by a range of groups, especially in rural Australia. They include the National Farmers Federation; Seafood Industry Australia—and, for those who can, go down to the seafood barbecue at the end of the year which celebrates that industry; the Australian Meat Industry Council; the sheep producers council; the Australian Beverages Council; the Law Council of Australia; the Australian Chamber of Commerce; the Business Council of Australia; and the Group of Eight.

We have already had a strong and special relationship with UK investors, and this FTA will only strengthen that. It will also make Australian exports to the UK cheaper and create new opportunities for workers, young people and businesses. Farmers and producers will have improved access to 65 million UK consumers, who value safe, sustainably produced products and beverages with the strong reputation that Australia holds. Around $43 million in annual customs duties will be removed from Australian wine when we enter the agreement. For beef there is a tariff-free quota of 35,000 tonnes at entry, which will expand to 110,000 tonnes in year 10. Tariffs on meat will be eliminated after 10 years.

We will see how we go with the new trade minister negotiating with the EU—if we can get tariff elimination at the end of that deal. Australia has never entered an FTA deal where tariff elimination is at the end. This is the test as to whether it happens now. Sheepmeat will have a tariff-free quota of 25,000 tonnes at entry, and will expand to 75,000 tonnes in year 10. Tariffs on sheepmeat will be eliminated after 10 years as well. I met with the UK agriculture minister about 12 months ago, when we were at the point where the debate—and this is how these things go, people up there in the gallery—was about, 'Is the weight bone in or bone out?' That is the level of negotiation that goes into these things. I'm glad it has been resolved.

For sugar and the north coast of New South Wales and Queensland there's a tariff-free quota of 80,000 tonnes at entry into force and it will expand to 220,000 tonnes in year eight. Again, sugar tariffs will be eliminated in eight years. That means, again, that we'll be looking at how Labor goes with the EU. This is a fantastic arrangement with the UK. It will also give our young people more opportunities in the UK, and it will better drive our growth and reputation.

I'll now turn to India. Australia's economic and cooperation trade agreement will see all of these come through the Treasury laws amendment bill, amending the International Tax Agreement Act 1953 to stop Australian taxation of certain payments or credits made to Indian residents who are providing technical services remotely to Australian businesses and customers. How we treat that has been a problem to the Australia-Indian arrangement, and that is fixed under this. The Australian trade agreement with India does open new growth for Australian exporters. With 1.4 or 1.5 billion people, and a growing middle class with growing disposable income, India is the economic powerhouse that can drive us to diversify our dependency on trade with China. We can diversify our markets and can look for value-added goods there probably more than in any other place in the world.

In 2020, India was Australia's seventh-largest trading partner, with two-way trade valued at $24.3 billion. Under this agreement, tariffs will be eliminated on more than 85 per cent of Australian goods exported to India, all rising to almost 91 per cent, valued at $13.4 billion, in 10 years. And Australian households will benefit with cheaper goods here, with 96 per cent of Indian goods imports entering Australia duty free on entry into force of the agreement.

Once again, Australian service suppliers, in 31 sectors and subsectors, will be guaranteed to receive the best treatment accorded by India to any future-Free Trade Agreement, including higher and adult education, business, medical and dental services, architectural and urban planning, and research and development. Anything that comes they will match under this agreement. They are the value-add services that drive our service-led economy.

There will be access also for young Indians to participate in working holidays in Australia: 1,000 places per year in Australia's 'work and holiday' program. The length of stay for an Indian student with a bachelor's degree and first-class honours will be extended from two to three years, post study, in the STEM and ICT sectors. There's third-party endorsement of this: the National Farmers Federation, Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated, WoolProducers, the Minerals Council of Australia, Apple and Pear Australia Limited, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

It has been the coalition's ambition—and, I now know, the Labor government's ambition—for these agreements to complete ratification by 30 November, so we can get that benefit of the double tariff cut on 1 January 2023. It is a good thing that they are here. It is not overly partisan. Let's neither of us try and claim the absolute win, because this is a win for the Australian people, Australian businesses and Australia's economy, and they'll be reaping the benefits of it for many years.

We hope these bills go through very quickly and successfully. We'll be supporting them. I commend this bill to the house.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I see that once again we have a so-called free trade agreement in front of the Senate. Each time a free trade agreement is advanced we hear speeches extolling the virtues of free trade, telling us how much this will help everyday Australians. Free trade lowers tariff barriers, making it easier for our farmers to sell their produce—so we're told. We're told that so-called free trade gives market access for our manufactured goods, software and suchlike.

Australia has free trade agreements with New Zealand, Singapore, the United States, Thailand, Chile, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Peru, Indonesia, Mexico and Vietnam, through the CPTPP, Brunei Darussalam and Cambodia, through the RCEP, and now India and the UK. After all these free trade agreements bringing all this increased prosperity, Australia should be rolling in it. But, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics measure of household income and wealth, since 2010 everyday Australian households have seen a reduction—not an increase—in their annual income of 1.2 per cent. This is not serving Australia. Everyday Australian households have seen a reduction in their wealth of 1.6 per cent. Australia is not rolling in new-found wealth; Australia has gone backwards, and Australians are going backwards. This is not serving Australia.

It should be remembered that in this period our mineral exports have absolutely boomed. From that alone, every Australian should be thousands of dollars better off. But we're not. So what's gone wrong? It's simple: nations do not sign free trade agreements unless they consider they will gain more than they lose. Of course, that is not possible. A pie can only be sliced in so many ways. There's no evidence free trade agreements will grow the pie so that each slice of the pie is larger. While growing the pie is the promise, the outcome is smaller slices of the same sized pie.

This so-called free trade agreement, like the previous agreements, will not make our lives better. It will not serve Australians. It will make it easier for large corporations to move capital around the world, chasing the lowest wage, the most flexible labour arrangements, including labour hire contracts that One Nation is still waiting for Labor to do something about. After we dragged their attention to it for the last three years, they still won't touch it. International capital will move money around, chasing the lowest tax rates and the highest profits.

This is where some of the negative outcomes from these so-called free trade agreements lie. Free trade agreements are a race to the bottom—a race to the lowest wages, the lowest taxation, the least corporate regulation and the most efficient enterprise. When proponents of free trade agreements talk about business efficiency, they never mean small and medium businesses or family businesses. Efficiency is a code word for large corporations becoming larger and sending small businesses broke to eliminate competition. That is not serving the people of Australia. That is not serving Australia

One Nation supports fair trade, not so-called free trade. Fair trade can occur between nations with similar wages and environmental regulations. These are the two big costs that decide how fairly one country can compete with another. The Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement is more likely to provide a fair outcome for Australia than any other of these so-called agreements with countries, like China, that treat environmental legislation as a joke and pay their workers unfairly low wages. The fact that a party called the Labor Party promotes these agreements belies their name. Their new iteration is the party of global capital and environmental rent-seekers. One Nation is now the party of the workers, because we serve the people. We have one flag, we have one community and we are One Nation, serving the people of Australia.

I must admit I don't agree with much—or anything—of what my good friend Senator Roberts said. I welcome the government's move to introduce the tranche of bills that is before us today. I'm especially pleased that they have finally introduced the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 and its partner, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022. However, quite simply, the introduction of this bill should have been months ago. Perhaps if the government had gone to the effort of appointing a High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, they might have heard from that person how urgent and important it is that this is done. But, alas, we still don't have a High Commissioner, and after over six months of government we are only now seeing this bill entered into the Senate.

It was, after all, on 15 June last year that then prime ministers Morrison and Johnson announced that they had reached an agreement on the core principles of that free trade agreement. It was the coalition government who did all the heavy lifting and delivered on an ambitious agenda to get this free trade agreement done. Fundamentally, the former coalition government understood the importance of free trade and delivering better trade and market access. When we arrived in government in 2013, only 27 per cent of Australia's two-way trade was covered by free trade agreements. When we left government earlier this year, that figure was 75 per cent of all two-way trade.

It's important to note that this is the first free trade agreement that the UK has reached following its exit from the EU. This highlights the incredible work done by the then trade minister Dan Tehan, who negotiated this deal while we were in government. The Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement is the gold standard across all trade agreements of its kind. Australia's free trade agreement with the UK is the most comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement that Australia has, other than our one with New Zealand. The United Kingdom is one of our most important partners in the world. Our nations share a closely aligned strategic outlook, and we cooperate across a wide range of foreign policy, defence, security, intelligence, trade and economic issues. When this agreement comes into force, tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported to the UK—valued at around $9.2 billion—will be eliminated. Under the agreement, Australia will also eliminate almost all tariffs on goods originating from the UK, with a small number to see tariff elimination over five years. Australia and UK are both trading nations that share a commitment to liberalised free trade which is underpinned by our shared heritage and values. We already have a strong and special relationship rooted deeply in business and people-to-people connections. The free trade agreement will only strengthen this further.

In Australia, as my good friend Senator Cadell said, it has been widely applauded by a range of different business groups. It will make Australian exports to the United Kingdom cheaper and create new opportunities for workers, young people and businesses. Importantly, the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement delivers a wider range of trade and market access opportunities for exporters. In what can be seen as a giant win for our farmers and producers, they will now have improved access to more than 65 million UK consumers who value safe, sustainably produced food and beverages, with the strong provenance that Australia offers. Around $43 million in annual customs duties will be removed from Australian wine when the agreement enters into force which will help those who have been subject to illegal trade sanctions by the Chinese Communist Party. This free trade agreement will save Australian households and businesses around $200 million a year, with tariffs on almost all UK goods being eliminated on the agreement entering into force. At a time when we are having a cost-of-living crisis, this should have been a priority. Yet, unfortunately, we've seen this government drop the ball when it comes to the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are facing. Instead, they're spending more time looking at entrenching and enhancing their union mates' power.

Because of the coalition's work, under this free trade agreement, professionals will have the same access to the United Kingdom's lucrative jobs market as their European competitors, except, obviously, for the Republic of Ireland. This means Australian jobseekers can compete on an equal footing with EU nationals in the UK for the first time in more than 40 years. At a time when employers across Australia are crying out that they are understaffed and need more workers to keep up with demand and keep their businesses alive, this agreement will make it easier for more British people to come and work here, and they will be able to do so for longer than their traditional 80-day stay at a farm. They can also help fill critically understaffed industries such as hospitality, aged care and child care. It is for this reason that the Albanese government needs to stop dithering and start doing. Our Victorian businesses cannot wait one more year for the next sitting fortnight to hash out the finer details of this agreement. They need cheaper imports and more staff for this Christmas season coming up or—and I say this with deep sorrow—some Victorian businesses may not survive to see their next Christmas.

Australian businesses will also have a guaranteed right to bid for a greater variety of UK government contracts in a procurement market estimated to be worth half a trillion dollars annually. Australia and the UK have a strong and enduring investment relationship that reflects the deep ties between our countries and our shared traditions of good governance and robust legal systems. UK businesses will be encouraged to invest in Australia thanks to best practice investment rules, including to set up regional headquarters in Australia to leverage our network of free trade agreements. In 2020, the UK was the second-largest source of foreign investment in Australia, totalling $738 billion, and the third-largest source of foreign direct investment at $123 billion. By bringing in new businesses with connections in different markets, foreign investment from the UK can create more export opportunities for Australian businesses. Increased UK investment will also encourage competition and increase innovation by bringing new technologies and services to the Australian market, promoting productivity, employment and wages growth.

Given the considerable benefits and opportunities that this agreement will bring to both Australia and the UK, it is really absurd that it took the government this long to get it in front of the Senate. As an open trading nation, our future prosperity depends on Australian businesses continuing to be competitive, innovative and successful in new markets. Trade agreements help create opportunities for business and for people to grow and succeed. This creates more jobs and more skilled people to fill those jobs.

It is important to remember that the coalition managed to negotiate this free trade agreement during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when we were experiencing the most difficult conditions that any of us had ever experienced—a time when those opposite kept on yelling out across the chamber that we had only two jobs to do. It's really unbelievable now, isn't it? So the Labor Party really has no excuse for why it has taken this long to bring these bills before us. Clearly, this government hasn't yet figured out how to walk and chew gum at the same time.

When it comes to the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, the customs amendment and customs tariff amendment bills will have similar effects to the customs bills covering the UK agreement. Both implement Australia's rules-of-origin and preferential-tariff-rate obligations in the trade agreement with India. This agreement with India opens up a new era of growth for Australian exporters. The coalition should be congratulated for our hard work in getting these across the line.

In 2020 India was Australia's seventh-largest trading partner, with two-way trade valued at $24.3 billion. India is also an important friend and ally in the region, who we have been working with deeply through our Quad partnership. Under this agreement, tariffs will be eliminated on more than 85 per cent of Australian goods exported to India, rising to almost 91 per cent, which is valued at $13.4 billion, over 10 years. Countless Australian sectors will benefit from this agreement, helping our producers gain greater access to a more diverse range of markets. It has been the coalition's ambition for these agreements to complete their domestic ratification processes by 30 November so that exporters can get the benefit of a double tariff cut on 1 January 2023.

As I said, we have been completely bipartisan in supporting the government on these bills; however, why the government has been so haphazard and slow in the implementation of this agreement is absolutely baffling. It shows they have little or no idea on how to govern. Obviously, we support these bills and therefore call on the government to stop the delay. Let's get these agreements implemented as quickly as possible so that Australian exporters can start to reap the benefit of the coalition's hard work.

I to rise to make a brief contribution on this package of free trade agreement bills. As I've said in this place on a number of occasions, Australia is a trading nation. My home state of Western Australia is a trading state. Western Australia exports something like 90 per cent-plus of its wheat—its largest agricultural commodity. Obviously, we are the single most significant exporter of iron ore and a significant exporter of gas into the international market. Western Australia in particular relies on trade and on agreements between nations to make trade flows work. That is why it is my pleasure to rise and speak on these bills. I'm very happy to say these are bills that are aimed at liberalising trade flows between Australia and the UK, on the one hand, and Australia and India, on the other, both very important markets to my home state of WA.

In terms of trade, things like gold and agricultural commodities are significant exports to the UK. We receive our largest number of overseas visors from any nation in Europe from the UK. We are thankfully beginning to see the return of, colloquially, the backpackers, the working holiday visa makers, to Western Australia from a variety of nations, including the UK. That's really good to see because they're such an important part of the workforce, particularly in many rural and regional areas.

In congratulating former minister Tehan and former minister Birmingham for their work on the trade agreements, I wish to sound a word of warning. As has always been the case, in the moniker 'free trade agreement', the term 'free' is perhaps a little bit questionable at times. Often they are trade agreements that seek to control and limit. Yes, they put in place tariff reductions, but they can also, particularly when they're being negotiated without perhaps the commitment to liberal free trade that the coalition have, end up being regulatory agreements. That is something that I would urge those who are now in the government seats to be very cautious of as they move forward with future trade agreements.

In particular, we see in trade agreements being negotiated by the Europeans a desire to impose European regulations on other jurisdictions. If we allow trade agreements to go down that path, we will weaken our economy, we will undermine the very nature of trade and trade agreements and the benefits they give to the international community and we will impose costs from an overseas jurisdiction on Australian producers. In particular, the area where this will hit hardest is the area closest to my heart—and I freely admit this—which is the agricultural sector. There are many ways that you can impose regulation via trade agreements on exports that don't involve tariffs. We're seeing that now in some of the reaction to the negotiations and the agreement signed between Europe and New Zealand in terms of their agricultural producers and how it is impacting upon them. The devil is always in the detail in trade agreements.

The reason why I congratulate Senator Birmingham and former minister Tehan is that I know they had a commitment to liberal trade agreements. They had a commitment to open, fair and free trade as a way of increasing the wealth of Australia. Will that remain the case or will we get bogged down in labour force examinations, the export of various rules around methane or carbon in trade agreements and various restrictions on chemicals that aren't needed in higher rainfall jurisdictions like Europe but which are needed in low-rainfall areas, particularly, say, in my home state of WA, where a chemical like glyphosate is essential to no-till farming, which locks moisture into the soil and stops erosion? If we lose access to those very important chemicals, with no replacement, then we will also decimate the agricultural production in this country and we will also no longer be able to feed millions of people around the world. Australia as a trading nation is not just exporting food for the fun of it. We are exporting food because there are people out there that need food. If we go down the path where our trade agreements enable other jurisdictions to dictate how our farmers and our businesses operate in this country, that will be a sad day indeed for Australia.

I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, the Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 and related bills. I will sum up for the government and make it clear that the government is very committed to seeking entry into force of the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement and the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement as soon as possible to enable the many benefits to be realised.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties scrutinised both agreements and recommended that binding treaty action be taken to implement these two fine agreements. I wish to express my sincere thanks to all the members of the committee for preparing a valuable report. Special thanks go to the chair, Mr Josh Wilson.

The Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement includes ambitious outcomes to benefit both Australia and the United Kingdom. These include: eliminating tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian goods exported to the United Kingdom, valued at about $9.2 billion; enhancing pathways for workers and young people to work in both countries; and supporting the free movement of data to enhance growth in the digital economy.

The Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement secures Australia's access to the fastest growing Indian market, a market of 1.4 billion people, and provides a solid basis to negotiate a further comprehensive economic cooperation agreement. The agreement will deliver many benefits to Australian producers and service suppliers. These include eliminating tariffs on 90 per cent of Australia's current goods and exports to India by value and locking in access to many sectors in Australia's third-largest services export market. A trade agreement with India will give Australian exporters a competitive advantage in the Indian market and opportunities for very important trade diversification.

I note that some senators on the crossbench have raised specific concerns in relation to the two trade agreements, including the negotiating process. The speech I delivered on 14 November at the RMIT APEC Study Centre in Melbourne outlines the government's approach to trade and investment policy. The government is committed to ensuring transparency in trade negotiations and seeks to balance: firstly, the need for confidentiality during the negotiations; secondly, the respective roles of the executive and parliament; and, finally, the interests of a range of stakeholders. To enhance stakeholder engagement, the government has established the Trade 2040 Taskforce. This task force will ensure that traditionally marginalised voices are amplified, including those of First Nations people and women.

Finally, the government's approach to trade recognises that Australia's economic resilience depends on open global trade relations, underpinned by robust rules. More trade, not less, is a key part of how we'll build the economic future we want in Australia, with secure, high-paying jobs and an open, internationally competitive economy powered by clean energy. Trade agreements with India and the United Kingdom will assist Australia to reach its full economic potential. I'd like to thank my fellow senators, including Senator Birmingham, for supporting the legislation that will ratify these important trade agreements.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by senators Cox and Steele-John be agreed.

As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

The committee is considering the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 and amendment (2) on sheet 1735, moved by Senator Roberts. The question is that part 2 of schedule 4 stand as printed.

It being 1.33, we will proceed to two-minute statements.

Our communities are well supported by great charities and great not-for-profit organisations, and this morning in the Senate I will call out one of those that I am particularly fond of and that I enjoy supporting in my home community of Western Australia. Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren is a wonderful organisation that since 1998, following a simple advertisement in the community newspaper, has been providing much-needed respite and support for those grandparents in our community who have the full-time caring responsibility of their grandchildren. In particular, I congratulate Alan Hoffman, who has been elected as the new president, Dianne Franklyn, who has been elected as the Vice President, Jan McGillivray as the treasurer, and Philip Etherington as the secretary.

For a number of years, this Senate has given careful consideration to the interests, concerns and welfare of grandparents rearing grandchildren across our country. I'm delighted that Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren in Western Australia continues to be a very strong organisation that provides much-needed care and support, social exercises and community involvement to those many, many grandparents across our country who are now having to face the responsibility of rearing their grandchildren 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

I also applaud the Country Women's Association of Western Australia, who is joining with Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren in WA to support the great work they do in providing much-needed support to those grandparents who are providing care for their grandchildren in regional and remote Western Australia. This is a great initiative and it's one that I'm very pleased to support.

Finally: as I launch my annual Christmas appeal today, I am delighted that Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren will again be the beneficiary of that, as will the Salvation Army in Balga.

I rise in the Senate today to deliver an important and powerful message from a young Queenslander, Stephanie. Stephanie has written a speech in her own words as part of the 'Raise Your Voice Australia' initiative. She says: 'My name is Stephanie, I am 17 years old, living in the electorate of Dickson and attending a Catholic all-girls school in Brisbane. In the past few years, monumental steps have been made towards dismantling rape culture through education. However, as a young woman witnessing my friends' experiences I believe that this government needs to not only focus on education but also on reinventing the system supposed to help victims of rape and sexual assault.

It is beyond words of frustration, disgust and sorrow I felt when three of my female friends, with no connection to one another, confided to me that they had been raped or sexually assaulted. I had to watch helplessly as two of them went through the cold and uncaring legal processes, and in the same week both made attempts on their lives.

The fear women and trans, non-binary people face from true and horrific stories we hear all the time is indescribable. It is ongoing and influences every decision we make when we leave the house or have people over. The least we can ask for is assurance that when we try to attain justice, we will be treated compassionately, be always entitled to a support person, regardless of whether they are a secondary witness or not, and to have access to subsidised mental health services.

For the sake of my friends, myself, my little sister, my classmates, my co-workers and for every young person in Australia who has experienced or has to live in the fear of sexual assault, a compassionate justice system should be an absolute priority for this government.'

I say thank you to Stephanie for your words—thank you for letting me read your words in the Senate today. We hear your call and we will ensure that victims of sexual assault do have justice.

Today, I had the privilege of participating in the Youth Voice in Parliament Week campaign, which asks Australians aged 21 or under to write a speech on what our new parliament should accomplish for their local MP to read. I'm delighted to share the statement of 15-year-old Newport resident, Phoebe Gowan: 'Hello, my name is Phoebe, and I'm a 15-year-old from the electorate of Gellibrand. I'm writing to address the increasing gambling rates in Australia.

Around 6½ million people in Australia above 18 are regular gamblers. Since there are over 20 million people above 18 in all of Australia, it is not hard to see that this is an outrageous number. And still, you allow so many gambling ads on social media and TV. Still, you put more effort into getting rid of other products bad for humans' health while completely ignoring the horrifying gambling rates. For example, more effort is put into abolishing smoking in Australia—however, gambling is just as bad for us in indirect ways.

Homelessness, bankruptcy and so many more consequences can branch from gambling addictions. I believe that we need to ban gambling ads online, to not only show how gamblers can live without the bright lights of casinos but also to prevent young people from falling into the trap of having faith in slim chances.

Ignoring the ever-increasing signs will greatly affect Australia. Please, get rid of gambling ads to help our country get past this hurdle and progress forward.'

Thank you, Phoebe, for giving me the opportunity to share your statement. I can assure you that, as Greens, we are listening. We also agree with you that gambling, and particularly online gambling ads, are massively damaging and that there needs to be much more action taken to address them.

Today Transplant Australia unveiled a new global symbol for organ and tissue donation called the Gift of Life Baton. As a senator for Western Australia, I thought it was wonderful to meet with Transplant Australia to discuss the upcoming World Transplant Games to be held in Perth in April next year. Competitors from 50 nations will compete in 17 sports, and all of them will be winners before they get to Perth.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on Australia's rate of organ and tissue donations. Between 2019 and 2021 there was a 23 per cent decrease in donations. While most of us—and I'm sure that includes everybody in this chamber—would support the concept of organ and tissue donations, only around a third of Australians have registered as donors. That's why Transplant Australia are now working to re-engage the public on organ donation and have the conversation with us all.

Today in Australia just under 2,000 people are waiting for desperately needed and desperately desired life-saving organ transplants. These Australians come from all walks of life, and, in fact, tomorrow it could be any of us here in this place who need an organ transplantation. It's not something we like to think about or talk about, but, if you haven't already, can I encourage everybody, if you wish to be a donor, to let your family know and to have that conversation with them now. If the worst happens, it takes away the burden of them having to decide on your behalf. You can learn more about it through the Transplant Australia website. It is so easy to save lives. You can register as a donor on your Medicare app. It only takes about five minutes to do. I have, and we all should.

I rise to speak about Cesar Penuela and his family. Cesar is a local resident of Launceston and recently faced deportation due to a visa issue he was facing. Unfortunately, the Colombian-born Invermay father of two was facing deportation back to Colombia. Mr Penuela's children have lived their whole lives in Australia, are well settled at school and have immersed themselves in the culture and values of our country. His 14-year-old daughter, Maria, is an avid soccer player with the Northern Rangers and has dreams of being the next Sam Kerr. It's been a long road for the family.

Cesar and Claudia have been seeking permanent residency for a long time, so the family was very shocked when they were told they were about to be deported. To secure permanent residency, Cesar needed his employer to submit the appropriate documentation as part of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa. This did not occur, and time had passed. Unfortunately, the situation for Cesar was very stressful, as he was uncertain of his future.

He and his family were due to leave the country on 17 November. But what happened? We got elected. And what are we doing now? We are cleaning up the mess left behind by Scott Morrison and his government, which failed to act on behalf of this family. It has been left to the new minister for immigration, the Hon. Andrew Giles, who has been providing assistance to the family, and the good news is they've been able to return to Tasmania. They're on bridging visa E with a work waiver, and the next skills visa that they will apply for will include an assessment of Cesar's skills. The good news is there is a much better outlook for him and his family. But it was a terrible situation the previous government was unable to resolve for this family.

I hear a lot about Aussie manufacturing—how we can't compete with China, how we can't compete with cheaper Asian labour, how we don't make cars in Australia anymore, how we've gutted critical industries. When the pandemic came, we realised we didn't even make the basic health equipment that we needed. Our days of making things seemed to be well and truly gone. But are they? There are amazing businesses coming up with new ways of doing things every day.

Harbro Engineering in Spreyton, Tasmania, is just one of them. I visited them recently and saw the parts that they are making for mining, military and aerospace. They work with the latest high-tech steel alloys coming out of Europe. There's this one part they're making; if you get it overseas, it comes in five parts, but not Harbro. Harbro can make it in one piece, one unit. How great is that!

Harbro has also invested in 3D printing technology, which means less waste. Traditional metal milling means cutting parts out of a block and having to gather the offcuts for recycling. With 3D printing you can only use the metal you need: zero waste, better for the planet. It's innovation, it's manufacturing and it's happening right here in the heart of Tassie.

You'd think the state or federal governments would be tripping over themselves trying to give businesses like these a leg-up, such as grants. We want investment in local manufacturing. Governments say they want that too, but for whatever reason Harbro is just one of many out there that can't seem to get a whiff of government support, and for the life of me I cannot see why. We need to be investing in local manufacturing. It leads to investing in Australian jobs, and it means that we're not relying on other countries in a time of crisis. Businesses like Harbro need our help to reach their full potential, and if we are serious about Australian manufacturing then these guys are the guys that we need back in the game.

This is how we'll make Australia make again, and while I'm on it, is there anyone out there that wants a job on the north-west coast of Tasmania? Harbro is looking for you; call them!

I also rise today as part of the Youth Voice to Parliament, which is an initiative by Raise Our Voice. Today I speak in this chamber for 11-year-old Jacob Tubui, a year 6 student at Sacred Heart School in Cabramatta. I spoke earlier today with Jacob and his teacher Mrs Gonzalez. When asked what Australia's new parliament should accomplish, Jacob prepared the following speech:

I firmly believe that the new Australian Government should assist the people of Australia by lowering taxes. Taxes aren't helping. They are way too high, and they don't motivate people to work.

Good afternoon my name is Jacob and I don't technically live in Fowler but my school is located here. I strongly believe that the growth in taxes will not help the economy in any way. Taxes can have many varieties of charges.

Taxes are chargeable when you work more, so the more you spend all your effort on working just to survive, you will get taxed more.

Citizens are working hours just to be taxed four to five percent of their income from working and this can be higher the more you work.

In about 15 years I would start to work and wouldn't be motivated to put in the time and effort it takes to work just for the government to take a percentage out of your income.

People who don't have a decent income from work shouldn't be charged tax at all. I hope this message spreads and that taxes should be lowered immediately because it does not help the economy with anything. Instead, it tells citizens that their hard-earned money is being taken.

I really hope the new Australian Government can help to lower taxes for all the people of this great nation. Thank you.

To Jacob: thank you for your effort, good luck with your studies and I wish you a happy future.

enator STERLE () (): I want to let the Senate know that back in 2015 I started a campaign called Bring UFC to Perth Now. I was very happy to work on that campaign. I went to all the UFC pubs because of my love for UFC. We had a government that would not have the UFC in WA. We got 2,000 signatures—imagine walking around all the pubs on UFC fight night, getting signatures to bring the UFC to Perth. I'm so pleased to say that UFC 284 is coming to Perth, the RAC Arena 12 February 2023. And guess what? We're going to have Alexander Volkanovski fighting at a higher weight. Let's get behind Alexander, Australia, he's one of ours.

I want to pass on my sincere best wishes to my very dear friend Peter Kloczko. Peter is the UFC Vice President, Australia New Zealand. I met Peter in New Zealand in his formative days with UFC. I've been to the UFC in Las Vegas. I went to their headquarters, and you've got no idea how proud I am to say that this magnificent event is coming to Perth. Peter, to you and your crew, mate, what a magnificent achievement. I had the privilege of going to Melbourne at the time when Ronda Rousey and Holly Holm were having it out, and let me tell you 90,000 Victorians came to that event. Then there's the money that it brings in, not only from UFC lovers but for tourism in Australia.

Let me share these stats with you: the venue holds 14,000, and do you know that there were 78,000 fans registered with intent to buy tickets—78,000 into 14,000, work that out! Whoever got a ticket, half your luck, good on you. Of the 78,000, 59 per cent of those tickets were purchased by buyers from outside of Western Australia and outside of Australia. I said to Peter, 'Mate, next time we're going to have the UFC in our footie stadium,' because I know that Peter and his crew will fill that. So, Aussies, let's get behind Alexander, let's wish him all the best and let's continue to enjoy this magnificent professional sport, the UFC.

Today I'll be reading out a short speech written by young Tasmanian legend Trenton Hoare for Youth Voice in Parliament Week. Trenton says:

As I sit here, taking a break from my studies to answer the question 'What would you like the new parliament to achieve?' I am filled with rage and anxiety. As a 21-year-old, living in the electorate of Clark, trying to better myself by going to university so I can get a good job, own a home and start a family, that utopian paradise seems distant, let alone even real. I am filled with rage because I wake up every day hoping for a better world, but I am barely seeing any progress. Our politicians, with the help of their corporate mates, are destroying our planet, creating a social divide between the rich and the poor, the whites versus the others.

What is the point of me continuing on if the government continues to destroy the only home I've ever had? What is the point of me continuing my studies so I can get a good job, own a home and start a family if the world collapses anyway? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

So what would I like the new parliament to achieve? Proper climate action. Fix the inequality crisis and tax the rich. Make Australia equitable.

Trenton, thank you. Great speech. I was very proud to give it, and I could not agree more with the content.

Today it is my great privilege as part of the Raise our Voice initiative to read to the Senate a speech by Grace Heffernan, a young person here in the ACT. Grace says:

I was raised on Gadigal country and now study on Ngunnawal and Ngambri lands. Author Charlie Mackesy said, 'One of our greatest freedoms is how we react to things.' As climate change intensifies, our freedom to change our relationship with earth is at risk, and I need you to protect it.

This parliament is the very last to write the story of the standard that we accepted when we had the chance to change—to change the way Australia consumes, mitigates and legislates. There has never been a greater policy window than the one opened by the federal election to transform energy, industry and our standard of life. A phenomenon about climate change is that, despite the way humans have reacted to past existential crises with vigour and innovation, we have chosen to bury our heads in the sand. This reaction astonishes and alarms me.

So I ask this new government to reframe climate change not as something to ignore but as a tremendous opportunity, to remember how adaptive we are and how the human spirit makes hope in and out of despair, and for you as politicians to grace us with a legacy Australia can be grateful for. React well.

These words from Grace speak for themselves. Many young people across the country, like Grace, are asking people in this place to make decisions that will secure their future, that will deal with the big challenges we face and turn them into opportunities for us all.

That is our opportunity, and I sincerely hope that the Senate will take that opportunity.

It is an issue of national concern that the major banks are abandoning communities across Australia at an accelerating rate, announcing the closure of 72 branches in regional communities in the last six weeks. Branch closures strangle communities economically, socially and mentally.

One of those closures is Westpac's branch in Coober Pedy—the last bank in town. Westpac is closing in February 2023. This is a major blow to the local economy, which is based on opals and tourism, and is heavily dependent on the Westpac branch for cash. There is no alternative to cash in regional Australia, especially in remote towns like Coober Pedy. The next closest bank is in Port Augusta, 540 kilometre away.

Westpac is telling local businesses that require cash withdrawals to use Bank@Post at the local licensed post office. The problem with this is that it is not equipped to handle large volumes of cash. It doesn't have the same security, and the bank's restrictions on cash withdrawals through Bank@Post are restricted to local commerce. Westpac didn't even inform the post office directly that it's leaving.

Westpac and the other banks enjoy enormous public financial support. They should repay that support by maintaining banking services in regional communities. It's bad enough that maternity wards and many other essential services have been closing in regional Australia. Now regional towns are losing their banking services. This is why we need a government owned postal bank to provide banking and insurance services to regional centres and small businesses. A postal bank could act as a bulwark against the cartel-like behaviour of the big banks.

There's nothing more galling than the sight of a 100-metre wind turbine slumped over, a smouldering aluminium and concrete corpse, testament to wind-power stupidity. Even if a wind turbine fibreglass blade makes it through a 12-year operating life, the blade is still a global waste catastrophe. Every year Europe adds two million blades to landfill. At the same time that we declare plastic straws an environmental sin, our beautiful planet has 40 million tonnes of wind turbine blades destined for landfill by 2050. Every blade of every wind turbine installed till 2030 will be in landfill by 2050.

So-called renewables need to be renewed every 10 to 15 years. We're not building our net zero, nature-dependent generation once; we're doing it twice or three times, with all the waste that this will bring. This is environmental vandalism, killing the environment in the name of saving it. I remember when greenies hugged trees. Now greenies chop whole forests to hug manufactured goods composed of concrete, steel, fibreglass and gearbox oil. Greenies are resource hogs.

Recycling wind turbine blades is not impossible; it just takes a huge amount of cheap energy, for which coal is the optimal fuel. That's why, without affordable coal energy, wind turbine blades and solar panels are dumped, not recycled.

German windfarms kill 100,000 birds a year. Unlike the birds killed in the cities, due to the location of the turbines those birds tend to be endangered species. New model turbines are approaching 240 metres in height, with blades close to 120 metres. That will need a hell of a big hole to bury it.

This is not free energy and it is certainly not renewable. Governments should not force a technological transition. If wind technology was any good, it would not be reliant on subsidies of $500,000 per turbine per year.

We are one community. We are one nation. Pushing the United Nations and World Economic Forum's net zero is environmental vandalism.

All workers deserve human rights. All workers deserve respect. All workers should be able to do their work free of discrimination and with adequate protections in place. I imagine that most people in this chamber would agree with that, but when I say that sex work is work and that sex workers are workers then suddenly this chamber is aghast.

From 2020, when a court ruling opened up the conversation about NDIS and sex services, I've had many conversations with people in the community. These are some of the things that have been raised with me consistently. The intersection between disability and sex work moves in two directions: just as disabled people rely on sex support services, many sex workers identify as disabled people. Many of these people face additional barriers in receiving formalised disability supports, due to discrimination faced by them because of their profession. Many disabled people need access to sex workers or sex based services as supports in their NDIS plans. These supports are reasonable and they are necessary. When sex workers reach out to law enforcement to report assaults they are rarely, if ever, taken seriously. People working in the industry are often failed by multiple systems that should support them.

We need to sort out our relationship with sex work in this country. The law is all over the place. Discrimination is rife. The people in this building are too prudish to acknowledge that the industry even exists, let alone solve the problems of people working in it. We need change now. We need de-crim now.

Senator Henderson, do your best.

In Peta Credlin's excellent Sky News documentary The Cult of Daniel Andrews, former Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Kel Glare said that in his lifetime he had never seen a government as corrupt as the one led by Daniel Andrews. The premier has left a trail of corruption and cover up, after turning Melbourne into the world's most locked-down city. Don't vote—

Order! Senator Polley, on a point of order.

Madam President, I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable senator failed to acknowledge the premier by his correct title.

Thank you. The time has expired.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the New Zealand Parliament, led by the chairperson of their governance and administration committee, Mr Ian McKelvie. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. You are now in the best chamber!

I also draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the 2022 Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program exchange participants. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate and thank you for the work that you've contributed to in your time here.

I want to go to the point of order that Senator Birmingham asked me to review yesterday. Whilst I'm not changing my decision, I do think it deserves some clarity. Yesterday I undertook to review a question in the Hansard from Senator Hume to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, concerning gas prices. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, raised a point of order on direct relevance. I noted that a minister is directly relevant when responding to both the preamble and the specific question. The preamble identified the Treasurer's statement about acting with urgency on gas prices, and the specific question framed the matter around resolving uncertainty in the government policy on gas prices. There was a political frame to the question, and I considered the minister was being directly relevant in exploring the causes and emergence of high gas prices and in returning the political serve in relation to uncertainty in energy prices. It would not have been in order for the minister to focus solely on those matters, given that the question asked about the government's intentions. However, by the time Senator Birmingham rose to take his point of order, the minister had come back to what the government had done and, in doing so, was in order.

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. After being questioned at the Australian Financial Review National Infrastructure Summit yesterday about the Suburban Rail Loop project, which didn't go through the Prime Minister's stated Infrastructure Australia process, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who is quoted in the AFR today, said, 'I'm pretty confident that the project is right, and is right for investment.' On what basis of rigorous assessment, other than her own confidence, did the government approve $2.2 billion of funding in the budget for the Suburban Rail Loop project?

Outrageous!

Everything is outrageous to you!

Senator Henderson, the minister has not even begun her response. I ask you to be quiet.

I thank the senator for the question. I do recall the extent to which all of us tried to campaign for state elections in this chamber, and I'm not sure any of us were actually very successful, but I'm happy to take the question. If my colleague Minister Watt, who actually represents the minister whose quote you are using, is able to assist, I'm sure he will. In relation to infrastructure projects, we have said that we will review infrastructure projects to better align investment with construction market capacity. We are consulting—

So why did you give $2.2 million to a failing project? Regional Victoria got nothing!

You're in a permanent state of outrage, aren't you?

Order!

There's never any light and shade with this particular senator; it's just permanent outrage. We're always right up there, aren't we? But I digress.

As I said in response to the budget, we are aligning investment with construction market capacity. We are consulting with states and territories throughout this process. This is the responsible and honest thing to do. If those opposite were honest about this, they would recognise that the government is increasing funding to infrastructure in regional Australia over the next decade. I'll repeat that: they are increasing funding to regional infrastructure over the next decade. But rather than simply announcing, we are ensuring that we can actually deliver on what we say we will do.

In relation to the points that the senator raised in her question, I would say it is interesting to get a question which goes to business cases and probity from a minister who never demonstrated that in her period in government.

Opposition senators interjecting—

You might think that's outrageous.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

But I think the public record speaks for itself.

An opposition senator interj ecting

Which part of that does Senator McKenzie want me to resile from? In relation to—

Thank you, Minister Wong. Your time has expired. Just a moment, Senator McKenzie. Before I call you, there was so much noise during the minister's response that I found it very difficult to hear. I would ask all senators to respect that the minister has the right to answer the question in silence. Senator McKenzie, your first supplementary?

Minister, given the government's documents show funding would not flow to Dan Andrews's controversial Suburban Rail Loop project until 2024-25 at the earliest—19 months away—for what reason was funding awarded in the October 2022 budget other than to suit Labor's political time lines?

It was a dirty deal.

Order! Order on my right. I'm not going to call the minister until there's quiet.

I am upset.

Senator Henderson. Please.

Honourable senators interjecting—

We are not at a football match; we are in Senate question time, and you are to be silent to hear the response and out of respect to the person answering the question. Before I call the minister to respond, I do remind Senator McKenzie to refer to people by their correct titles. So it would be 'Premier Andrews'. Thank you, Minister Wong.

enator WONG (—) (): Thank you, President. I'm asked—

An opposition senator interjecting

Really? She can't—

Your team love it when you use up all the time, Senator McKenzie. They love it.

I'm asked why the government funded the project. It's called honouring an election commitment. We had an election commitment to provide $2.2 billion towards early works for Suburban Rail Loop East, and a detailed business and investment case was released by Victoria last year which demonstrated a benefit-cost ratio.

Senator Wong, please resume your seat.

I raise a point of order on relevance. My question went to the profiling of the project. The funding doesn't flow in your own government documents until 2024-25. You could have run it through Infrastructure Australia processes, but you announced it in this budget.

Senator McKenzie, that question does go to why, and that's what the minister is responding to. She is being directly relevant. Please continue, Minister Wong.

I was actually asked why we were funding it, and I was explaining to the senator why we were funding it. I'd also make the point—and she may not wish to hear the facts about the detailed business and investment case—that it demonstrated a benefit-cost ratio of up to 1.7. That is $1.70 returned for every dollar invested. It will still be subject to assessment by Infrastructure Australia as is required.

Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary?

Thank you. It's nice to know it will be going through Infrastructure Australia. Minister King also told the AFR Infrastructure Summit that, if Infrastructure Australia's review of the project sees it as not worth progressing, she would personally talk to the Victorian Labor government about—and I quote her again—how they think they can 'make it stack up'. Minister, at what point of the PM's reformation of Infrastructure Australia are we going to see ministers not intervening to make sure that projects unfit for funding are going to be persisted on until they stack up?

I hadn't heard that quote before, but—

It's on the front page of the AFR.

Order!

I've been doing a few other things. I'm sorry; I don't sit around reading the quotes of every—

Honourable senators interjecting—

No, it's not that. I'm just saying that I don't have every quote of a minister who I don't represent. I'm sure Minister Watt would have an excellent answer on this question.

In fact, I read every word!

I'm sure he read every word—oh, really!

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie.

President, as Minister Wong is seeking to elicit laughs from her side, the relevance of my question—

Senator McKenzie, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Senator Watt.

Thank you, President. I think you were going there anyway, but surely Senator McKenzie has to name the point of order? What is the point of order?

Senator Watt, why are you on your feet? I have ruled the point of order out of order.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Seriously, senators! I'm going to ask Minister Wong to continue.

Thank you, President. What I was going to say is that from what I heard of the quote it seems that it's an eminently sensible position to ensure that Infrastructure Australia can properly assess this important project, which the government was elected with a commitment to implement, which we are funding and which already has a business case. It seems to me an eminently sensible position to ensure that it properly stacks up—

The Victorian Auditor-General says doesn't stack up!

Order! Order!

Eminently sensible to ensure it properly stacks up, and that's what the minister's quote goes to. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Albanese government's proposed changes to workplace relations laws will deliver much-needed job security and wage increases after a decade of neglect by the Liberals and Nationals. How will the 'Secure Jobs, Better Pay' bill support small businesses to bargain with their workers, and what does this mean for workers?

Thank you, Senator White, who is, again, one of the people on our side of the chamber who has a long history of standing up for the rights of workers, and also of forming very co-operative relationships with business in her career in the union movement. Senator White is a great example of what our government is trying to do, which is build partnerships between unions, workers and business for the benefit of the economy, for the benefit of those businesses and also for those workers.

I understand it's a foreign concept for those opposite, who just thrive on conflict and want to keep us in that conflict driven environment that we've been in for 10 years, but some of us actually want to move on. And, do you know what? So does small business. Let me just give one example of the small businesses out there that are actually looking forward to the kind of multi-employer bargaining that we are proposing to have. Now—

He's no Julie Collins!

Just get to the point, mate!

You want mass strikes!

Senator Watt, I'm going to wait for silence. Order! I ask Senators McKenzie and Henderson in particular to lower the tone of their interjections, please. Minister, please continue.

On the one hand, the opposition demands examples of small businesses that support the system we're trying to bring in. But the minute we try to do it they don't want to hear about it. That's because the opposition are intent on keeping our country in a conflict driven model that does not work for anyone.

Ms Julie Price, the Executive Director of the Community Child Care Association, gave evidence to the Senate inquiry recently. She represents over 750 community not-for-profit early childhood education and care centres. She gave evidence explaining that multi-employer bargaining in Victoria had delivered above-award wages for workers over a decade with the support of employers. What she said was—

How many people does Julie employ? Name one!

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Order, senators—particularly those on my left. Please continue, Minister Watt.

Thank you, President. Ms Price, who represents hundreds of community owned childcare centres, made the point that the agreement they had struck across a range of enterprises covers just under 60 services in Victoria. It delivers better wages, 16 per cent above the award, and she goes on to say that the centres are community owned, managed by boards and volunteers, and they don't have the financial resources and the expertise in IR to be able to negotiate an agreement themselves.

This is the kind of system that small businesses can take advantage of to avoid having big HR departments and to strike agreements with their workers, which is what they want. (Time expired)

Senator White, your first supplementary question.

Minister, it's well known that small businesses are more award reliant. Why is it important to provide small businesses with additional support to create agreements with workers?

Thank you, Senator White. As we say, we understand that it's a foreign concept for the opposition that employers and workers can act together cooperatively for the benefit of both of them, but our government actually understands that. Mr Mimmo Scavera, the president of the HVAC Manufacturing and Installation Association, also gave evidence to the Senate inquiry. He represents nine major employers collectively employing approximately 900 people.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I'm waiting until your own side is quiet. Senator McKenzie, a point of order?

It is on relevance to the good senator's question. Can the minister name one small business that actually supports Labor's reforms?

Senator McKenzie, that is not a point of order. Senator Wong?

There are persistent points of order which actually go to the content of substantive debate. We're happy to have substantive debate, but this is time for question time. This is not the way in which points of order have traditionally been used nor should be used. If the senator wants a debate, we can have a debate.

Thank you, Minister Wong. I rule the point of order out of order. Minister Watt, please continue.

Thank you, President. Isn't it terrible to see the coalition not want to hear from employer groups? You really would have thought that, of all the parties, they would support employer groups. But they don't support the ones that support multi-employer bargaining. The ones that oppose it are fine, but the ones that support it are terrible. Mr Scavera said—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Again, there is too much noise. Please continue, Senator Watt.

Mr Scavera said:

It's about not having a race to the bottom, to put it bluntly. At the moment the major construction projects don't have any regulation in relation to pay. So you have a mixture of people on a site that will be either enterprise agreement covered, award covered or covered by whatever other means people are creating. We're hoping that through this mechanism we can have an industry agreement through multi-enterprises. That's what we're aiming for: to regulate the market a bit more.

(Time expired)

Senator White, a second supplementary question?

Minister, why is it urgent that we pass these reforms before Christmas?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Once again, the interjections, particularly from my left, are absolutely disorderly. I ask you to be quiet so that we can all hear the Minister's response. Minister Watt.

It is urgent that we pass these reforms before Christmas because they will be good for workers, they will be good for small businesses and they will be good for the economy. Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie, we all know that you have important decisions to make about this legislation in the coming days, and I encourage you to think about the arguments that we are putting forward and that small businesses are putting forward. Or you can decide to line up with that rabble over there, who want to continue to keep Australia in conflict, with low wages and low productivity.

I know enough about Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie to know that they want to see agreements and they want to see cooperation in workplaces that delivers to businesses and to workers. That is exactly what we are putting forward here. The comments that we saw at the Senate inquiry, made by representatives of childcare centres and representatives of manufacturing industries, indicate that—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator David Pocock.

I rise on a point of order, President. Could the minister please direct his comments through the President? Thank you.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senators on my left! Minister Watt, please direct your contributions to the chair.

Thank you, President. Through you, President, I say to Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie: take the evidence of the committee inquiry into account. We heard from childcare representatives and we heard from manufacturing representatives who said that multi-employer bargaining is what they want—it's good for their business and good for their workers. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The October budget contained no immediate relief for Australians facing rising inflation and cost-of-living crises. Instead, the government committed to spending $2.2 billion on the Suburban Rail Loop despite the Victorian Auditor-General finding that the Victorian government:

… did not demonstrate the economic rationale for the entire project, and they have told us that they have no plans to do so.

Minister, isn't it true that Labor supports Dan Andrews' pet projects that don't stack up but refuses to find sensible policies that will reduce the cost of living for Victorians, without driving up inflation?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Before I call the minister, I remind senators that state leaders are entitled to be addressed by their correct title. That's the second time in a matter of minutes that I've had to remind senators on my left of that.

I think the best way to answer this question is to say I completely reject the assertions put in the question. I reject the assertion that there was no cost-of-living relief in the budget. If you've read the budget you'll have read about the investments that we are making in cheaper child care, in renewable energy and in free TAFE—as some of those investments. Also, I would say: look at the more than $32 billion in increased payments through pensions and other payments through the social security system, the biggest increase to assist—

That was a CPI increase. That's indexed. You can't take credit for that.

And the reason, Senator Henderson—I hear you yelling at me and interjecting—that those payments have increased so considerably is to assist lower-income households with those increased costs of living, largely driven by the increases in energy prices that you hid before the change of government. So the reference to cost-of-living relief—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson?

A point of order: would you ask the senator to please direct her comments through the chair. Thank you.

She is doing that, Senator Henderson. Minister, please continue.

Thank you. Perhaps if Senator Henderson stopped interjecting then we wouldn't be in a position where we had to respond to those interjections.

In terms of infrastructure—and Senator Van's question went to infrastructure—the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has gone through the infrastructure portfolio very carefully to identify projects where sensible investments can be made—that meet tests such as, for example, having a business case anywhere near the project; there are some projects that were funded under your government, when you were in power, that didn't have that piece of work underpinning them—and to work through, with Infrastructure Australia, the business case that the Victorian government has done. I know that Minister King is working with Infrastructure Australia on that. (Time expired)

Senator Van, first supplementary?

The Victorian Auditor-General said of the Suburban Rail Loop:

The BCR—

benefit-cost ratio—

for the project is 0.51 when calculated in line with DTF's guidance—

below even the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office's rating of 0.6 to 0.7. Minister, why is the government spending $2.2 billion on a project that demonstrably will not deliver value for money but will continue to overheat the construction sector, pushing up prices for Victorians, contributing to inflation and making the cost-of-living crisis worse for Victorians?

Again, I reject the assertions put in the question to me. The Suburban Rail Loop is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure project. We are honouring our election commitment. We are doing what we said we would do. We are delivering upon that election commitment. That project will transform how Victorians move around the state and it will reshape the way Victoria grows.

I would say, in terms of cost-of-living relief, that the budget provided cost-of-living relief in a way that is affordable and responsible and doesn't add to inflation. I think you will see, from all of the assessment of the budget, the economists who have assessed the budget have said that the budget in itself does not add to inflation, and cost-of-living relief was provided where it was affordable and sustainable.

Senator Van, second supplementary?

The October budget confirmed that the Albanese government was cutting hospital funding in Victoria by $1.4 billion. Why is the Labor government supporting Premier Andrews's boondoggle while at the same time making—

'Chairman'!

Senator Van, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that remark.

Madam President, I do withdraw calling our Premier of Victoria—

Do not repeat it. Senator McKenzie, you know my rulings on these things. I didn't think I would have to remind you not to repeat the offence. Simply withdraw the remark.

I withdraw the remark.

Thank you. Senator Van, please continue with your question.

Gover nment senators interjecting—

Order on my right!

Why is the Labor government supporting the member for Mulgrave's boondoggle while at the same time making his health crisis even worse by cutting funding to Victorian hospitals?

I almost feel sorry for Senator Van for being asked to ask that question. Those who wrote it know very well that there is no cut to health funding in Victoria. They know very well what has happened there.

We look forward to working with the Victorian government. We look forward to a re-elected Dan Andrews government—after Saturday's election—to deliver on these important infrastructure commitments and to work in partnership with them. Do you remember that, where you have federal and state governments working together in the interest of the nation? We look forward to that. We look forward to continuing that, delivering on our election commitments and working with the Victorian government on infrastructure and, importantly, on health to make sure that Australians have the healthcare system and the infrastructure they deserve from governments that are mature enough and responsible enough to work together.

My question is for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt. Right now, in Victoria, the Andrews government is logging four MCGs' worth of native forests every day. The Victorian government pledged to end native forest logging by 2030 and protect 9,000 hectares of old-growth forests, but a damning expose by the ABC last week found that the state owned logging operator VicForests is continuing to log old-growth forests that were marked for protection. This is on top of two court findings in the last month that found that VicForests were illegally logging forests that were home to two threatened species—greater gliders and tree geebungs. Minister, what are the federal government and you, as minister, doing to ensure that Victoria's native forests are actually being protected?

Honourable senators interjecting—

It sort of feels like it's Victorian election week this week, doesn't it?

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. I would ask all senators—in particular, Senator Scarr and Senator Thorpe—to be quiet while the minister answers the question.

Yes, clearly it's Victorian election week, and clearly there are a couple of parties who are scrambling for votes rather than getting on with the job of governing, which is what we are doing and what the Andrews government is doing in Victoria right now.

I have met with Senator Rice about forestry issues, and I understand that these are things that she cares about very sincerely. As I have explained to Senator Rice, the Albanese Labor government does support a sustainable forestry industry. We respect the fact that there are some states who have made decisions about phasing out native forestry; others have not. The reality is that our country is in a position at the moment where it has a massive timber shortage and potentially other related shortages. There are parts of the country that have chosen to continue with native forestry at the moment, including Tasmania. That is something that we support. It is their right to do that. But, of course, Senator Rice is well aware that, in states like Victoria, we have a regional forestry agreement process underway which leaves a lot of the management of those forests to states. There has obviously been litigation about these matters recently, with courts having things to say about that, and I know the Victorian government is taking those decisions seriously.

What the Albanese government is doing is trying to strike a balance between the need for a forestry industry to provide the wood, timber and paper products that we need and making sure that we are protecting the environment. That's why we went to the election with a big commitment to expand the plantation estate in Australia and plant more trees through plantations to provide that timber. But the reality is that in many parts of the country at the moment the native forestry industry plays an important role in meeting that supply, and we support the people who work in that industry. We think that's a balanced approach, and we think that's the one that Australians want to see.

Senator Rice, your first supplementary question?

() (): When it comes to protecting the critically endangered ecosystem of mountain ash forests, scientists tell us that 2030 is way too late; they will be pretty much logged out by then. At the recent climate conference, Australia joined the Forest and Climate Leaders Partnership to increase action towards last year's COP commitment to strengthen our efforts, to conserve forests and accelerate their restoration. How are you going to bring Victoria into line so we can deliver on this international commitment? Will you amend the EPBC Act to ensure that that's the case? (Time expired)

As Senator Rice is well aware, the way the regional forest agreement system works is that it essentially displaces the EPBC in relation to forestry endeavours and has its own system of managing the environmental needs of those forests. That is a system that we continue to support.

Senator Rice is also aware that the Victorian government has made decisions about the future of its native forests. We respect their right to make those decisions but we do support the ongoing efforts in other parts of the country to pursue native forestry, including in Tasmania, which is what they've chosen to do. We are trying to strike a balanced approach which meets the forestry needs and the timber needs of our country and supports the workers in those regional communities while also maintaining environmental protections.

Senator Rice asked about the EPBC. Again, she would be aware that the EPBC and the Samuel review is currently being considered by the government, and we'll have more to say about that before too long.

Senator Rice, a second supplementary question?

A week after COP27 and amongst record-breaking climate fuelled floods across the country, there has never been a more important time for climate action. A Victorian Forest Alliance report found that native forest logging in Victoria emits around three million tonnes of carbon per year, and that's the equivalent of 700,000 cars. What's the federal government doing to ensure native forests in Victoria are protected and that native forest logging isn't worsening our climate crisis?

Senator Rice may have noticed that only last week, at the COP conference, Australia joined 25 other nations in signing up to the Forest and Climate Leaders Partnership. That is another demonstration of our determination to ensure that forestry is conducted in an environmentally sustainable manner. That is the intent of the RFAs; that is the intent of the policies that we pursued.

If particular forestry operations don't do the right thing, they will suffer the consequences of that. That's what we've seen as a result of some of that litigation at the moment. But we are not going to stray beyond our responsibilities in the forestry space. These are joint exercises between the federal and state government. Look at our election commitments. Look at our budget, which delivered over $200 million towards forestry—in particular, plantation timber—while also making sure that we're providing workers with training and increasing the efficiency of native forestry.

My question is to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister please inform the Senate how women will benefit from the reforms in the secure jobs and better pay bill?

Thank you, Senator Pratt, for the question and for your longstanding interest in gender equality and achieving gender equality in this country.

The secure job, better pay bill will deliver on the Albanese government's commitment to a fairer workplace relations system, which provides Australians with job security, gender equality and sustainable wage growth. For nearly a decade, wages were kept low as a deliberate design feature of the previous government's management of the economy. The secure jobs, better pay bill will take long overdue steps to promote gender equality, and promote pay and secure work for women.

The bill puts gender equality at the heart of the Fair Work system by making gender equality and job security objects of the Fair Work Act. It will make it easier for working women in undervalued industries to win a pay equity claim, before the commission, by removing the need to find a male comparator and by making clear that sex discrimination is not necessary to establish that work has been undervalued.

The bill will establish a pay equity expert panel, and a care and community sector expert panel, in the Fair Work Commission, supported by $20 million in funding from the October budget. It will provide greater access for bargaining, for lower paid and feminised sectors, through the supported bargaining stream. It will increase pay transparency by prohibiting pay secrecy clauses and strengthen access to flexible working arrangements so families can better share and manage their caring responsibilities. Where the previous government refused to act, this bill will prohibit sexual harassment under the Fair Work Act, a recommendation of the Respect@Work report. Women have waited far too long for this work to be properly valued, to get better access to flexible work and to feel safe and respected at work. They should not have to wait any longer. (Time expired)

Senator Pratt, first supplementary.

Can the minister outline how multi-employer bargaining will help close the gender pay gap?

ALLAGHER (—) (): I thank Senator Pratt for the question because the gender pay gap continues to sit at 14.1 per cent. I think all of us on this side of the chamber agree that that is unacceptable. Women go to work and they work hard but they earn less then men in the workplace. We must address the gender pay gap if we're going to have a gender-equal Australia. The secure jobs, better pay bill will provide greater access to bargaining for low-paid, highly feminised sectors such as the community sector, cleaning and early childhood education and care. Employees on enterprise agreements earn on average more than employees on awards. For example, in the female dominated healthcare and social assistance industry employees on awards are earning 19 per cent less in average hourly earnings than employees on collective agreements. We must prioritise these laws so we can improve the pay rates of women in these industries.

Senator Pratt, second supplementary.

Can the minister outline how these reforms align with the government's broader efforts to advance gender equality?

Yes, I can. The reforms are just one aspect of this government's ambition for Australia to be a leader on gender equality. Our budget put gender equality front and centre, investing over $7 billion in initiatives that will drive gender equality in this country. We are modernising paid parental leave and investing in cheaper child care. We introduced paid domestic violence leave. We supported wage increases for workers on minimum wages and in aged care. We are taking action to strengthen gender pay reporting. We'll implement all recommendations of the Respect@Work report. We'll keep the focus on gender equality through a national strategy to achieve gender equality, work that has been started now and will be finished in the first half of next year. We also have the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, led by Sam Mostyn and 12 other amazing women who are putting their shoulders to the wheel to make sure that we can respond to the work that we do in assisting us to address economic equality for women.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Minister Farrell. Australians rightly celebrate when we lead the world. We are rightly proud when we punch above our weight on the world stage in many things. But leading the world in gambling losses on a per capita basis is not something to celebrate. Australians lose some $25 billion every year gambling. Does the government agree that we need strong and decisive action to protect children and vulnerable people from the harmful effects of gambling and gambling advertising?

I thank Senator Pocock for his question and his courtesy in giving us some advance notice of that question. You rightly set out the amount that Australians lose each year through gambling, and that obviously is a very significant amount of money. The government is concerned about the impact of gambling on children, and we've done a number of things since coming to government in this respect. The government recently established a parliamentary inquiry into gambling and its impact on gambling harm. One of the key focus areas of the parliamentary inquiry is considering the effectiveness of current gambling advertising restrictions, particularly on limiting children's exposure to gambling products and services, including through social media. I am aware of gambling-like games, for instance the video games that include loot boxes and social gaming, and they're of concern to many community members. Work is being done on this issue and will obviously be part of the focus on the parliamentary inquiry that I referred to earlier. The office of the eSafety Commissioner has a guide on its website for parents about gaming, including those games with gambling-like elements. (Time expired)

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

An ABC investigation last year revealed the gambling industry has donated $80 million to political parties over the last 22 years. Given what we know about gambling and its effect on society, does the minister believe it is still appropriate for any political party to accept donations from industries that make profit from gambling?

Again, I thank Senator Pocock for his question and the information that he has provided to the Senate. The Labor Party is very seriously interested in the reform of the electoral process, and we've sent a number of recommendations to the parliamentary committee that looks after the issue of electoral funding, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Some of the things that I have proposed, as the minister responsible in that area, include reducing the threshold levels for the disclosure of donations. At the moment, the figure is— (Time expired)

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

How will the government ensure that no child is subjected to gambling advertising, whether it's on social media or in the broadcasting of live sports events?

Again, I thank Senator Pocock for his concern in this area. I actually didn't finish my previous answer, unfortunately, and I'll just say that one of the things that we're proposing to do in that space is real-time disclosure of donations.

On the issue you raise about harm to children, we have set up an inquiry, as I mentioned in one of my earlier answers. I would hope that you and other members of the Senate who have got an interest in this area will take the opportunity of that inquiry to bring the sorts of issues that you've quite rightly raised here today to the committee so that the committee can look at these issues and deal with them in a sensible fashion. (Time expired)

My question is to Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday in response to a question from Senator Cash you said:

We are dealing with an inflation challenge at the moment, and no-one is pretending that wages should be growing at the pace of inflation.

Can you confirm it's the government's position that you don't expect wages to grow at the pace of inflation?

I thank the senator for the question. The point I was making yesterday was that we don't expect wages to grow at the rate of inflation as it currently is now. You'll see from the budget papers—I think it's in the 2024-25 financial year—that we are expecting wages to move ahead of inflation.

That is what the budget papers say, but I was responding to a question about wages moving at the rate of inflation as inflation currently is. I think you wouldn't find anybody, including on your side, that would be arguing for wage increases in the order of eight per cent, I would imagine—because that would cause other problems that we are trying to avoid.

At the moment wages are not impacting on inflation. The increase in inflation is largely down to energy costs caused by the war in Ukraine and by some of those supply chain shortages that we have seen coming out of the pandemic. We are taking a responsible position in relation to wages. We want to get wages moving—that's why we have the industrial relations bill before the parliament. We want to see an end to the wage stagnation decade that was overseen by the former government. We've made no secret that we want to deal with wage inequality in low-paid, feminised industries, and the budget papers clearly outline the wage forecasts over the forward estimates. They will remain below inflation for the first two years and then they will gradually increase to a point above inflation in that third year.

Senator Fawcett, a first supplementary question?

The Australian public are also dealing with the reality of the current situation where they are seeing costs going up, and they will recall the promise made before the election this year on 11 May by the now Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who said, 'Labor wants to make sure that wages keep pace with the cost of living'. Can you confirm that Labor has abandoned that promise made to the Australian people made before the election to keep pace— (Time expired)

I think you'll see from our budget papers that we do want workers to get wage increases that help them deal with the cost of living. The senator is incorrect when he asserts that. There has been no change in position from this government. We are dealing with an inflation problem in this country right now, in case anyone over there hadn't noticed. If you haven't noticed—

Oh, we've noticed.

You've noticed, have you? The reality here is that we are trying to deal with the inflation challenge and we are dealing in a sensible and responsible way with the after-effects of a decade of wage stagnation. You are the party of wage stagnation. The nerve of you to stand up and challenge us on our position to get wages moving—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, on a point of order?

Once again, I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that she needs to make her comments through the chair.

I believe the minister is mostly making her comments through the chair. I also ask those on my left to stop calling out.

In fact, in the six months since we came into government, we have done a number of things—and I'm sure I will get opportunity to continue on this—including supporting increases to the minimum wage that you never did. (Time expired)

Senator Fawcett, a second supplementary question?

I again go to the Australian public's expectation that there will be consistency before and after the election. On 20 May the now Prime Minister said, 'It's not bad luck, it's bad policy that wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living.' Will you now also label this situation your bad policy as wages are not keeping up with inflation, rather than blaming circumstances?

That's right, don't deal with the economic reality right now! I would say, in response to that question—vote for the industrial relations bill. Vote for it. That's the single biggest thing you could do right now to help us get wages moving. That's what you should do. You've overseen a decade of wage stagnation. You're now saying you want to see wages keep up with the cost of living. Well, support us, walk with us! Stop being the party of Work Choices. Stop being the party that want to keep wages down. Remember that? Stop wanting to make childcare workers, aged-care workers and those on minimum wage not get a decent pay rise. Stop arguing about things. When in government, you had that section about the importance of low-paid work—a whole section—in your submission to the Fair Work Commission. That's your record. We're trying to get wages moving. We're proudly standing next to working people to argue for that. Join with us and support the legislation. (Time expired)

My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Watt. The government's secure jobs, better pay bill abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission. What problems are solved by specifically abolishing the ABCC that aren't actually caused by the code it is meant to enforce, which your government has already acted on?

Thank you for that question, Senator Lambie. Senator Lambie would be well aware that, for a number of years leading into the last election, it was Labor's clear policy to abolish the ABCC. That was because it had completely failed workers in the building industry and firms in the building industry as well. Senator Lambie—through the President—if you haven't already seen these statistics, I'm happy to show you the figures that show that the entire time the ABCC was in existence productivity on building sites actually fell. It went backwards. So, for all the claims that were made that it was going to be the solution to productivity and drive the industry forward, the facts actually show that the industry went backwards on productivity, let alone the gross waste of taxpayers' money we saw under the ABCC, pursuing trivial matters through the courts. We just went through again at estimates recently the legal expenditure—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I remind those on my left this is Senator Lambie's question. She has the right to hear the answer in silence. As you're well aware, as everyone in this chamber is aware, the crossbenchers do not get the same opportunity as the major parties to ask questions. I would ask you to be courteous and allow Senator Lambie to hear the answer in silence. Minister, please continue.

Senator Lambie, I can assure you that this government takes workplace conduct, whether it be of workers, businesses or unions, very seriously. That's why, under the system that we're proposing, the Fair Work Ombudsman will have a range of powers to take action where that's warranted.

Our fundamental point is that we don't think that different workers should be treated differently. We should have one regulator of conduct on worksites, and that is the Fair Work Ombudsman. We don't need an additional body for one industry that pursues workers and unions and leaves employers alone when we all know that in the building industry there are rogue employers as well. The ABCC never did anything about that. It did very little to recover underpayments to workers. That's a very serious issue. We think the Fair Work Ombudsman is the appropriate place to do that work.

Senator Lambie, a first supplementary question?

I understand that the Labor Party and the union movement don't like the fact that the ABCC has busied itself policing flags and stickers. I agree: regulators shouldn't be distracted by small-beer infringements like that. But you can fix that with a tighter building code. The CFMMEU has made it clear it will continue to breach laws it does not agree with. That's not restricted to stickers and flags. Does your government not believe in the need for a building code at all?

Minister Watt, I remind you to make your remarks to the chair, please.

Certainly. The Building Code was another example of the former government having a very one-sided attitude towards conduct on building sites. The Building Code was a part of the arsenal of the ABCC which was used to crack down on unions and workers and do nothing about the abuse of workers and unions on construction sites.

What we are in favour of is a balanced approach from a regulator that applies across all industries, whether you are a hospitality worker, childcare worker, construction worker or truckie, Senator Sterle. I know truckies always behave; I remember that from my days working with the TWU! Whatever industry it is, people deserve to be treated equally. The Building Code was another part of that arsenal and that is why we have repealed it.

Senator Lambie, a second supplementary question?

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill transfers some of the power from the ABCC to the Fair Work Ombudsman, but it doesn't transfer all of its budget. It's being asked to do more without the money to do it. Something's got to give here. What safeguards will you put in place so the Fair Work Ombudsman doesn't have to choose between its core business, like policing wage theft, and policing the industry?

I remember from the estimates hearings which we recently conducted that evidence was given about a number of positions from the ABCC moving across to the Fair Work Ombudsman. So they are being given extra resources to pursue, whether it be employers, unions or workers who are doing the wrong thing on worksites. So I am very confident that the Fair Work Ombudsman does have the resources to pick up some of those roles that the ABCC previously played.

What we're about is making sure that important things that are actually reasonable in a workplace setting get pursued by the Fair Work Ombudsman, and that all the nonsense and politicisation that the ABCC was given taxpayers' funding for is going to end. That's what people voted for. We could not have been clearer in the lead-up to the election that we were going to abolish the ABCC. We feel that we've got a mandate to implement that reform now, along with all the other reforms that we're planning to implement. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on developments in the human rights situation in Iran overnight and the response by Iranians themselves?

I thank Senator Green for her interest in this matter and for her solidarity with the women and men of Iran who have been standing against the repressive and violent actions of the regime. I acknowledge that that is a position shared by, I hope, all in this chamber—certainly, many across the chamber have also been raising their voices.

I know that people would have been following events in Iran closely, and I think all of us would have been moved by the image overnight of the Iranian football team standing silent during their Iranian regime's anthem. This was a courageous act. By refusing to sing the anthem, they are actually joining a chorus in Iran and around the world that has grown steadily louder over the last two months. While the Iranian soccer team staged their protest, protests within Iran continued—especially in majority Kurdish areas. And so did the regime's brutal response. That response included attacking protesters, using machine guns mounted on vehicles and even using drone missiles. The death toll now runs well into the hundreds.

We all know that this started on 16 September with the death of Mahsa Amini, whose Kurdish name was Jina. Her unexplained death in the custody of the so-called morality police was a spark that lit a flame of protest that has spread across Iran and to the streets of cities around the world, including Australia. Protest activity has taken many forms—street demonstrations and women and girls removing their hijabs, with others also cutting off their hair. In solidarity with protesters, Iranian shopkeepers, factory workers and employees in the oil and petrochemical sectors have participated in strikes. We saw Iranian archer Parmida Ghasemi remove her hijab in a sign of solidarity during an awards ceremony in Tehran. (Time expired)

Senator Green, your first supplementary.

Minister, how has the government responded to these developments overnight?

With new reports of violence and retaliation against those expressing their right to protest, this morning the Australian government again called in the Iran charge d'affaires. I welcome the opposition's meeting with the charge a few weeks ago.

It is important that Australia speaks with one voice in conveying the abhorrence of these events. As Iranian authorities have brutally cracked down on protesters, this country has joined in the international condemnation. We have made a number of international interventions, including supporting the convening of a special session of the Human Rights Council on the situation in Iran, which will take place this week. We've provided early co-sponsorship of a resolution calling for a fact-finding mission, and we will advocate intensively to build support for it.

Just as the Iranian representative was left in no doubt, the Senate should be clear of this government's resolve to continue working with others to build pressure on the regime to cease its brutal campaign against its own citizens.

Senator Green, a second supplementary.

What can the government say to Australians who are concerned about reports of harassment and foreign interference by the Iranian regime?

I certainly am, and I have no doubt that all senators would be, deeply concerned with the reports of Australians, here in Australia, being harassed for their participation in protests and the reported threats made against their families in Iran.

Of course, the right to peaceful protest is at the heart of Australia's democracy. Our concerns were relayed in no uncertain terms to the Iranian charge d'affaires this morning, and the Department of Home Affairs Counter Foreign Interference Coordination Centre is working with the community to conduct targeted engagement on foreign interference.

My message to anyone involved in such activities is this: Australia's laws on foreign interference are unequivocal. Allegations of foreign interference are investigated, and we will prosecute if appropriate. We will defend our democracy and people's right to protest and express their views within Australia just as we stand up for the rights of those to do so elsewhere. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. I refer to reports in the Australian today revealing that Ms Plibersek's decision on 4 November to review 18 previous ministerial approvals of coal and gas projects may cost 174,000 Australians their jobs and cause the loss of $100 billion worth of investment in our country. Has the government done any modelling on the economic and social impacts of these decisions and, if so, what does the modelling actually say?

Thank you for the question, Senator Duniam. I infer from the question—and I don't have the detailed information before me; I may have it at any point in this answer—that this is a review in the context of Ms Plibersek's statutory role. As such, I wouldn't be responding to assertions by others about what might or might not occur in the context of that review. Obviously, the government wouldn't be in a position of modelling hypotheticals.

Senator Duniam, first supplementary.

Given the decision to review these projects has come about because of legal action by Environmental Justice Australia, a group set to benefit from the recent budget in a share of nearly $10 million of government funding to continue to appeal coal and gas projects, will the government review its decision to hand taxpayers' money to organisations jeopardising jobs and projects helping to supply our energy?

nator WONG (—) (): I'm not sure if you actually said the name of the entity, but I would make the point that we live in a country where there is the rule of law and funding entities or people who then may use their rights under the rule of law and exercise them is what happens in a democracy with respect to the rule of law.

Senator Duniam, second supplementary.

I've got no issue with the rule of law, but I do have an issue with taxpayers' money being used this way. How can the government honestly tell Australians it is for lower power prices and more Australian jobs when it is actually funding groups engaged in green lawfare, jeopardising much needed jobs and, of course, projects that supply our energy?

If I may say, Senator Duniam—and I understand why he is asking the question—there were a lot of non sequiturs there. The government will apply its approach to environmental approvals under the law which exists, which is the same law as was applied under your government. I certainly wouldn't be commenting on any projects currently under assessment by the minister now or in the future. With that, if I may, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the earthquake in West Java and an earthquake in Solomon Islands.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate and I thank my colleague Senator Birmingham for permitting us to do this. Can I start by saying the Australian government extends its deepest condolences to our neighbours in Indonesia following this morning's magnitude 5.6 earthquake in West Java. It is clear there has been substantial loss of life and property, and the thoughts of all of us are with those killed and injured and their loved ones. I have been in touch this morning with my Indonesian counterpart, Ibu Retno, and Australia stands ready to assist our Indonesian friends at this time. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is not currently aware of any Australians impacted.

In the past two hours we have also been informed of the magnitude 7 on the Richter scale earthquake off the coast of the Solomon Islands. The situation is unfolding. I am advised that all Australian government personnel are safe and accounted for. DFAT is seeking to confirm the safety of other Australians and their families in the Solomons.

There has been some minor damage to an annex building of Australia's high commission. Staff were also moved to higher ground in response to the tsunami warning that was issued. I am informed that the warning has now passed and that the high commission remains operational. I thank all those at the post for their work.

An Australian member of the Solomon Islands Assistance Force has been deployed to the National Disaster Management Office to assist in coordination. We are a steadfast friend and partner to Solomon Islands and we stand ready to support the Solomon Islands government's response, and I've expressed that to Minister Manele.

Anyone with concerns for any Australians in either West Java or Solomon Islands can contact the Consular Emergency Centre on 1300555135 from in Australia or on +61262613305 from outside Australia.

by leave—Human tragedies and natural disasters remind us all that we live amongst a community of nations that is underpinned ultimately by a common sense of humanity. Within our region, the nations who we count as friends and partners are the ones we stand with during such times of difficulty.

We are aware that at least 162 individuals have lost their lives in the town of Cianjur, West Java in Indonesia, following the earthquake there. Many others are injured and missing. Families of course are torn apart, devastated and shattered. The community is facing huge disruption and an enormous rebuild. As Senator Wong has indicated—and I thank her for foreshadowing these remarks—more recently there was an earthquake in the Solomon Islands. The situation is still unfolding, but again the community is facing uncertainty, including from the potential threat of a tsunami.

These are all difficult times for the communities involved. The opposition join the government in expressing our condolences to those who have lost loved ones and offer our full support to Indonesia and the Solomon Islands as they deal with these difficulties. We extend also our support to the DFAT officers and consular staff who will be working with people during these difficult times and also to the relief teams, who no doubt have work to come. We extend full bipartisanship in terms of any response that the government provides in support for Indonesia or the Solomon Islands.

by leave—On behalf of the Australian Greens I extend our sympathies to those in West Java and let the folk of the Solomons know that we are thinking of them. In difficult times like these, Australia rises to the challenge. I hope our government will very soon see some Australians out there to help. Again, we are thinking of those in our regions suffering right now.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Six months into the term of this new government, the Australian people are seeing that what was said before the election doesn't necessarily apply after the election and also that the Labor Party continue to cynically and politically use their governance in their relationships with the states. We've heard about the ring road and suburban rail project in Victoria and the allocation of $2.2 billion to that project. The Victorian Auditor-General questioned its viability, but it continues to be there. It's quite extraordinary that the current Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King, said that, if it doesn't stack up through the Infrastructure Australia process, they'll just send it back until it does stack up. How is that good process? When Tasmania asked for some support for a stadium to support the AFL licence that's coming our way, which is great news, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to see a business plan. When New South Wales was looking for support for infrastructure projects, there were significant cuts to infrastructure projects in New South Wales or they were phased out beyond the budget estimates.

But when Victoria wants a project to suit its election time line, even though the project has questionable economics, $2.2 billion of Australian taxpayers' money is funnelled into that in support of it. There's money funnelled into that. When Tasmania wants to see a stadium built to support an AFL side, that's too bad. But $2.2 billion can be found to suit the political purposes of the Victorian Labor Party for their election campaign.

We're seeing that in relation to the cost of living. Before the election, no end of now government ministers—then opposition ministers—were out there in the public arena talking about how they would be working to support Australians with the cost of living. In fact, the now Treasurer said on Sky Agenda on 1 May, 'That means under Labor you'll have a government which cares about cost of living and has plans to deal with it.' What we're actually seeing is that there was no plan, and there is no plan. That's been demonstrated by the cost-of-living pressures that we're seeing now. The budget admits that electricity prices will go up by in excess of 50 per cent and that gas prices will go up by in excess of 35 per cent.

Australians are coming to realise that they were sold a pup before the election with all the commitments that were made around the cost of living. In fact, as the opposition leader said in his address in reply to the budget, 'Everything is going up except your wages.' The government are now admitting that—they're crab walking away from all of their promises. They're seeking to redefine their promises, or they're doing what they've done all along, which is blame somebody else: 'It's somebody else's fault; it's somebody else's problem.' What's very, very clear is that Labor don't have a plan. They never had a plan, despite saying dozens and dozens of times in the lead up to the election that they did. Australians are realising now that just because Labor said it doesn't mean it was so.

So the cost of living continues to go up, the cost of your gas and electricity bills are continuing to go up, your tax payments are going up, government spending is going up and real wages are forecast to go down. This government made commitment after commitment to support Australians. They said that they would be with them all the way, that they would be beside Australians in dealing with the challenges of the cost of living and that they would support Australians to do that. What has become very apparent is that Australians are now on their own. Labor has no answers—it's crab walking away from its commitments—and Australians are going to have to deal with these problems on their own.

It's very clear from the questions asked by the opposition and even the Greens today that there's a Victorian election on the horizon. That's a focus for those parties. But, on this side of the chamber, we are focused on delivering cost-of-living relief and higher wages for Australians. That is what we are getting on with this week in parliament. We certainly have a desire to work with state governments. We know, from the answers given by our ministers today, that we are keen to make sure that, no matter which state we're talking about, we are working with states to deliver infrastructure projects—a foreign concept to those over there, who made a sport out of picking sides with state governments and fighting state governments in the last term. But we are interested in working together to deliver jobs and to deliver infrastructure.

It's pretty rich for those opposite to come in here and talk about infrastructure funding and decision-making, because we know that they are the party of the colour coded spreadsheet. Whether it was car park rorts, safety rorts, building rorts or sports rorts, there wasn't a fund that the former government didn't try to rort, using taxpayers' money as Liberal Party money. So we're not going to sit here and cop debate from the other side about decisions on infrastructure funding. We are delivering our election commitments, and we are going to be funding infrastructure and delivering integrity to infrastructure funding. That means funding projects that deliver value for money and jobs for Australians.

In Queensland alone, we are delivering $18.5 billion in infrastructure funding. Before those over there protest about the delivery of that funding, can I say that over half of that investment is in regional Queensland. I couldn't be prouder of the infrastructure commitments that we are delivering. We're doing that in conjunction with the state government because we're working together. In most places, all three levels of government are coming together to deliver these projects.

Those on the opposite side of the chamber have come in here today and accused our government of walking away from promises on cost-of-living relief. I can assure you that we are not doing that at all. We are delivering cost-of-living relief, whether it's cheaper child care or cheaper medicines, but, more importantly, we are also working very hard to deliver real pay rises to hardworking Australians. The party over there is lecturing us about wage growth in high inflation when we know that the Liberal and National parties were the parties of low wages. Literally, in a submission to the Fair Work Commission, they argued the benefit of keeping wages low for low-wage workers. They had a deliberate design feature in their approach to wage growth that tried to keep wages low. And it worked—the facts speak for themselves.

After 10 years, we saw stagnant wages and low wages that didn't keep up with the cost of living. Stagnant wages have an impact on the everyday cost of living and on families and the food that they can put on the table, but they also have an impact on our economy. There's a reason that the economy went backwards under this mob. It's because they refused to understand that lifting wages lifts the economy. We've got a broken bargaining system, and it is clear from every side of this debate, whether it's workers, unions or businesses. It's really hard for those over there to hear those quotes from small and large businesses who acknowledge that the bargaining system is broken and needs to be fixed.

I remind those opposite who raised concerns in their questions today and hopefully will raise them in their speeches in this debate to take note of answers given in question time that, if you are concerned about the wages of Australia's lowest paid workers and making sure that people can keep up with the cost of living, there's a very simple thing that you can do this week or next week in parliament. You can come in here and vote for our secure jobs and better pay bill because it is a bill that will deliver a fairer system, better wages and a better bargaining system. If you want to do that, you can join us in supporting workers—childcare workers, aged-care workers and workers throughout the economy. You stood there and thanked them during the pandemic for all the hard work that they did. Now you've got a chance to thank them by making sure that they have a pay rise that delivers on cost of living. You can do that next week in the Senate.

We heard questions and answers today in the chamber around the funding of the $2.2 billion Suburban Rail Loop. The recent estimates were my first estimates—I'm new here—and I learned about 'reprofiling' budgets, money and what we're going to invest.

My first lesson! We have to take on faith the money that we're looking at in the budget. It's not printed and it's not written, but it's there. It's like a bitcoin transaction—it is on faith and it can disappear just as quickly. It can leave thousands of people without jobs or money, and that is what we're finding.

But we do find this $2.2 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop in the budget for 2024-25, and we see $1.4 billion coming from Health. In the question on the $2.2 billion, we said the Victorian Auditor-General found that the Victorian government:

… did not demonstrate the economic rationale for the entire project, and they have told us that they have no plans to do so.

Let's not assume that $2.2 billion builds the Suburban Rail Loop. It will cost up to $130 billion to build the Suburban Rail Loop. What is that $2.2 billion for? Is that the down-payment on a loan fee for belt and road? Is that what it is? What does this do in 2024-25?

We saw that on the Newcastle-Sydney higher speed rail promise of the government, where they put $500 million towards establishing a planning committee and buying property, but no rails or sleepers would be laid and no trains would be bought. Again, it is just money for nothing. People won't get from Newcastle to Sydney faster, people won't get around Melbourne faster, but they've put that money there to hang the hope out, and the profiling will take care of the rest.

When we talk about prices rising and the cost of living, we always hear about the Ukraine situation and the price of gas, fuel and coal. But the majority of Australian coal-fired power plants have fixed-term contracts on their coal at about $100 a tonne; they haven't risen. A coal truck doesn't go from the mine to Ukraine, via the Donbas, then back to Australia to aid coal-fired power producers. Our gas doesn't get shipped overseas via the Caucasus and back to Australia. And no wind turbine or solar panel runs its wiring through the Ukraine back to Australia. They have put price pressure on, but that doesn't cover all the cost of living. Domestic promises and lack of policy are driving people's costs higher.

When you look at the opportunity cost of all this, that $2.2 billion again could have gone to ease things. I'm sure the rigorous processes that this government claims were on that $2.2 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop took a shorter period than it takes to get an ambulance in Melbourne nowadays. People spend hours waiting. Last night, they were talking about a child who waited an hour and a half. They were put on hold while they waited to get an ambulance. What could that $2.2 billion have done for those people down there? What could it have done for cost of living at home? What could it do in so many ways? It appears people can't buy energy anymore. But is there a fear that that $2 billion can try and buy an election?

Remember, this was an election that was meant to be easily done. This was an election that was going to be a walk in the park. But, through all the fog and mirrors and everything that's going on, it's becoming a tussle. It is not an own-goal. It's not another Premier Dan Andrews cakewalk. This will be close, because the people of Australia have had enough of pushing or reprofiling projects to the never-never and the promising of bits of money that will never see a project. They've had enough of seeing interest rates go up eight times since this government was elected. They've had enough of seeing energy prices predicted to go up 53 per cent and then 30 per cent.

The people of Victoria and the people of Australia want to see action. We hear you point the finger at anything we did in the last decade. And I get it. We don't have power anymore. But we've had a budget. There was an opportunity—not to do everything, but to do more. It hasn't done it. All it has done is to come up with things that were promised. It was not researched properly. It's not going to help people in the areas they need right now. And we need to do better. There needs to be another thing that comes in shortly to help people with the cost of living. We need to re-look at this Suburban Rail Loop and give people the things they need, like money for health and for living. And that's what we should be focusing on.

It was interesting to sit here and listen to Senator Fawcett blaming the Labor government for the stagnated wages and the challenges we have in cost-of-living pressures in Australia at the moment. Seriously? You spent nine years in government presiding over these things, with an absolutely dedicated policy of suppressing wages—and you have been really clear about that—and you want to blame us? You want to blame the Labor government, after six months, for those pressures? That is just absolutely ridiculous!

So let's be really clear. In six short months we have moved to work on cheaper child care. We have a bill in front of us. We have increased renewable energy and we have a plan for our electricity system into the future that is going to make a difference and is going to improve how we can utilise renewable energy in this country. We have introduced the free TAFE places, to address the skills shortages that we have been stuck with for years now and that are only getting worse. We're also bringing in extra university places to address those same skills shortages. And, as we heard earlier from Senator Gallagher, there has been $32 billion in increased payments, including into the age pension. All of these things are to address cost-of-living pressures and the employment pressures that we have—the skills gap et cetera.

We have also increased the minimum wage—well, we didn't, but we supported and encouraged that occurring. Now we're on the verge of the secure jobs, better pay bill, which will make a difference if those in this chamber will pass it—if they will get behind having wages moving so that people are not struggling under the stagnated wages we saw while they opposition were in government for nine very, very long years. So we are taking action and we are going to make a difference.

The problems we're facing with the secure jobs, better pay bill are, in the main, ones of ideology. I am honoured to sit on the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which is looking at this bill. Our inquiry has had five days of hearings. Just to be clear, that's more public hearings than for any other workplace relations related bill since the introduction of the Fair Work Act. The committee has heard from employers, unions, the community and small business, and from workers, not-for-profit organisations, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Fair Work Commission, to ensure that each member of the committee has had a chance to unpack the bill and explore the issues. And that is exactly what has happened.

One of the things we're commonly hearing now is that small business are going to struggle and suffer. We're hearing all sorts of outlandish claims about there being strikes from coast to coast. I think that was the comment from Senator Cash. There is nothing in these bills that would see that happen in any environment, but certainly not in the small business area. Even when there was 60 per cent union density, it was never in small business. Small business has never had deep unionisation, and there's nothing in these bills that will change that.

When we go to the other end of the scale, we have the big end of town coming to talk to us, particularly in some of those areas where they're never going to see any impacts from this. Their businesses are in a situation where they have wages settled—they've been bargaining and everything is going nicely. This bill isn't going to change that. This bill is going to get wages moving. It is going to address some of the significant cost-of-living pressures that we in this country are facing, and it is going to give a fair go to workers, not just allow the employers, big or medium, without any morals to keep moving to a low-wage environment. This is about everyone having a go, from the businesses to the employees— (Time expired)

I rise to take note of the first two questions that were asked by the coalition in question time today. I note that they were about the suburban rail project. I don't think any of the contributions of the Labor senators on this take-note motion have made even a glancing reference to those particular questions. I could have taken a point of order on that, Mr Deputy President. I didn't, because I thought it would be interesting to see whether they would continue to avoid the point made in those questions. Of course, that point is all about integrity, transparency and sound economic management.

The Andrews Labor government's Suburban Rail Loop is just another example of the government's failed budget and their utter hypocrisy. Whenever Labor are in political trouble they look to rail to haul them out of a fix. They're at it again. The Suburban Rail Loop's estimated spend of $125 million is the price tag of just two legs of the project, and it won't even be completed by 2050. Yet the Prime Minister had to step in and help out his old mate the Victorian Premier. The federal government committed to a $2.2 billion spend in the October budget, almost a quarter of their infrastructure spend. This is pork-barrelling at its absolute finest.

As usual, Labor are putting their priorities over Australians' priorities. Never mind the cost-of-living crisis, the energy crisis and out-of-control inflation that we're experiencing right now in this country, Labor is happy to scrap excellent programs such as the Building Better Regions Fund. But, of course, that is only so that they can afford to commit to a project that hasn't even had its business case approved by Infrastructure Australia. As reported by the Australian Financial Review:

… Victoria's Auditor-General has criticised the Andrews government's 400 page business case—which it declined to submit to Infrastructure Australia—for failing to demonstrate that the economic costs and benefits of the project justify the investment.

In my home state of Western Australia Premier Mark McGowan's signature Metronet project, which he committed to at the 2017 election, it is also facing major cost blowouts and significant delays. Senator Brockman, who is here, knows about the delays that have been experienced right across the Metronet project. What we're seeing is that the Albanese Labor government has ripped out $1.2 billion from the budget that had been earmarked for a very important project, which was determined by Infrastructure Australia to be one of the key infrastructure projects for the driving of productivity in my home state of Western Australia, and that was the Roe 8, Roe 9 project and the freight link that was earmarked in the budget for quite some time. It was waiting for a government in Western Australia to commit to it, but sadly that has not happened. In fact, they've ripped it out of the budget, and it's no longer available for a government in Western Australia to choose to build. Instead, we have these ridiculous projects up and down Leach Highway that are not actually resolving the traffic congestion and, importantly, taking heavy freight off suburban streets. Roe 8 and 9 would have created a thoroughfare for heavy freight on large trucks.

In Victoria, obviously, the election will be held this Saturday, and the Victorian people have a big decision to make about who will lead them. What we see is that federal Labor is doing everything it can to help to protect the Victorian Premier and make sure that he wins back government. We know that the only real way that that state can move past the situation that they find themselves in and that was exacerbated during the COVID period is by having a Liberal government elected there. A Liberal government would help them to fix their budget mess and help them to fix their infrastructure projects.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to my question without notice on native forest logging.

This is something that is close to my heart. I have been campaigning for decades to end the destructive logging of Australia's native forests, and particularly Victoria's. Sadly, the minister's answer shows that Labor just don't get it. The minister talked of balance, of sustainable forestry—I mean, let me translate that for you. What that means is ongoing forest destruction. What that means is the deaths of hundreds of endangered greater gliders in illegal logging operations undertaken by the state logging company, VicForests. What balance and sustainable forestry means is the ongoing emissions every year of three million tonnes of carbon, the equivalent of 700,000 cars, while we're in a climate crisis, as the devastating floods around the country are reminding us at the moment, as the Black Summer bushfires did three years ago. Those events were all-too-stark reminders of the climate crisis that we're in.

In a few days from now, voters in Victoria will have a choice between very different approaches to our native forests. The Labor Party has failed comprehensively at both state and federal levels to protect Victoria's precious native forests. They make vague promises about ending native-forest logging, but the time frame is so far away that vast swathes of forests and the animals that rely upon them are going to be gone by the time 2030 comes around—at the rate of four MCGs worth of forests every day. They say that the forests are being managed jointly, but the Labor federal government is doing nothing about VicForests' illegal logging, refusing to pull the Victorian Labor government into line. Minister Watt made no commitments to get rid of the logging laws—our regional forest agreements—that allow this logging to continue. He made no commitment to make changes to our environment laws—the EPBC Act—to better protect our forests. The Victorian Labor government and the federal government are working in cahoots to allow the ongoing devastation of our native forests and the wildlife that depend upon them.

The Greens have a different vision. We have a clear policy of ending native-forest logging. We want to see a just transition, one that provides clean, green jobs that are sustainable for both workers and the environment. We want to see people working to protect our forests in ecological restoration, in revegetation, in tackling weeds and pest animals, in disaster management and relief, in growing trees in plantations, and in farm forestry, so that 100 per cent of the wood being produced in this country and in Victoria comes from those sources. We want to see people employed in growing hemp as an alternative source of fibre. We can be growing and supporting our regional communities—not leaving them abandoned in a dying industry.

In particular, I thank the activists and campaigners who have fought so hard over so many years to protect our native forests—the protesters, the citizens scientists, the organisations and the people who are taking legal action. We have seen three separate court cases in recent months that have found VicForests and its logging have broken the laws that are meant to be protecting our forests and the animals that live in them. The courage and the commitment of these campaigners have made a huge difference to our forests, to our future and to our climate, and I thank them. The voters of Victoria should be listening to this—when it comes to forests, the Labor Party is a party of too little, too late, and Victorians would do very well to remember that on Saturday.

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 25 October 2022, of the Hon. Anthony Austin 'Tony' Street, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Corangamite, Victoria, from 1966 to 1984. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sorrow at the death on 25 October 2022 of the Honourable Anthony (Tony) Austin Street, former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Industrial Relations and former member for Corangamite, places on record its gratitude for his service to the parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of the Hon. Anthony Austin Street, known as Tony Street, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, who passed away on 25 October at the age of 96. I start by conveying the government's condolences to all of his family and friends.

Tony Street took on big responsibilities as a federal minister, guiding the Fraser government's policies in both industrial relations and foreign affairs. He did so as a conciliator and as a moderate, working to bring consensus and agreement. This approach served him well in both of these policy areas and, as an instinctive consensus builder, he was a natural fit for both of these portfolios. In particular, he was clear in his support of multilateralism, recognising that Australia's national interest would be advanced by working in cooperation with other nations.

However, his story begins in 1926 in Melbourne. He grew up on the family property in Lismore, roughly halfway between Geelong and Hamilton and just north of Lake Corangamite in south-west Victoria. He didn't have to look far for political inspiration; his father served as both the member for Corangamite in Victoria and a federal minister. Geoffrey Street became Minister for Defence in November 1938 and played a major role in the expansion of military and munitions production prior to his death in the Canberra air disaster in 1940. His son would eventually take the same political path in the same seat.

Tony Street was first elected to represent the electorate of Corangamite in 1966. In a seat that nowadays is known for changing hands, he was re-elected seven times prior to his resignation in 1984, serving for over 17 years. He was briefly a minister in the McMahon government, serving as assistant minister in the Labour and National Service portfolio from August 1971 until the election of the Whitlam government in 1972.

When John Kerr appointed Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister on Remembrance Day 1975, Tony Street found himself as the senior Minister for Labour and Immigration and in the cabinet. Following the election the portfolio name changed to Employment and Industrial Relations. He held this position through to 1978, and then Industrial Relations alone until 1980. At various times he concurrently held additional portfolios, including the Public Service, and, perhaps somewhat oddly, he was the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women's Affairs. We are reminded that it was not actually until Bob Hawke appointed Susan Ryan to that role that it was actually held by a woman.

Regarded as a conciliatory politician, as industrial relations minister Tony Street supported the idea of closer relationships between unions and employers, recognising that it would not be possible to increase productivity without good labour relations. He didn't always win plaudits from the union movement—and I don't think anyone would describe the Fraser government as pro union—but he did work concertedly to change the policy approach, having been a critic of the coalition's previous attitude to industrial relations management.

In 1980 Tony Street was appointed to succeed Andrew Peacock as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Of course there was a direct swap between them, and Mr Peacock took over the Industrial Relations portfolio. Andrew Peacock's time in the Foreign Affairs portfolio was a time in which the Liberal Party was turned in a direction that was less partisan and more focused on the national interest than it had been under former Prime Minister Billy McMahon. This was an approach that Tony Street continued.

As I said earlier, he was a proponent of multilateralism. He said:

In its role as a middle power, Australia needs a foreign policy which encompasses not just bilateral relations but the multilateral diplomacy of international organisations and blocs of countries acting together.

Wise words then and now.

Tony Street was active in critical foreign policy decisions in the region and around the world. One of his first tasks was to denounce Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime, which, at the time, was still recognised by the United States, the United Nations and ASEAN. In 1981 Tony Street was heavily involved in Australia's boycott of the Springboks' rugby tour to New Zealand. Crucially, he was also an early builder of Australia's relationship with China, following on from the foundations set by Gough Whitlam. Continuity in our early engagement with China across partisan lines was a crucial decision in the national interest.

Tony Street knew that it was not just sufficient to talk about Australia as a middle power but that to maintain and advance Australia's position required active engagement and investment in our relationships. He said:

A middle power must acquire those qualities by its own efforts, then it must make a conscious effort to maintain them.

They are words as important today as they were 40 years ago.

Concluding his time as a minister with the defeat of Malcolm Fraser's government by Bob Hawke in 1983, Tony Street left the parliament in 1984. With his death, we see two eras of Australian politics coming closer to their conclusion. He had been the last surviving assistant minister of the McMahon government and the last surviving Liberal minister of the first Fraser ministry. Tony Street was a parliamentarian and he was a minister of substance. He combined pragmatism with a desire to forge cooperation and consensus. Australia is better for ministers, like Tony Street, who look to advance the national interest first.

In closing, can I, on behalf of the government, again express our condolences following the passing of the Hon. Anthony Austin Street and, again, convey my sympathies to his family and friends.

I too rise to honour the life of the Hon. Anthony Austin 'Tony' Street, a distinguished parliamentarian, a thoughtful Liberal, a considered and humble man of effective engagement with both friend and foe alike.

Born in 1926 to Evora and Brigadier Geoffrey Street, a former defence minister himself, Tony was not unknowing of political life. His passion for sport also started early, having joined the Melbourne Cricket Club at the age of six. During the time of World War II, Tony attended Melbourne Grammar School and was made school captain. He left in 1945 and, following a call to service, joined the Royal Australian Navy serving upon HMAS Norman, HMAS Queenborough and HMAS Shropshire as an able seaman. As were many at the end of the war, he was demobilised in 1946. Tony then returned home to the family farm and also joined the Lismore branch of the Liberal Party, starting a trajectory to an ultimate parliamentary career.

Tony brought to the parliament his learnings of the land, noting that after 20 years of running your own farm you learn to take the rough with the smooth. Elected as the member for Corangamite in 1966, Tony served in numerous spokesperson roles following that period of opposition that he entered in 1972. He was then appointed to his first cabinet ministry, as Senator Wong indicated, in 1975 as Minister for Labour and Immigration under Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser.

Tony Street's stature, at 5 foot 4 inches—or thereabouts, depending upon which article you read—attracted some nicknames with the friends he made. Having a close, lofty mate in the Navy, he and the mate gained the duo name 'Dot and Dash'. But it was the press gallery that dubbed Tony Street and Malcolm Fraser 'the Odd Couple', owing to Tony's close accompaniment of Malcolm Fraser.

Nicknames aside, Tony remained polite and thoughtful throughout each of his cabinet positions, remarking that losing your temper impairs your capacity to think straight. But he always stayed true to speaking his mind when required. His diplomatic demure was no doubt most fitting in his final portfolio of foreign affairs—as, indeed, was his work in industrial relations.

It was within government, firstly in the portfolio of industrial relations, that Tony made a name for himself. He confronted the circumstance and reality of unemployment at the time, and offered a lowering of the confrontational approach to trade unions—an approach that he took with candid realism, which earned respect. He said at the time: 'It is impossible to be dogmatic about this very complex subject. Experience here and in other democracies shows that the lawmaking power of government, particularly where personal conflict is involved, must be used with fine judgement.' It was a judgement that he brought to try to ensure that parties could come together.

The speeches Tony would give across his portfolios came to be recognised as subtle but significant. Senator Wong has referenced some and, indeed, in 1982, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, he delivered a hallmark speech to the Australian Institute of International Affairs outlining Australia's role as a middle power. He stated:

Because of its very size, a superpower enjoys authority whether it deserves to or not. However badly it may behave, it will, by dint of its power, always command respect and even credibility from one quarter or another.

But a middle power must acquire those qualities by its own efforts and then it must make a conscious effort to maintain them. That job of maintenance becomes an important part of a middle power's foreign policy. Moreover, if a middle power is sufficiently determined, it can achieve significant authority by sheer force of political will.

The doctrine outlined by Tony Street is one that many Australian foreign and external affairs ministers have sought to hold true to, and our nation is better when they do hold true to that approach and, in doing so, seek to ensure that we are best able as a nation to influence our region and our world, and to do so from a position of respect and credibility. Tony Street took that approach and applied it in his engagement with others. He presented stances on matters of human rights and humanitarian issues that were ones of principle, as Senator Wong has referenced, in relation to matters sensitive at the time, such as apartheid in South Africa and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Tony Street's passion stretched beyond the parliament. Of course he was well-known for a passion for cricket, and a reputation as a leg break bowler was evident in the well-used cricket ball he always kept in his attache case. While not playing competitively in parliament, except in the Press Gallery versus politicians matches, he would grip and spin the ball most days, just in case.

Serving always with distinction, Tony made a humble exit from politics in 1984 in the election following the defeat of the Fraser government, announcing that it was time to give younger members of parliament a go. The member for Corangamite for an impressive 17 years, Tony Street served the Australian people with decency, integrity and the qualities of a gentleman—a passionate sportsman who worked the land and served his country and parliament. Tony Street's retirement took him back to the family farm. I think I'm safe in saying that he had a fulfilling 96 years of life, something that we can all but only hope for.

On behalf of the opposition, the Senate and the Liberal Party, to Tony's loved ones—his wife, Ricky, and sons Geoffrey, Alan and Phillip—I extend our gratitude for his service to our nation and to our party, and our deep and sincere condolences on your loss.

I too rise in this condolence motion to pay tribute to and honour the life of Anthony Austin Street—Tony Street. As a former member for Corangamite myself, Tony Street was legendary in terms of the contribution that he made to the Corangamite community over some nearly 18 years.

I had the great joy of having afternoon tea with Tony and his wife, Ricky, last year. It was clear that Tony was very frail, at some 95 years of age, but we had the most joyous and wonderful discussion over a couple of hours where he spoke of his lifetime of service, his love of the Liberal Party and his focus on consensus—on getting things done through taking the middle ground and bringing people with him. That included his local constituents, people on both sides of the House and all those with whom he dealt, even when he was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I can't repeat many of the stories, but they were fabulous. I did ask if he would record some of the stories. He declined. He was never someone to promote himself. He was a true gentleman, and, when I messaged his son Geoffrey earlier today to ask how he and his brothers wanted Tony Street to be remembered, Geoffrey said: 'We don't really want very much. We only want for people to know that our father was a real gentleman. He was respected on both sides of the House, and he was also someone who rejected extreme views.'

We have heard in this debate the contribution that Tony Street made to this parliament and to this nation. He came from a political family; indeed his father was the member for Corangamite. Tragically, his father, Brigadier Geoffrey Street, died when Tony was only 14 years old. Tony went to Melbourne Grammar. He attended with Malcolm Fraser. He was the school captain in 1944. Following his schooling, he joined the Royal Australian Navy in 1944 as a gunnery radar operator, serving on HMAS Norman, HMAS Queenborough and HMAS Shropshire, including seeing action in the Pacific. He joined the Liberal Party in 1946 and, as we know, he was elected to the seat of Corangamite in 1966, where he served for almost 18 years.

In his maiden speech, Tony Street said:

… extension work in its broadest sense is probably the primary producer's most valuable weapon in his continual battle against rising costs.

He was underlining the value that computers and data analysis would play in the increasing complexity of farming operations. He had a great love of the land; he was born of the land. While he settled in Ocean Grove in his later years, the love of the land never left him.

Tony Street was highly respected by people from all walks of life for his effectiveness, fairness and decency. He served with great distinction in a number of ministerial roles, including as assistant minister for labour and national service during Billy McMahon's term; as shadow minister, during the Whitlam years, for social security and welfare, for health, for primary industry, for shipping and transport and for science and technology; and, under Prime Minister Fraser, as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters and Minister for Foreign Affairs.

As Australia's representative on the world stage, Tony Street promoted the importance of consensus and strove to chart a new course for Australia as a middle power. In that role he steered the legislation for the foundation of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research through parliament, and he played a key role in the negotiation of the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement in 1983. He held, as I said, a strong belief in consensus.

He was also renowned as being a great cricketer. In fact, he had real potential and, perhaps if his life had taken a different course, he may have played for Australia. He was endearingly known as 'the little leg spinner from Corangamite'. His attitude to cricket was a profound metaphor for life. Wherever he went he carried in his attache case an old, much bowled cricket ball. Every night he would grip it and spin the ball for practice, to keep his fingers strong, just in case.

We have lost a great Liberal with the passing of Tony Street, and we've lost a great local resident. We have lost someone who was a true parliamentarian, who put the service of his community and his nation ahead of himself. I would like to convey my deepest condolences to Tony Street's family, particularly his wife, Ricky, and his three sons, Geoffrey, Philip and Alan. May he rest in peace.

Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.

At the request of Senator Cash, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Small Business, by no later than midday on 25 November 2022:

(a) all submissions received by Treasury and associated agencies that were provided as part of the consultation process for the following:

(i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Measures for Consultation) Bill 2022: Skills and training boost, and

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Measures for Consultation) Bill 2022: Technology investment boost;

(b) briefing materials, file notes and any written communication produced by Treasury that were provided to the Minister for Small Business and/or her office in relation to the consultation on the following bills:

(i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Measures for Consultation) Bill 2022: Skills and training boost, and

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Measures for Consultation) Bill 2022: Technology investment boost; and

(c) briefing materials, file notes, ministerial submissions and any written communication produced by Treasury that were provided to the Minister for Small Business and/or her office to assist in decision making on the following bills:

(i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Measures for Consultation) Bill 2022: Skills and training boost, and

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Measures for Consultation) Bill 2022: Technology investment boost.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Australia has been slow to act on stopping imports of products produced by forced labour. Government measures including business advisories, sanctions and import/export restrictions have occurred globally, but Australia has not taken any public action.

In the light of known human rights abuses across our region, we have not yet taken the actions necessary to ensure that Australian importers are placing Australian values first, nor send a message about our disapproval of modern slavery. Whilst like-countries around the world have introduced a forced labour ban, we have not. Because of this, there is growing concern amongst anti-slavery and human rights groups that Australia have become a dumping ground for these products. Perpetuating this grave human rights violation, rather than placing words of condemnation into action, is shameful.

A report released by International Justice Mission found that more than 90 per cent of Australian businesses have identified potential risks of slavery in their supply chains. Yet, nearly 85 per cent of 404 company statements submitted to the Modern Slavery Statement Register, fail to show any response to slavery, or risks of slavery in their operations and supply chains.

This is not the first time this Bill has come in front of the Parliament. In fact, it passed the Senate, with the support of all parties, except for the Coalition. This included a yes vote from members of the Australian Labor Party. A bill, focused on Uyghur-produced goods, was sent to inquiry, and this broader banning of goods produced by forced labour globally was endorsed without reservation to be passed by the Parliament. It lapsed whilst sitting in front of the House of Representatives at the 46th Parliament. Now, it is time, to send a message that Australia will not accept products produced with any taint of modern slavery. In the face of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity occurring in our very own region, this attempt to control imports of products produced with forced labour into Australia, should be embraced by everyone in this place.

This is a global ban, it does not single out any one nation as perpetrators of enforcing forced labour. Across our region, forced labour is occurring en masse.

In Indonesia, forced labour is seen in industries producing palm oil, onboard fishing vessels and tobacco production, to name a few. In Malaysia, migrant workers have been found to be involved in the production of garments under conditions of forced labour.

Globally, state sanctioned forced labour is particularly common in the cotton sector in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Each year, during the harvest season, citizens are forced out of regular jobs to spend weeks picking cotton at work. In Saudi Arabia, millions of migrant workers fill mostly manual, clerical and service jobs, constituting more than 80 per cent of the private sector workforce, governed by the kafala system which gives their employers excessive power over their mobility and legal status in the country. Human Rights Watch tells us that the system underpins migrant workers' vulnerability to a wide range of abuses, from passport confiscation to delayed wages and forced labour.

Exporting prison produced goods is illegal under domestic and international trade law, but in the United States prison labour is a billion-dollar industry, and 37 states allow the use of prison labour by private companies. In eight states, prisoners are not paid for their work in state-run facilities.

Yet, it is not surprising that the Uyghur diaspora community of Australia raised with me the necessity and urgency of this bill being reintroduced in the Australian Parliament.

Since 2017, the Chinese government has imprisoned more than one million Uyghurs and subjected those not detained to intense surveillance, religious restrictions, forced labour, and forced sterilizations.

A UN report released on August 31 by the outgoing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, contained victim accounts that substantiate mass arbitrary detention, torture, cultural persecution, forced labour, and other serious human rights violations. It recommends that states, businesses, and the international community should take action with a view to ending the abuses and advancing justice and accountability. According to the End Uyghur Forced Labour campaign, 1 in 5 cotton garments are tainted by Uyghur forced labour, 45% of the world's solar-grade polysilicon (used in solar panels) supply comes from the Uyghur Region and more than 17 industries globally are implicated in Uyghur forced labour. Researchers from the Center for Strategic and International Studies say forced labour is an important element of the government's plan for Xinjiang's economic development, which includes making it a hub of textile and apparel manufacturing.

Since the release of the UN report, Human Rights Watch have said "the [Australian] government should introduce legislation blocking the import of goods made with forced labour, both from Xinjiang and other locations inside and outside of China." This bill will achieve that.

The Human Rights Subcommittee of the 46th Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade received extensive submissions and testimony from members of the Uyghur diaspora in Australia and human rights organisations relating to human rights violations in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China that are consistent with inquiries that have happened in like-parliaments globally, including the United States and Canada.

While the government's review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 is welcome, it will not be completed until March 2023. Once this review is done, there is no guarantee that it will go far enough in ensuring the ban of goods produced by forced labour, nor whether the government will implement its recommendations. This bill gives us the opportunity to send a message on Australia's position on these serious human rights abuses, right now.

This bill will define forced labour under section 270.6 of the Criminal Code which states this as the condition of a person, the victim, who provides labour or services if, because of the use of coercion, threat or deception the victim would not consider himself or herself to be free to cease providing the labour or services, or to leave the place or area where the victim provides the labour or services.

It will support Australia's longstanding commitment to internationally recognised human rights to freedom from slavery and forced labour such as in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and related international conventions against slavery and forced labour.

This bill will fulfill the objective of implementing recommendation 1 of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's report into the 2021 bill, without further delay.

This amendment to the Customs Act1901 would impose an absolute ban on the importation of goods produced in whole or part by forced labour. The ban is global in nature and does not specify any geographic origin for its application. The importation into Australia of any goods found to have been produced by forced labour, will be subject to the penalties that apply to the importation of other goods designated as prohibited imports by regulations made under the Customs Act1901.

Corporations must be required to identify and eliminate forced labour from every part of their supply chain. The elimination of forced labour must be considered a matter of urgency.

Let this parliament be the one which stops forced labour imports and no longer allows Australia to be implicated in these horrific human rights abuses.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I seek leave to amend government business No. 1.

Leave granted.

On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move the motion as amended:

That—

(1) The hours of meeting on Tuesday, 22 November and Thursday, 24 November 2022 be from midday till 9.30 pm and 9 am till 7.30 pm respectively, and the routine of business from 7.30 pm on Tuesday and from 5.30 pm on Thursday be:

(a) government business only; and

(b) adjournment without debate.

(2) Divisions may take place after 6.30 pm on Tuesday, 22 November 2022 and after 5.30 pm on Thursday, 24 November 2022.

(3) The Senate meet on Friday, 25 November and Friday, 2 December 2022.

(4) The hours of meeting on Friday, 25 November 2022 be 9 am till 4 pm, and the routine of business be as follows:

(a) government business only; and

(b) adjournment without debate.

(5) If, by 2 pm on Friday, 25 November 2022, consideration of the following bills has not concluded, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate:

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022

Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022

Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022

Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

Customs Tariff Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

Treasury Laws Amendment (Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022

Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022

Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022;

Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022.

(6) Paragraph (5) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

(7) The Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the bills has concluded.

(8) The hours of meeting on Friday, 2 December 2022 be 9 am till adjournment, and the routine of business be as follows:

(a) government business only, followed by consideration of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022;

(b) adjournment without debate after consideration of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 has concluded, or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

One Nation opposes this motion. The Senate is the house of review. One Nation will resist the Anthony Albanese government's efforts to restrict the Senate's opportunity to debate and to amend. We oppose turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the lower house.

If Senator Gallagher must continually reorder business, one has to ask what has gone wrong in the government? Why did the Albanese government set out a sitting calendar containing fewer sitting days than normal then, with the end of the year looming, we face guillotine motions and a truncating of Senate process? I doubt this is due to the government's lack of ability. These repeated reorders, when taken together with the decision to reduce the crossbench staff, reek more of deliberate censorship than incompetence. We have to ask what deals were done with the Greens and with Senator Pocock to approve this and previous reorders. Dodgy deals extend well beyond Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews, to Labor as a whole.

Senator Roberts, I remind you that when referring to leaders in other states to use their correct titles.

Premier Dan Andrews.

Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Birmingham.

I seek leave to make a short statement—

Just a moment, Senator Birmingham. Senator McKenzie, it is incredibly disorderly to call out when you are not in your seat. And I asked you earlier today to withdraw that remark, and I'm going to ask you to withdraw it again without comment.

I wasn't on—

Senator McKenzie, it's not an argument or a debating point. It was well heard, and I'm asking that you withdraw the remark.

If it would assist the chamber, I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Senator Birmingham.

There are some parts of this motion that are not unusual for an end-of-sitting period, and we acknowledge that governments have matters that are routine to the orderly business of government that need to be progressed. The opposition has sought to engage with the government in as constructive a way as possible in relation to those. However, there are other matters to this motion, in terms of scheduling additional sitting days, which include sitting days, the purpose of which is now undefined. But it is obviously clear that the purpose of those additional sitting days is part of the government's plan to ram through with undue haste their irresponsible and reckless industrial relations reforms.

Ultimately, this government went to the last election promising a very contained a suite of IR reforms but, instead, just months later, it's seeking to pursue reforms that workplaces and industry groups across the country have denounced. We won't be giving the government a blank cheque in terms of extra days next week for IR reforms that nobody voted for and that every industry group is saying will drive inflation higher and jobs lower.

Senator Birmingham, I assume you're seeking leave to move this motion?

No, that was just a short statement. But for clarity for the chamber, there is an amendment circulating in my name. However, the government has subsequently amended its motion in ways that we are not aware of. Until seeing that, I will not proceed with the amendment circulated.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. We've got an amended motion put forward by Senator Chisholm in the name of Senator Gallagher. I will now proceed to Senator Hanson-Young.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Greens will be supporting this hours motion and the ordering of business for the remainder of this week. We also support the amendment, as circulated by the government, to help facilitate a very important piece of legislation, the territory rights legislation, to finally—hopefully—pass this place. This legislation has been tried many times for far too long. Territorians have been denied their rights because of—and talk about secret deals and dodgy deals—deals that were done in this place decades ago. Territorians have been suffering the results of this ever since, so it's time we corrected this and it's time that we made sure that all Australians are seen as equal under the law.

This motion deals with a number of bills. There is a huge number of them; we understand that. But we are willing to facilitate the passage of them on the basis that this place needs to be functional and that it needs to work properly for the people. We will support the motion. (Time expired)

The question is that the motion standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, moved by Senator Chisolm, as amended, be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 relating to a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure. The amendment changes the return date from 1 February 2023 to 31 March 2023.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2023:

(1) The appropriate terms to establish a procedure in the standing orders through which:

(a) senators can confidentially and privately review documents subject to an order for production that a Minister believes would be against the public interest to table; and

(b) after the documents have been made available for review, the Senate can reject a Minister's public interest claim against disclosure and order the tabling of the documents.

(2) Whether the procedure in paragraph (1) is appropriate having regard to the balance between the Senate's constitutional power as the house of review, the necessity of senators to be properly informed of sensitive issues to make informed decisions and the protection of the public interest from public disclosure of sensitive information.

CHISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Claims of public interest immunity made by ministers in response to orders for the production of documents balance transparency with a recognised position that there is information held by government that it would not be in the public interest to disclose. This includes documents that would put our national security or defence at risk, prejudice an investigation by a law enforcement agency or an ongoing judicial process or put public safety at risk. Senator Roberts proposes upending this process.

The Procedure Committee and other committees have already extensively inquired into the making of public interest immunity claims and the procedures for dealing them. I strongly encourage the opposition as a party of government to reconsider its support for these changes. In just the last parliament alone, those opposite issued claims of public interest immunity in response to 40 per cent of Senate orders for the production of documents. Now they are proposing to support Senator Roberts to erode these protections. The opposition should put responsibility ahead of political opportunity. (Time expired)

The question is that Business of the Senate No. 2, as amended by Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

As to general business notice of motion No. 81, I inform the chamber that Senators Hanson and Roberts will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Hanson, Roberts, Rennick, Canavan and Babet, move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 3 pm on Tuesday, 29 November 2022:

(a) any contractual documents (without redaction) including any schedules, appendices or similar document (without redaction), for the supply, production, distribution or administration of any COVID-19 vaccine in Australia ('the vaccine contracts') executed by or on behalf of the Australian Government and any of the following ('the vaccine producers'):

(i) Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd and/or its parent companies, nominees, agents or subsidiaries,

(ii) AstraZeneca Pty Ltd and/or its parent companies, nominees, agents or subsidiaries,

(iii) Moderna Australia Pty Ltd and/or its parent companies, nominees, agents or subsidiaries, and

(iv) Novavax Inc and/or its parent companies, nominees, agents or subsidiaries;

(b) any other document referenced, referred to or incorporated into any of the vaccine contracts but not included in the contractual document;

(c) any other document evidencing any pre-contractual representations with respect to effectiveness, side effects, fitness for purpose, merchantability, warranties or exclusions of warranty related to the supply, production, distribution or administration of any COVID-19 vaccine in Australia by any of the vaccine producers; and

(d) any other document evidencing any indemnity, guarantee, waiver or release of liability, forbearance to sue or similar enforceable right provided by or on behalf of the Australian Government to any of the vaccine producers with respect to the supply, production, distribution or administration of any COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 81 standing in the names of Senators Antic, Hanson, Roberts and others be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 84, relating to estimates hearings for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The amendment has been circulated.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That, for the purposes of estimates, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee meet on:

(1) Friday, 25 November 2022 from 9 am to 1 pm to examine the following:

  (a) Outcome 1, Outcome 2 and Outcome 3 of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts,

  (b) Civil Aviation Safety Authority,

  (c) Airservices Australia, and

  (d) Australian Maritime Safety Authority; and

(2) Friday, 2 December 2022 from 9 am to 12 pm to examine the following:

  (a) Outcome 1, Outcome 2 and Outcome 3 of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts,

  (b) Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility,

  (c) Infrastructure Australia,

  (d) National Intermodal Corporation Limited, and

  (e) Australian Rail Track Corporation.

The question is that Senator Canavan's motion, as amended, be agreed to.

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 22 November 2022, from Senator Hanson:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today Pauline Hanson's One Nation proposes to move: "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need for the Senate to condemn the Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews, for h is office's dealings and association with Glenn Druery who, it was reported this morning, admitted to using his position in a Senator's office for personal financial gain; and in light of revelations upper house group voting tickets are being used to misle ad voters to the unethical benefit of the Andrews Labor Government to affirm the Senate's support for free and fair elections with integrity."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I will ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to condemn the Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews, for his office's dealings and association with Glenn Druery who, it was reported this morning, admitted to using his position in a Senator's office for personal financial gain; and—in light of revelations upper house group voting tickets are being used to mislead voters to the unethical benefit of the Andrews Labor Government—to affirm the Senate's support for free and fair elections with integrity.

I rise to ask the Senate to affirm its support for free and fair elections which accurately reflects the intention of Australian voters. Prior to the 2016 federal election the Senate amended federal electoral laws to ensure voters retained control of their preferences. The result in 2016 was a Senate with a strong crossbench that the Australian people wanted. This followed previous Senate election outcomes which defied public expectations. Those outcomes had Glenn Druery's name all over them. We all know who this man is and how he has made his name over the years as a so-called 'preference whisperer'. In the past week, reports on the Herald Sun newspaper have served to remind us of his talent and of the need to always be vigilant in the defence of free and fair elections.

It hasn't been the best week for Glenn Druery, I can tell you. He has been recorded admitting that he has worked with the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, to deliver a crossbench Labor can work with. He is on the record as saying that he manipulates upper house group-voting tickets to mislead Victorian voters and direct their preferences to left-leaning minor party candidates, all in an effort to keep Premier Andrews in power. He even admits to creating a fake party, the 'Restore Democracy Sack Dan Andrews Party' in his efforts to mislead voters.

The Victorian Premier initially denied any involvement, but it's been confirmed that Mr Druery has been working closely with his office in the lead-up to this year's state election. It's telling that the Premier has resisted many calls to reform Victorian electoral laws and to get rid of the upper house group-voting tickets. Now we know why. Premier Andrews has well and truly been a law unto himself. He has led the most unaccountable government in the history of Victoria, with a long list of scandals, IBAC referrals and political scalps under his watch: branch stacking, the botched hotel quarantine program, fire services reform, printing rorts, misuse of parliamentary allowances in the red shirts affair, country member allowances claimed by city-based MPs, taxpayers billed for chauffeuring dogs and MPs bullying their staff, not to forget the collision with a cyclist.

Today there are more revelations, with a recording of Mr Druery saying he used his position on the staff of former senator Derryn Hinch for personal financial gain, acting on privileged foreknowledge of the financial services royal commission to sell his bank shares. This is in direct contravention of the law. That he may well have broken the law for personal gain is an important matter that should be investigated; of greater importance is that Australian voters have confidence in their votes, support candidates they want to support and have confidence in the accuracy and integrity of democratic elections. To Victorian voters I say this: vote below the line in the upper house to make sure your preferences are directed to where you want them. The only safe vote above the line is One Nation. We are not part of Mr Druery's cohort of fake parties, and you can be confident your preferences will remain with conservative candidates and like-minded parties.

One Nation Victoria has also pledged to undertake electoral reform so that in the future Victorians can have confidence in the outcome. Failure to ensure election integrity is a betrayal of the Australian people's trust, and since this is a function of law, it is up to us lawmakers to meet this expectation. One Nation has been very active in this space, introducing legislation to this effect last year, and I commend my colleague Senator Roberts for his diligent efforts to protect and enhance election integrity. So I ask the Senate to stand in condemnation of Premier Daniel Andrews for being associated with this manipulation of the system to mislead voters. I ask the Senate to stand in defence of free and fair elections which reflect the intent of the Australian people and which strengthen their faith in the principles and institutions of Australian democracy.

The Australian Labor Party has a long and proud history of strengthening our electoral system, and in that tradition the government's priorities continue to be improving transparency and accountability in our electoral law. Labor believes Australians deserve to know who is donating to candidates and political parties and who is influencing policy. That's why we have had legislation before the parliament for years to ensure the donation disclosure threshold is fixed at $1,000 instead of the current $15,200 and to introduce real-time disclosure of donations. These proposed reforms have been referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters as part of the standing inquiry following each election, and I know they maintain broad support.

More broadly, though, some senators in this chamber, especially those attacking the Victorian Premier, may want to reflect on some of their own practices around fundraising and donations before lecturing others. Indeed I could take the rest of my time on this urgency motion to point out the complete hypocrisy from Pauline Hanson's One Nation in bringing on this debate today. I could spend my time stepping out how this sort of baseless attack is one thing: Senator Hanson's desperation in trying to improve her party's dismal polling prospects at the Victorian election this Saturday by pulling a stunt in the Senate. This motion is just a symptom of Senator Hanson's relevance deprivation syndrome after Pauline Hanson's One Nation flopped at the last federal election. Now Senator Hanson is worried about flopping in the Victorian election this week.

But I will not waste my time addressing the long and ugly history of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. No, instead I would like to take a moment to point out to Senator Hanson and to the Senate just what the state Labor government in Victoria has achieved and in doing so show Senator Hanson what good government in my state looks like. It looks like delivering on generational infrastructure projects, like removing 67 level crossings to make commuting quicker, safer and cheaper; building 6,300 new social and affordable homes, with a view to delivering 16,000 in the next four years; and building the Metro Tunnel. It looks like delivering on world-leading climate change policy by cutting emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050, re-establishing the state energy company to make energy cheaper and greener and making the largest tram network in the world powered by 100 per cent solar energy. It looks like providing reforms that make Victoria the place to be, whether you're a renter who now has access to better and protected rights, a casual worker who can now access a sick pay guarantee or a kid in any government school who can now see a mental health professional. It looks like leading the nation in recognising and advancing the rights of Australia's First Nations people through a Victorian truth-telling and treaty process. It looks like leading the nation by being the first state to legislate voluntary assisted dying laws, now a norm in this country, which means people can die with dignity. It means educating our young people for the benefit of all Victorians by making kindergarten free, making TAFE courses for in-demand occupations free and making it free to study nursing.

I could go on, but I will say lastly that the achievements I've outlined don't just look like good government; they are good government. While it's clear that some people want to scramble to repair their own reputations by attacking the Victorian government and its achievements, the reality is that the Australian Labor Party in Victoria has a proven record of getting things done. I have no doubt that, if re-elected, it will only build on the truly life-changing reforms that have made the lives of Victorians better.

The Greens will not be supporting this urgency motion today. Whilst we agree with Senator Hanson that group voting tickets are an abomination—and I'll come to that shortly—there's more than a whiff of electoral denialism to this motion. We know that the far right here in this parliament and around the world are waging a war on democracy and on free and fair elections, and we are not interested in being a part of that. Thanks to our AEC and our state and territory electoral commissions, Australia's elections have some of the highest integrity and transparency in the world.

But none of that changes how appalling group voting tickets are. Group voting tickets enable preference whisperers, like Mr Druery, to allocate your preferences for you when you vote above the line. That means that, for the over 90 per cent of voters who do just that, when you put a party like the Health Australia Party or the Sustainable Australia Party as your No. 1, you could very well end up sending your preferences to pro-gun parties like the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party or anti-abortion parties like the Democratic Labour Party. Under these rules, the only way around this, to actually control your own preferences, is to vote below the line and number every box, risking an invalid vote if you make a mistake.

Here in the federal parliament, the Greens were proud to be part of abolishing group voting tickets in 2016. In every other state and territory, parliaments have made the wise decision to abolish group voting tickets. Everyone knows group voting tickets need to end. Experts like Antony Green hate them. Every state and territory government, including Labor governments, like Mr McGowan's in WA, also hates them. The Greens hate them. Even the Liberals hate them. It's only the Victorian Labor government that has refused to abolish group voting tickets. My Victorian Greens colleagues have been the only members of the last Victorian parliament who've pushed to get rid of group voting tickets and have challenged both the Labor and the Liberal parties to commit to reform this undemocratic system before the election on Saturday. The group voting system will continue to distort the will of voters until Labor and the Liberals commit to reform.

Victoria needs to get on with the job of abolishing group voting tickets, and the Greens will continue to campaign both here and in Victoria for improvements to our electoral system. But make no mistake: we won't team up with One Nation when it comes to questions of electoral integrity.

The Victorian premier, Mr Daniel Andrews, doing dodgy deals with election fixer Mr Glenn Druery: that is a classic case of someone shaking hands with the devil—that's what that is. My problem is that I can't tell which one of these two is the devil. Is it (a) Dictator Dan, (b) election rigger Mr Glenn Druery, or, as I suspect, (c) all of the above?

Mr Daniel Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, has a record that would make the devil himself blush. He has racked up the worst debt of any state by far: $170 billion of predicted debt.

Even more than Queensland!

It's more than Queensland, more than Tasmania and more than New South Wales combined. He has crippled our state's health system. People are dying at home waiting for an ambulance, which doesn't even show up. That's what's happening. He has overseen the harshest and the longest lockdowns on planet Earth. He was responsible for the highest COVID death rate in the country. He had a pregnant mother arrested in her home—but what for? For a Facebook post. He arrested and pepper sprayed senior citizens. He kept you from seeing your dying relatives and mourning the loss of your loved ones. He had the police shoot innocent people with rubber bullets. He shut the playgrounds. He kept your children out of school. You were arrested for daring to go to the beach by yourself. He divided families and tried to keep you apart for Christmas. He used the pandemic as an excuse to turn my home state, the once great state of Victoria, into a living hell. That's what he did.

As if that were not enough, he himself is mired in scandals and scams that seem to have no end. You know what? There's something new in the paper every single day about Premier Dan Andrews. Here's one: 'Absolute disgrace'—

There is a point of order.

I'm sure Senator Babet's aware that there are standing orders in relation to using props in the chamber.

There are, actually, Senator Babet. Please continue.

I withdraw. He is the subject of not one, not two, not three, not four, but five IBAC corruption inquiries.

How many?

Five! That's how many. Let me ask Labor members this: how many times should IBAC investigate your dodgy Victorian colleague before you find the moral courage to condemn him? How many times? Are you waiting for a sixth corruption inquiry before you find your voice? Well, you might not have to wait for long, as the Liberal Party has just referred Premier Dan Andrews to IBAC once again.

No. 6!

Exactly. How hellish does Victoria need to become before those of us here in Canberra will finally say enough is enough?

The scandal is not only about Dictator—sorry: Premier Daniel Andrews's deals with dodgy Glenn Druery. The real scandal is that federal Labor protect the corrupt and tyrannical Premier Dan Andrews as one of their own. That's the real scandal. Mr Glenn Druery, this political fixer, has boasted on camera about creating sham political parties in order to fool voters into voting for candidates and parties that will be cooperative to Premier Dan Andrews, when these voters might have reasonable belief that they are actually voting against Dan Andrews. This election fixing is permitted in the state of Victoria, and it is outrageous. It is outrageous that we allow this to happen to the benefit of Daniel Andrews. It beggars belief.

Senator Babet, you know where we're going to go here. On a point of order, Minister?

Senator Babet is entitled to be disrespectful and use pejorative language to suit what no doubt is going to be a terrific post on Telegram or wherever the right wing are posting these days, but he is required to use the Premier of Victoria's proper title, and he ought to show the chamber a little bit more respect.

Senator Babet, I would ask that you refer to whoever it is by their proper title.

How many reports of corruption, election fixing and incompetence need to come out of Victoria before someone in the federal Labor Party finds the courage to say something? How many times?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took time out on Monday to thank Premier Dan Andrews on Twitter. He said, 'Dan Andrews is building a better future for all Victorians.' The PM is surely having a lend of us. Sixty thousand Victorians fled Victoria last year, the most on record in a single year. The future that Premier Dan Andrews is building is so good that Victorians see their future elsewhere! How can the Prime Minister support Dan Andrews and keep a straight face? This is the same Prime Minister who promised to elevate the tone of politics. When Victorians go to the polls on Saturday, they should not reward Premier Dan Andrews but instead sack him.

In the last few days, a video exposing preference manipulator Glenn Druery has been circulating on social media. Even the mouthpiece media were forced to acknowledge Druery's boasting confession that he manipulated election results for 25 years to sell seats in parliament. Manipulating preferences is morally reprehensible, and any party that participates in these dodgy deals is morally reprehensible. The scheme involves setting up fake parties and, in effect, selling preferences to parties that otherwise would not get enough votes to win. Most Victorians simply put a 1 above the line without realising where that party's preferences will go.

In the 2021 Western Australian election, Liberal Party preferences elected a Greens member. I am sure voters would not have taken that decision themselves. Any party participating in this scheme clearly puts power ahead of principle. Druery alumni include the Legalise Cannabis Party, the Democratic Labour Party, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party, Fiona Patten's Reason Party, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and, sadly, the Liberal Democrats. One Nation has not used Druery. We have lost elections where we significantly outpolled the winning party yet lost because of Druery's dodgy preference deals.

In 2014, Dan Andrews spoke to the Liberals about abolishing group-voting tickets. It never happened. A lot of Dan Andrews's promises never happen. One Nation's clarity and directness may not suit some people at times, yet with One Nation what you see is what you get. I stress: voters who vote above the line enable parties to allocate their preferences. Instead, for a fair democracy, preferences should not be given to corrupt, undemocratic parties and should always belong to each voter. I urge all Victorians at this weekend's election to vote below the line. Mark at least five squares. Ten is better. That's the only way voters can control and allocate who gets preferences. We have one flag, we are one community, we are One Nation and we value and protect democracy.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson, in relation to the urgency motion, be agreed to.

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 22 November 2022, from Senator McDonald:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move: "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

That the Senate reaffirms the need for investment to ensure future domestic gas supply and that the Government's axing of policies to increase supply, coupled with its internal divisions on gas market policy, will only drive gas prices higher.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set clock accordingly.

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

That the Senate reaffirms the need for investment to ensure future domestic gas supply and that the Government's axing of policies to increase supply, coupled with its internal divisions on gas market policy, will only drive gas prices higher.

It has become apparent over the last few weeks that this is a Labor government of old, not of Hawke or Keating or Curtin but of the disastrous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd days. Labor has been marred by cabinet leaks, indecision and warring cabinet ministers. This has culminated in the latest failure: domestic gas policy. They've shot themselves in the foot and now they're complaining it hurts.

Back in September, after the Jobs and Skills Summit, the Prime Minister unequivocally ruled out any thought of a new mining tax, and yet, less than two weeks ago, it was leaked that this was back on the table—another broken promise from a broken government. It is 'mining tax 2.0'.

Labor's own budget has forecast gas and electricity price increases of over 40 per cent and 50 per cent over the next two years. What was their solution? It was to cut critical funding to projects designed to provide a greater gas supply. In the October budget they axed the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program, a program designed to secure gas supply from the Beetaloo basin—a basin that could supply over 200,000 petajoules of gas. That's 200 years worth of supply.

In the same budget they slashed more than half of the funding for the Cooper and Adavale basins plan. Over $30 million allocated to increase domestic gas supplies was gutted, further stranding investors trying to increase our domestic gas supply. To make matters worse, Labor has showered green lawfare offices, like the Environmental Defenders Office and Environmental Justice Australia, with almost $10 billion in handouts.

What we have is a government in crisis. Labor has no plan to address the cost of living and no plan to address rising electricity prices. All we have are thought bubbles. Furthermore, state governments that are now baying for reservations, price caps and government interventions are the same states that have locked gas away, reducing supply to the domestic market. The hypocrisy is astounding, for it will not be states like Victoria who suffer under a price cut or resources tax; it will be states like Western Australia and Queensland, who already produce gas for domestic users.

Instead of working to get more gas out of the ground to help Australian families and industries, Labor is laying siege to the resources sector from all sides. Mining companies are now warning that up to 33,000 jobs are at risk from a potential new mining tax 2.0 from Labor, as well as from its irresponsible industrial relations legislation. That would imperil projects valued at up to $77 billion, spreading an investment uncertainty contagion. The mining sector has identified 140 projects subject to pre-final investment decisions that would be at risk from new taxes and ill thought through industrial relations changes. More broadly, with Labor reviewing the EPBC Act and creating additional barriers for approvals, potentially up to $100 billion in investments and 174,000 jobs are now at risk from the Minister for the Environment's politically charged project reviews.

We know that the surest way to secure, affordable, reliable gas is through increasing supply. The coalition knows this. Minister King knows this. Unfortunately, some of her cabinet colleagues cannot fathom the thought of investing in gas supply. The coalition developed our strategic basins program to target projects that brought domestic gas supply online—projects in the Beetaloo, Cooper, Adavale, North Bowen and Galilee. These projects were backed by industry and, with government support, had the potential to bring hundreds of petajoules of gas to market. The coalition invested over $360 million in our strategic basin plans and the National Gas Infrastructure Plan—funding to ensure Australian households, consumers and manufacturers have access to affordable gas.

Gas is and will continue to be a necessity for decades to come, through power generation, manufacturing, industry, agriculture and energy transitions. Labor need to stop their internal bickering and guarantee more gas supply now.

It is really something, isn't it, to be lectured to by the National Party, of all of the parties in this chamber, about division? It's peak Senate; we should probably offer Senator McDonald an extension of time to talk about this more, because this is the group of people who could have done something about this—or any number of things—in the nine years that they were part of the government. But they didn't use their nine years for that, did they? They actually just spent most of their time in government bickering with one another about who was going to get to be the DPM. That was their big priority: working out who was going to get the big position. They didn't pay attention to the very significant policy issues that required the attention of the government and that required the attention of the National Party—and that the regions would have appreciated, had they been dealt with. They didn't do any of those things; they just fought amongst themselves about who was going to be the Deputy Prime Minister.

The truth is that energy prices are of course a very real challenge for our economy. We are currently dealing with the most significant shock to energy markets in 50 years, and that is a direct result of Russia's illegal and prolonged attack on Ukraine. The IEA said this about it:

Energy markets and policies have changed as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not just for the time being, but for decades to come.

So if we think about the context that we're dealing with, it's a pretty sad reflection on the opposition that their choice is to come in here and make a pretty narrow partisan and political point. Exactly: there is a national interest to be dealt with here and it needs to be taken seriously. Australian households, businesses and industries are grappling with the impact of this, and responding to it is made all the more difficult because of the chaos and dysfunction that afflicted the last government—particularly on the question of energy policy.

Since coming to government, we have been taking steps to remedy that. In the first days after the Albanese Labor government ministry was sworn in, we had to deal with a very significant crisis emerging in the energy market—in the electricity market. That was successfully navigated in a collaborative and orderly way, using the institutions of the market and by working with colleagues in the states and territories. We have since had to deal with the gas supply issue—which, again, we have dealt with in orderly and collaborative way. And now we are dealing with pricing.

The truth is that Senator McDonald likes to talk about their legacy on gas, but the Morrison government's gas fired recovery failed to get more gas into the system. It was all talk and no action. They said that they'd enforce 'use it or lose it' conditions on gas licenses and that actually didn't happen. They said they'd develop a gas reservation scheme and that didn't happen. They said they'd avoid a shortfall in the domestic gas market, with new agreements with the three east coast LNG exporters, but they didn't bother to extend the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism or the heads of agreement before the last election. It was a lot of talk and not much delivery.

We understand that this matters for Australians and we're taking prudent, responsible and careful action to reduce energy price pressures on Australian households and on Australian industry, without undermining investment. As the IEA points out—and almost any other serious commentator—these are extraordinary times. Energy markets around the world are being reshaped, and the government is working on options to bring prices down. Greater transparency in the market is urgently needed, and the solutions lie not just in one place—there is no silver bullet—they lie across the energy supply chain. So the ACCC is advising the Treasurer on how the gas industry's voluntary code of conduct is operating and how to ensure reasonable pricing. As the Treasurer has said, our first preference is not a tax outcome here; our first preference is a regulatory outcome. But it makes sense to leave other options on the table until we conclude a view; it's not wise to rule other options out.

The budget contains $67 million to modernise energy market regulation and to increase the ACCC's scrutiny of gas markets. Any additional action that we take on energy prices will be balanced against the need to maintain investment confidence and to support Australian industry and households.

Fossil fuel companies in Australia are amongst the dodgiest polluters in the world and are destroyers of First Nations cultural heritage. For decades they have been aided by a succession of Labor and Liberal governments.

Supply is not the issue here. Don't be fooled! Don't be a fossil fool! We export around 80 per cent of Australia's gas. The idea that we simply need to increase supply is a complete joke, but it's a joke that governments have adopted as energy policy over the last decade. More gas production just means even more exports and profits for oil and gas companies, like Santos, Woodside and Chevron. This is a government that is captured by these fossil fuel companies, allowing them to continue destroying our lands, water, air and sacred sites, facilitating manufactured consent rather than ensuring traditional custodians provide free, prior and informed consent.

Climate change is here. The climate science spells it out clearly. At the recent COP we heard stories from First Nations people across the globe who are being displaced, leaving their ancestral homes and losing their ancestral bones because of climate change. The International Energy Agency itself has said that if we are to have any chance of sticking to 1.5 degrees of warming and protecting our cultural heritage there can be no new oil and gas projects. This sounds simple, right? But the government are more interested in protecting their corporate donor mates in the fossil fuel industry than taking meaningful climate action. This government had $42.7 billion in fossil fuel handouts in its recent budget, while we are in a cost-of-living and climate crisis and while First Nations people in the Beetaloo and across the country are fighting to protect their country against fossil fuel companies.

Just yesterday, the Greens tried to stop the government lending their mates in the Victorian government $32 million for a dodgy gas development on my country, Gunnai country. It will be at Golden Beach: pristine, beautiful country that's part of Ninety Mile Beach. The audacity of the Victorian Labor government to talk treaty while they log our country and drill into our oceans, destroying our lands, waters, totems and sacred sites. (Time expired)

Whenever I follow a Greens senator who has talked about economics and about supply and demand, I refer to my book on basic economics to see what that tells me about supply and demand issues. Senator Thorpe seems to think this is not a supply issue. It absolutely is a supply and demand issue. What happens when you constrain supply? When you constrain supply, prices go up. It is economics 101: when you constrain supply, prices go up. That is what we have seen in the Australian gas market. It is basic economics 101: you constrain supply and prices go up.

The tragedy of this situation is that Australia has an ample supply of gas. It's just a question of getting it out of the ground and getting it to market. That is where there has been a failure of state governments, in particular the state government of Victoria. With respect to that, in that context, it is so disappointing to hear the rhetoric coming from some government ministers in the other chamber. In particular, I refer to the comment made by the Minister for Industry and Science, Mr Ed Husic, and quoted in an article by the great political editor of the AFR, Phillip Coorey. The article is entitled 'Labor, unions rupture over gas prices'. Minister Husic said:

It's team Australia or team greed—the choice is up to the gas companies.

That's what he said. He cast a general slur upon all of those companies, including great Queensland companies, which spend millions and millions of dollars on gas exploration, having invested in important infrastructure in places such as Gladstone, in my home state of Queensland. 'It's all about team Australia or team greed.' That's what the minister says. He casts a general slur over those involved in the oil and gas industry.

I ask, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Smith, where was the minister for industry when those companies were struggling with gas prices near the floor and were writing off billions in investment and incurring billions and billions in losses? Where was his 'team Australia or team greed' rhetoric? Nothing. Crickets. Absolutely nothing. But now the market has turned he wants to cast a slur on the gas companies. What he should be looking at is the state government of Victoria and how it has not taken the action necessary to increase gas supply in the east coast market.

I want to quote from an op-ed piece written by Mr Ian Davies, who actually is involved in the gas industry and knows something about the gas industry. I think this article, which appeared in the AFR a month or so ago, contains all you need to know about this argument. He says:

The key to reducing the gas price is to unlock the upstream industry's potential to deliver more gas …

That's the key. This is a supply issue. The gas is there in the ground. We need to get it to market. That's the key. And again I quote from this outstanding op-ed:

Simply blaming upstream gas suppliers for all of the economy's woes is not only wrong, it is cynical, political and lazy.

That's what Mr Davies says. He is involved in the gas industry and has been for a long period of time. That's the response to the slurs from the minister for industry who invokes greed et cetera instead of looking at the underlying cause, and the underlying cause is a lack of supply.

The Narrabri Gas Project in New South Wales could provide half the market of gas for residents and businesses in New South Wales, but it's taken 10 years and more; we're still waiting for that gas project to come online. That's the issue. It's an issue of supply. Those opposite—ministers in this government—are engaging in this rhetoric, which I refer to as cynical, political and lazy. They're demonising the gas industry, instead of looking at ways supply can be increased.

I will end with this quote from Mr Davies's article:

We are a sophisticated and wealthy nation with sophisticated and complicated markets. Let's act like it.

The National Party have put forward today's urgency motion. This is the same party who held the resources portfolio between 2013 and 2022 and failed to introduce a domestic gas reserve policy in Commonwealth waters. If a domestic gas reserve policy had been introduced, Australians would not be facing a shortage of natural gas or high priced electricity. Budget Paper No. 1 shows Australians will receive more from beer drinkers than foreign owned multinational companies exporting liquefied natural gas.

When I introduced the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 to get more natural gas for Australia, not one party supported me. We can only blame the parties that have formed government for the high price of gas which has killed manufacturing in Australia and which is driving electricity prices higher. I'm not going to let the Nationals virtue signal on natural gas when, in government, they helped foreign-owned companies avoid paying tax in Australia. If the Nationals had stopped taking $55,000 a year from oil and gas companies for corporate membership of their party, they might have been free from the criticism of conflict of interest.

Australians expect their government to act in their best interests. That won't happen while the big parties take millions from the oil and gas companies. As I keep reiterating, until we deal with the gas of the North West Shelf and get these multinational companies to pay their fair share of tax in Australia and get a gas supply from Western Australia to the east coast of Australia or build more pipelines to service the needs of Australians, we are going to lose more industries and more manufacturing because of the lack of gas. This has been ill thought out and ill prepared by governments who have not fought for the benefit of the Australian people. It's an absolute crying shame that they never supported my bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill, which was in the best interests of all Australians.

Firstly, I just want to briefly respond to Senator Hanson there. It is not correct to say that the former Liberal-National government did not impose a domestic gas reservation policy. One of the last acts I did as resources minister was to establish a change in the policy of the federal government so that any new gas field developed in Australia would have a domestic reserve requirement. I stand by that decision. And we very much hope that some of these new gas fields are developed, to help supply gas to Australians.

In terms of comments Senator Hanson made about offshore oil and gas fields, we really have only a few of those in Australia—some off the Western Australian coast and some off the Victorian coast, with a little bit up in the Northern Territory. The reality is that those in the west and the north are not connected to the eastern coast, and there is not a shortage of gas in our north and west, so an offshore reservation policy there would not have alleviated the situation we face here in eastern Australia.

That being said, in Western Australia there is already a 15 per cent domestic gas reserve requirement, which supplies them with gas—properly so. All of the gas from the Bass Strait, the other big resource we have, is supplied domestically. The Bass Strait reserve already does go to domestic supply. A domestic gas reservation requirement would not have changed that.

The problem we, as a nation, have and have faced for some years is that the Bass Strait, as a region, has been declining in terms of its gas reserves, especially of the low-cost gas which comes when you produce oil. That has increased prices and costs for the users of gas in eastern Australia.

We have been desperate to find new sources of gas. Of course, we have the coal-seam gas in Queensland, which helps, but it is a relatively high-cost form of gas production. And what we desperately need is to find more oil.

That is why the decision in the budget, only a few weeks ago, to slash funding for the development and exploration of new gas fields is so disappointing to the manufacturing industry in this country, and to anyone who wants to see power bills, energy bills, come down in Australia. Effectively, this government is crying crocodile tears for the manufacturing industry right now. They are purporting to have sympathy for the factory owners, for the small businesses, for just mums and dads who are struggling to pay their bills right now. But, on the other hand, they are doing nothing—not taking the actions they could take—to alleviate those circumstances. If the government were serious about bringing down gas prices and making sure we keep manufacturing jobs in this country, why would they have cut over $50 million from the development of the Cooper and Adavale basins to develop more gas for Australians?

The truth is: Australian governments have always been involved in the development of new oil and gas fields in this country. In the Bass Strait, it was the Menzies government at the time that provided a production credit, a drilling credit, to then BHP and Esso to develop that field. It served Australia well for 50 years.

Drilling for new oil and gas fields is extremely risky. In the early stages of the development, it is very hard to make the sums stack up—even more so, when you have a government calling in 18 coal and gas projects right now. The risks of paying lots of money—hundreds of millions of dollars—upfront to drill, when you don't even know if you're going to get approval at the end of it, make it very difficult.

There is a public good in developing our own resources, because let's be clear—and I agree with Senator Hanson: the gas companies don't own the resources; they are owned by the Australian people. So, because they're owned by us, we should seek to develop the knowledge and understanding of those resources so that we can attract further investment from companies to develop them. They are our resources.

It's like owning a block of land. When you own a block of land, you try and market it; you want someone to buy it. You might put some fences around it, you might do some stick-picking on it, to make some buyers interested in coming along and potentially developing it. It's the same principle here. It is our oil and gas. Those are our resources. We should be doing that early work, that exploratory drilling, to de-risk those projects, to bring up the knowledge of them, so that we can attract investment and bring down power bills and keep manufacturing jobs in this country.

The government's decision to slash funding from those activities is so short-sighted. And it is so hypocritical, because we had the Treasurer out there today saying that somehow he wants to find a solution for the manufacturers and the gas industry in this country, and yet, in his budget, only a month ago, he slashed the very funding of development of resources that could help alleviate those resource issues. If only our factories could be powered by the hypocrisy of this government, we would never have another problem. We'd solve climate change! There is an infinite supply of hypocrisy from those opposite, but we can't bottle wishful thinking and use it to help to protect jobs in this country. We actually have to get our hands dirty and drill and support those people who work hard for our nation to develop our country. That's why we supported the gas industry when we were in government. I just wish this one would do the same.

I too rise to speak on this matter of urgency, and I'm very happy to follow my colleagues Senators Scarr and Canavan on the matter of gas policy in the this country. I think it's very important, following on from Senator Canavan in particular, to pick up on his point that we have two very different gas markets in Australia. We have an eastern states gas market, which is currently facing extraordinary cost pressures. But we also have the Western Australian gas market that has been described recently in a major newspaper as 'providing Western Australia a low energy price paradise'. Western Australians are the largest gas consumers of any Australians.

Do these things happen as a result of accident? No, and as you would know very well, Mr Acting Deputy President Dean Smith, they happened as a result of government policy led by Sir Charles Court of the Liberal Party. In fact, rather than the current gas reservations policy, it was the 'take or pay agreement' that Sir Charles Court put in place with the North West Shelf Project that enabled Western Australia to develop the situation it currently has where it has internationally recognised low gas prices and sufficient supply to meet industry demands. I would like to see that industry demand increase—in fact, I would like to see more growth in Western Australia as a result of our very cost-effective gas prices.

Not only did that gas policy provide Western Australia with a very solid foundation of its own energy supply system, but it also meant that we could supply our major trading partners and allies with a very important export commodity. Japan, a nation recognised widely as a positive environmental advocate internationally, is the largest importer of LNG from Western Australia. Some 48 per cent of LNG from Western Australia actually goes to Japan, which is widely seen as having very strong environmental credentials. We don't only export to Japan; we also export to other very important trading partners: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, India. Western Australian LNG quite literally powers the world, and that is a very positive thing.

These projects don't come at no cost. These projects require significant investment upfront for returns that may come decades down the line. The Scarborough project in Western Australia has a cost of some $12 billion. Investors need to decide to invest that money a long, long time before any return from that investment is forthcoming. On the west coast we've seen those investments flow over a consistent period of time thanks to good government policy, starting with Sir Charles Court. On the east coast, sadly, we can't say that has been the case. As Senators Scarr and Canavan pointed out, an underinvestment, particularly in a state like Victoria—in fact, you can't even call it an underinvestment because it's been a regulatory block, governments refusing to allow business to unlock the resources that do exist—has resulted in this current situation where we have a massive spike in gas prices.

The greatest irony then is when we see this government flailing around. What solutions has it actually managed to come up with? Well, it's come up with no solutions. It's come up with a few thought bubbles that really puzzle me: price caps. As Senator Scarr said, when have price caps ever solved a supply problem?

Never.

Never, and 2,000-plus years of history demonstrate that point. What other solutions have they come up with? A new mining tax, a new tax on gas companies. Do they really see that as being a solution to a price problem on the east coast? Thirdly, they've come up with a regulatory fix. I don't think anyone on this side in this place has any faith in this government coming up with a sensible regulatory fix.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator McDonald be agreed to.

by leave—I table a report relating to the findings of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) people's inquiry: exploring the case for an independent and peaceful Australia, entitled Charting our own course.

I seek leave to present to the Senate a nonconforming petition that contains 5,727 signatures calling on Football Australia to advocate for justice for workers injured or killed in the construction of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

Leave granted.

I table the document. I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave not granted.

On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present a statement on the committee's review of the regulation relisting Islamic State Somalia as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's 201st report—Free trade agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and its 202nd report—Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the Joint Select Committee Advisory report on the provisions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022, dated November 2022 and tabled out of session.

In late September this year the Attorney-General referred consideration of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022—which we affectionately refer to as the 'NACC bills'—to a joint select committee with representatives from both houses. I was privileged to serve as chair of this committee. The committee subsequently invited organisations and interested members of the public to make submissions in relation to the provisions of the bills, and held hearings across four days in October.

On 10 November 2022 the committee's report was provided to the President of the Senate and tabled in the House of Representatives by Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi and deputy chair of the committee. The report contained the unanimous view of all committee members that the creation of a National Anti-Corruption Commission was critical to restoring the public's trust and confidence in elected representatives and public officials. The committee was greatly assisted in its work by the contributions from a broad range of views put by organisations and individuals from all states and territories, including trade unions, academics, civil society organisations, law societies, media organisations and government departments. Over 120 submissions were received, and 40 organisations and individuals appeared at the committee's hearings.

On behalf of the committee, I thank those who took the time to offer their views about the provisions of the legislation and for their thoughtful and considered contributions. In particular, the committee had the benefit of hearing from former and current commissioners and inspectors from state and territory based anticorruption bodies. Their experiences and the views they offered in relation to the functionality of the legislation in their jurisdictions, and how the NACC bills could be improved, were of invaluable assistance to the committee's work. I thank those who appeared before the committee for making the time to offer these contributions. I would also like to express my thanks to the committee secretariat, who did an exemplary job of managing the submission and inquiry process, and who were instrumental in the preparation of the committee's report. Their professionalism and hard work were deeply appreciated by the committee. I would also like to acknowledge the work and dedication of my own staff, Caitlin and Ben, in assisting me with this very important task.

The committee's report ultimately made six recommendations for changes to the legislation. These changes include permitting witnesses involved in investigations to disclose relevant matters to a psychologist or other medical practitioners; adjusting the definition of corrupt conduct; extending the role of the inspector to include an audit function in relation to the use of coercive powers; clarifying that the commissioner can investigate matters on their own motion; ensuring that all persons within a media organisation are offered protections in relation to the disclosure of journalists' sources; and requiring a person who is the subject of an investigation to be notified of the outcome.

I'm pleased that the recommendations are now reflected in the government's proposed amendments to the legislation being debated now in the other place. The Attorney-General is to be commended for moving to introduce the NACC as soon as possible and for subjecting the provisions of the legislation to the scrutiny of the public and the joint select committee.

The introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission represents a watershed moment in Australian history. The transparency and accountability of our nation's parliamentarians and public officials are plainly a significant issue of concern for the electorate. This government is committed to restoring trust and confidence at a national level, and the creation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is a significant part of a suite of reforms designed to achieve this outcome.

I thank my fellow committee members for the dedication and commitment to collaboration they exhibited in the review process. The level of engagement and close attention to detail displayed by all members in the course of the public hearings and our deliberations was surely an example of parliament working at its best. For me, as a first-time chair, the bar set by the members of this committee is one all others will be measured against. I'm proud to commend the report and the NACC bills to the Senate.

It's a real privilege to follow the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. I want to make a number of comments in this regard. Firstly, I want to provide some acknowledgements, and, secondly, I'd like to make a number of substantive points. With respect to acknowledgements, I think the chair of the joint select committee, Senator White, did an absolutely outstanding job chairing the committee. It was a big ask for a senator who is new to this place to undertake that role, and I think Senator White performed it admirably and did an outstanding job. There was a combination of a velvet glove and an occasional flourish of the iron fist to bring the joint select committee back to heel, and it was very effective chairing.

On one occasion, committee members were aghast to see, in no less than the Australian Financial Review, the chair's role in this regard characterised as 'sit and steer'. I'm left to reflect that, far from being 'sit and steer', it was more 'chair and coalesce'. We did coalesce. We came together. All the members of the committee came together and made a unanimous report. There is great significance in the fact that everyone—members of the government; members of the opposition; Senator Shoebridge, representing the Greens, who also made an outstanding contribution to the conduct of the committee; and Dr Helen Haines from the other place—came together and made a unanimous report. There is great significance in that, and I think the NACC legislation is far better for the work of the committee than it otherwise would have been. As Senator White said, this is parliament at its best.

I would like to make one further acknowledgement before I raise a number of substantive points, and that is an acknowledgement of the wonderful work of the secretariat. It was outstanding. We had a very, very tight timetable, and the secretariat performed above and beyond. My heartfelt congratulations go to them in that regard.

There are three points I'd like to make, which I think need to be reflected upon as we continue on this journey. The first is the importance of the inspector. It was the Roman poet Juvenal who coined the phrase 'Who is to watch the watchman?' In the context of a National Anti-Corruption Commission, which has extraordinary powers—coercive powers—in situations where privileges, such as the privilege against self-incrimination and the privilege surrounding communications between a person and their lawyers, are, to some extent, abrogated, it is extremely important that the inspector have considerable ambit to audit the exercise of coercive powers by the NACC but also the resources to conduct that oversight role. That's something I think we need to look at as we progress down this path.

The second point I would like to make is in relation to appointments. Many of us on the committee came to the view that, whilst the legislation can say one thing, of great importance is who is actually appointed to the key roles at the NACC: who is going to be the commissioner, who is going to be the inspector, who are going to be the deputy commissioners and who is going to be the chief executive officer? The people who fill those roles will have extraordinary powers and it is very, very important that the right people are selected to those roles. In that respect, personally I am of the view that the joint standing committee which is going to be established under the bill to supervise the NACC should actually achieve a supermajority in terms of selecting who those individuals are. It's not good enough, from my personal perspective, for it to be a simple majority in circumstances where the parliamentary joint standing committee is chaired by a government member who has a casting vote. I think that is something which needs to be considered. I actually believe that, in the vast majority of cases, the parliamentary joint standing committee will act in a collegiate fashion. It is most likely that, in the vast majority of cases, unanimous decisions will be made with respect to accepting recommendations which are made with respect to appointments. But I think it's a perception issue as much as anything. It is important that there's a perception that the government can't necessarily carry the day on its own with respect to the appointment of these important positions.

The third point I would like to make is in relation to whistleblowers. We heard some very strong testimony that there needs to be reform with respect to the management of whistleblowers, in particular, so that whistleblowers, whether they are in the public sector or the private sector, are given the support and guidance they need in order to effectively discharge the important role which they conduct and carry out in our civic society. I think the evidence is there that, at this point in time, there's a maze of laws that need to be navigated by whistleblowers. As someone who used to be a whistleblower officer for a major company in the private sector, I think it's absolutely important that whistleblowers have the courage to put up the red flag with respect to issues and should be given support and should be able to get the guidance they need to discharge their important role in our civic society. With that, I look forward to making further contributions during the debate on the bill.

I also rise to speak to the report on the inquiry into the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. I will start as well by thanking and commending the work of the chair and acknowledge Senator Scarr's contributions in that regard. The chair approached this in a very even-handed and collegiate way, sometimes having to pull out the velvet glove and cover the iron fist to keep us on track. We had a very short amount of time and an overwhelming number of witnesses who wanted to come before us. I think in four days, through those hearings, the committee fully explored a number of the critical issues. So I do want to acknowledge the work of the chair. I think she did an excellent job keeping us all on track and ensured that the process itself was multipartisan and genuinely fair. I want to acknowledge also the work of the deputy chair, Dr Haines, the member for Indi. I acknowledge her work as well leading up to this bill. Between them, the chair and the deputy chair formed a pool of experience and common sense that got us through the inquiry and produced the final outcome, which was everybody on the committee supporting a national anti-corruption commission. No matter what their politics are, everyone on the committee supported a national anti-corruption commission. I think it was a significant achievement.

Of course, it didn't come out of nowhere. I want to acknowledge the ongoing work of Senator Waters, who managed to get a majority in this chamber to pass a NACC bill in the previous parliament. We were that close to getting NACC legislation years ago, only to be deflected by some pretty toxic politics. That's why I want to acknowledge the achievement in getting everybody on that committee to support getting the NACC Bill hopefully legislated by the end of this year.

There are a number of matters that I want to put onto the record—concerns about where we landed. The first is, on behalf of the Greens, my party, we don't support recommendation 5 of the committee which seeks to narrows the definition of 'corruption', taking away a generic definition that would allow the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate and pursue a broad range of corruption. In relation to the moves that are being taken now to narrow the definition of corruption, we say: what corruption do people not want the National Anti-Corruption Commission to look into? Please identify for us the corruption that you don't want the NACC to have jurisdiction for and, if you can do that in a coherent way, we'll listen. But until such time, we don't see any cause, any rational reason, to narrow the definition of corruption and the jurisdiction for the commission.

One of the other issues that I think was a significant missed opportunity in the report was the failure to actually translate the evidence we got on public hearings—the necessity for public hearings and the importance of hearings. That did not translate into the appropriate recommendation from the committee. We had current and former commissioners from the New South Wales and Victorian anticorruption commissions come to us. The commissioners from New South Wales said that, from their perspective, they found public hearings were essential for their anticorruption work for a variety of reasons, not least of which that it was a check and balance on the anticorruption commission itself, which had to justify its work and its fair processes in public. Having public hearings was actually an accountability measure on the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Public hearings also enabled witnesses who were otherwise not known to the commission to see what was happening and bring forward critical evidence. In relation to a number of inquiries by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, those witnesses who have come forward after seeing public hearings have been essential for uncovering some deep and entrenched corruption and then fixing it in New South Wales.

We heard from the IBAC commissioner in Victoria about how their legislation largely prohibits public hearings—in fact, it mirrors the proposed model that we're seeing pushed by the government and the opposition—and limits them to where there are exceptional circumstances. The IBAC commissioner came and said: 'Don't repeat the mistakes in Victoria. Don't make the same mistakes.' But, unfortunately, we don't see that evidence, as well as the evidence of advocacy groups and current and former judges. A slew of highly credentialed witnesses came and said, 'Remove the exceptional circumstances test, and allow public hearings to be held in the public interest.' But, unfortunately, the committee's report does not reflect that evidence. I think that's a significant mistake. I can assure you now that it will ongoing work in our party, and we hope that with good will a majority in this chamber, in the Senate, will fix that obvious mistake in the bill.

When it comes to inspectors, we also heard some compelling evidence from, amongst others, Bruce McClintock SC, who's the current inspector of the New South Wales ICAC and I think is also the inspector of the Northern Territory equivalent. His compelling evidence was that the proposed role for inspector in the current bill is far too narrow. Basically, the inspector effectively should be a permanent ombudsman overseeing the role of the NACC. But in the proposed federal model that we see in the bill the inspector is really just a mini NACC of NACC, whose jurisdiction is only limited to seeing whether or not there is serious or systemic corruption in the NACC. That is very, very unlikely to ever occur and it's not the role we see for inspectors in state and territory equivalents, who, with their extraordinary royal commission powers, are effectively a check and balance on an anticorruption commission, to ensure those powers aren't being abused and to ensure that natural justice is delivered—to be an on-the-beat ombudsman focused on fair processes. We think there's a lot of work for this chamber to do to expand the role of the inspector in this debate.

I'd also like to say that when it comes to journalist protection, I acknowledge that the recommendation from the inquiry is to increase journalist protections. I sought, on behalf of my party, to have those recommendations strengthened in the committee hearing, and I'm glad to see that tabled today in the government's proposed amendments is a proposed amendment to go further than the committee recommendation and to strengthen, again, some of the protections for journalists to ensure that wherever a warrant is sought against a journalist then the public interest in protecting journalism and protecting journalists' sources and their important accountability role is considered in any warrant. I think we need to go further, and there is a very powerful case to ensure that warrants for the production of evidence or for the attendance of journalists are contestable by journalists. In that regard, the UK example was reported to us in the committee as the best example.

The proposed oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission is for a government dominated committee, where the government, through the chair, will have the casting vote and will be able to control the operations of the oversight committee. The principal role of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be to hold the government to account. It's largely to hold the executive to account. Sometimes non-government senators and MPs go rogue, but it's largely to hold the government to account. Therefore, having a government controlled, government dominated committee as the principal oversight mechanism is a significant problem in the bill.

I note the proposition by Senator Scarr, and it's a matter that he pursued in the hearings, that at least on the choice of commissioner there should be a super majority. That is one of the options, to remove some of the executive monopoly power that's proposed in the current bill. The other option is to ensure that the chair cannot be a member of the government, so the government does not have a majority on that committee. That's important not just for the selection of a commissioner or commissioners; it's also important for ensuring that there's independent funding. In that regard, it was a missed opportunity for the committee not to recommend the same committee oversight processes that apply to the Audit Office. These should also apply to the oversight of the NACC.

I want to finish on this. If you took us back two years and you took this parliament back two years, the idea that we would see politicians, from across the political spectrum, unite in support for a national anticorruption commission would probably have been seen as close to unachievable. But we managed to achieve it in the committee. I commend the chair, I commend the deputy and I commend all members of the committee for working towards that goal. Let's get this done.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Minister for Northern Australia, Ms King, I table a ministerial statement on developing northern Australia. I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I rise to take note of Minister King's ministerial statement on northern Australia. Northern Australia is the top half of the country: 51 per cent of the land mass, home to 1.3 million people. As we know, it produces much of the country's wealth and is capable of producing so much more. But under this government northern Australia is like the submerged part of an iceberg—propping up everything but mostly keeping out of sight.

We have mining, agriculture, tourism and defence. We have so much opportunity, so much potential. We just need water, infrastructure, insurance relief, population and—above all—belief. We need belief, from those people in a position to pull the levers, to truly grow northern Australia. As part of the coalition government in the last term we recognised that, the economic development and prosperity of northern Australia. It is truly our heart and lungs, and it is this part of the country that is so important to us. Yet Labor is treating it like an appendix.

Recently we've had the Prime Minister, at the G20, talking about food security and Australia's role in feeding a good part of the world. That is a terrific aspiration. We know that Queensland's farmers and graziers and our very efficient supply chains are all delivering a fantastic high-quality product. But how could we do more? How could we provide more food security to the rest of the world? It is from that place called northern Australia.

I was devastated to see that so many water projects that we had worked so hard to get into the north were scrapped in the budget. We had a proposal for an irrigation scheme at Richmond. We had both irrigation schemes at Hughenden. The Charters Towers Big Rocks Weir is still going ahead—it's 10,000 megalitres. The big project at Hells Gate Dam has gone. The Bowen Pipeline has gone. Urannah Dam has gone. All these projects were going to build the potential to grow more food in northern Australia. This has been drawn in stark relief when half of the country, some of the most productive agricultural regions of the nation, are having a natural disaster with these current floods. Now more than ever we need to invest in the water infrastructure and road infrastructure that had been proposed by the coalition to continue building food security.

This is important not just to get food around this country but also to grow additional food to be able to provide to our near neighbours. It was identified at a UN peace conference recently and in other places that food security is a critical element of the world's challenges. Northern Australia is a place of great rich soils, big river systems, great climate, technical know-how and proximity to markets. These are all good reasons why we should be continuing to invest in the north.

We were growing this food bowl. As I said, $1.7 billion was locked in to expand irrigation for agriculture in Central and North Queensland. Providing irrigation in these parts of the country would have provided additional horticulture places, particularly during the winter months. Already Bowen and its surrounds are providing 70 per cent of the nation's tomatoes and capsicums. What more could we do with a secure water supply?

In the north we also have mineral fertilisers—huge deposits of phosphate. It is so important that we continue to access the minerals that are critical to fertiliser production and ensure Australia's own supply chains.

I want to acknowledge the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia. What an energetic and terrific organisation that is. It has conducted trials of tropical crops, high demand spices, aquaculture and increased beef production—to name but a few. It is terrifically important that we continue to support the diversification of crops and bring more people into that region.

Forty per cent of northern Australia is owned or managed by Indigenous people, who make up about 15 per cent of the population. Not every Indigenous person wants to be a ranger. The Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group is chaired by the energetic Colin Saltmere, who is looking at spinifex production for a range of potential projects. Look at some of the great mining projects in northern Australia. These are all meaningful, purposeful jobs and careers that should be available to Indigenous young people, as well as the rest of the population living in northern Australia. The removal of infrastructure investment is incredibly concerning to those communities which are left without meaningful, purposeful jobs and investment.

De-risking investment is incredibly important. Those were the projects that we were doing to encourage trillions of dollars of superannuation funds to invest in northern Australia rather than overseas. We have incredible resources—gas, coal, bauxite, rare earths, vanadium and uranium. As the world moves to batteries, northern Australia can be an exporter of choice of critical minerals. Better still, we can build the factories in northern Australia ourselves. Instead of exporting commodities, we can value-add right here in this nation.

But are our roads and rail to standard? Are our ports big enough to handle increased freight? Are our bridges weight rated to allow for not only exports but also imports? At the moment there are terrific projects going ahead for renewable energy, and yet we cannot get them off the port at Gladstone and into the places where they're to be built because the bridges are not weight rated to a level that they can be moved through there. The coalition has been really focused on serious planning to invest these kinds of infrastructure dollars. The centrepiece of the plan was the Regions of Growth initiative, which linked state and territory governments, local governments as well as the federal government and the Indigenous references group to really plan where this transformative infrastructure was most required. The first three master plans that were identified—Mount Isa to Townsville, Beetaloo to Katherine and Darwin and Broome to Kununurra to Darwin—were all incredibly important regions of growth that the master planning process had identified. It asked: what is the most important infrastructure development to happen in a particular place?

The priorities included: Indigenous economic growth; building capacity and supporting businesses and entrepreneurs; energy affordability and supporting infrastructure; supply chain infrastructure of roads and rail, airports, storage and logistics; communications in blackspots and increased bandwidth; water infrastructure, which I've already spoken about, to support agriculture and industry development; affordable insurance to support households and businesses; critical mineral development to value add with diversification; of course, tourism recovery, which is bouncing back so strongly despite COVID; workforce training and education to address the critical skills shortage and the short supply of labour right across the country; and important social services focusing on housing, health and aged care.

I am proud of our record in government. We started the focus on northern Australia, and I encourage Minister King to continue holding northern Australia in similar regard. I want to thank all the MPs who have been involved in northern Australia over recent years: former ministers Keith Pitt, Barnaby Joyce, Senator Matt Canavan and Josh Frydenberg and former assistant minister Michelle Landry. I also acknowledge all of the northern Australia mayors, the businesses, the miners, the farmers, the fishermen, the risk-takers, the battlers and the visionaries who are proud to call northern Australia home because I too am proud to call northern Australia home. It is my goal to ensure our government pulls every lever, implements every good idea to ensure that you and your children's children have a long and prosperous future. I say to you that northern Australia is more than just a place on a map. It's Australia's king of regions, and the coalition will continue to ensure it is treated as such.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That Senator Cadell be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on legislation from the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 [Provisions] and the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 [Provisions], together with accompanying documents.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1739:

(1) Schedule 5, item 3, page 23 (line 19), omit "educator".

(2) Schedule 5, item 4, page 23 (line 24), omit "educator".

(3) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 2), omit "educator", substitute "individual".

(4) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 7), omit "educator".

(5) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (lines 12 to 14), omit ", as an educator (within the meaning of the Education and Care Services National Law)".

(6) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 18), omit "educator".

(7) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 23), omit "educator".

(8) Schedule 6, item 2, page 27 (line 23), omit "educator".

(9) Schedule 6, item 5, page 28 (line 9), omit "educator".

(10) Schedule 6, item 5, page 28 (line 14), omit "educator".

The bill as it's drafted allows providers to give educators employed in their centres a discount on their services. This discount is intended to assist in attracting and retaining educators. It does provide a little bit of that benefit, but it is completely inadequate for that purpose. We support this measure because it does provide support to educators, but, importantly, it is a bit unfair because it excludes many of the other staff at centres. We see no reason why other staff who are not educators but still work at early childhood education and care centres and do important work should not be included in this. These staff are necessary for the functioning of early childhood education and care centres and should not miss out on this discount.

For example, as noted by Goodstart Early Learning during the inquiry, centre cooks are also captured under the children's services award and excluding them creates inequity in a centre. Centre cooks play a crucial role in ensuring the health and wellbeing of children. They have the highest rates of attrition in centre staff. The government should, as a matter of fairness, provide them and other centre staff with access to discounted early childhood education and care services.

These amendments make the bill much more fair and more generous, by extending the permissible educator discount to all staff employed in early childhood education and care. I know that Senator David Pocock has amendments which extend this discount to cooks but not to other staff. I believe we should include all the staff who work at a centre and who are part and parcel of the functioning of our children's education. I urge senators to support these amendments.

I thank Senator Faruqi for her contribution. The government won't be supporting these amendments, as we do think they require further consideration and consultation. Expanding the measure would place an unreasonable burden on smaller providers, who cannot afford to offer the discount. That could cause issues with fair competition as well. So we will not be supporting these amendments moved by Senator Faruqi.

I've similar reasoning. In discussions with childcare providers, cooks were put forward. I think there needs to be more modelling done—and the review of this bill should include that—looking at the cost of widening that scope and seeing what the effect will be on smaller centres. I also will not be supporting these amendments.

The question before the chair is that the Greens amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 1739, as moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

by leave—I move the amendments circulated in my name, (1) to (11), on sheet 1741:

(1) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "assistance", insert "to provide more affordableearly childhood education and care".

(2) Schedule 5, item 3, page 23 (line 19), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

(3) Schedule 5, item 4, page 23 (line 24), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

(4) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 2), after "educator", insert "or cook".

(5) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 7), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

(6) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 14), after "Law)", insert "or a cook".

(7) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 18), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

(8) Schedule 5, item 5, page 24 (line 23), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

(9) Schedule 6, item 2, page 27 (line 23), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

(10) Schedule 6, item 5, page 28 (line 9), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

(11) Schedule 6, item 5, page 28 (line 14), omit "educator", substitute "staff".

I'm just indicating the government will be supporting these amendments as moved by Senator Pocock.

The Greens will also be supporting Senator David Pocock's amendments, because they go a little way to what the Greens amendments were, but I do want to point out the inconsistency of Labor's position—inconsistent, contradictory and illogical—to back an amendment to change the title of the bill which was almost exactly the same as the Greens amendment. Senator Pocock's amendment changes the long title of the bill.

He was more persuasive.

Obviously more persuasive. Changing the short title of the bill, as was the Greens amendment, would actually have been a more significant change, a more meaningful way to change the discourse around respect for early educators. But Labor has taken the easy way out by agreeing to change the long title but maintaining the disrespectful language of cheaper child care in the bill. Obviously and clearly politics has been at play.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments and an amendment to the title; report adopted.

I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 1698:

(2) Schedule 3, page 36 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:

1A Point 1066A-F1 (note 2)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note 2: The application of the ordinary income test is affected by provisions concerning:

(a) the general concept of ordinary income and the treatment of certain income amounts (Division 1 of Part 3.10);

(b) the work bonus (section 1073AA);

(c) business income (sections 1074 and 1075);

(d) income from financial assets (including income streams (short term) and certain income streams (long term)) (Division 1B of Part 3.10);

(e) income from income streams not covered by Division 1B of Part 3.10 (Division 1C of Part 3.10);

(f) disposal of income (sections 1106 to 1111).

1B Point 1068-G1 (note 3)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note 3: The application of the ordinary income test is affected by provisions concerning:

(a) the general concept of ordinary income and the treatment of certain income amounts (Division 1 of Part 3.10);

(b) the work bonus (section 1073AA);

(c) business income (sections 1074 and 1075);

(d) income from financial assets (including income streams (short term) and certain income streams (long term)) (Division 1B of Part 3.10);

(e) income from income streams not covered by Division 1B of Part 3.10 (Division 1C of Part 3.10);

(f) disposal of income (sections 1106 to 1111).

1C Subsection 1073AA(1) (including the note)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) The section applies to a person if the person's rate of social security payment is calculated in accordance with:

(a) Pension Rate Calculator A at the end of section 1064; or

(b) Pension Rate Calculator D at the end of section 1066A; or

(c) Benefit Rate Calculator B at the end of section 1068.

1D Subsection 1073AA(2)

Omit "Module E of that Rate Calculator", substitute "the income test module".

1E Subsection 1073AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)

Omit "pension", substitute "payment".

1F Paragraphs 1073AA(3)(a), (4)(a) and (4A)(a)

Omit "Module E of that Rate Calculator", substitute "the income test module".

1G Paragraphs 1073AA(3)(b) and (4)(b)

Omit "pension", substitute "payment".

1H Subsection 1073AA(4) (example)

Omit "pension", substitute "payment".

1J Paragraph 1073AA(4A)(b)

Omit "pension", substitute "payment".

1K Subsection 1073AA(4A) (example)

Omit "pension", substitute "payment".

1L Paragraph 1073AA(4B)(b)

Omit "pension", substitute "payment".

1M After subsection 1073AA (4C)

Insert:

(4D) For the purposes of this section, the income test module in respect of a person is:

(a) if the person's rate of social security payment is calculated in accordance with Pension Rate Calculator A at the end of section 1064—Module E of that Rate Calculator; or

(b) if the person's rate of social security payment is calculated in accordance with Pension Rate Calculator D at the end of section 1066A—Module F of that Rate Calculator; or

(c) if the person's rate of social security payment is calculated in accordance with Benefit Rate Calculator B at the end of section 1068—Module G of that Rate Calculator.

The amendment will extend the work bonus to other income support recipients. This bill, as we know, creates a work bonus so that age pensioners are able to earn significantly more before their pension gets reduced, which is a good thing; we're supporting this bill. But it really points attention to the fact that you have got people on other income support benefits who aren't getting the same benefit. In fact, they're even more deserving of being able to earn more because their income support is considerably less. Age pensioners get $73 a day, but people on JobSeeker only get $48. This bill will allow age pensioners to earn up to an extra $11,800 in work bonus over a year, but JobSeeker can only earn a work credit of $1,000 before their benefits get slashed. In fact, they face an effective marginal tax rate of somewhere between $60 and $80 for every extra dollar that they earn when they take a few extra available shifts, when they take the opportunity to do the work that's there so they can pay a few bills, so they can get the lawnmower fixed or so they can pay off a loan that somebody has very generously given them.

What this amendment would do is to extend that work bonus that we are now going to put into legislation for age pensioners to other income support recipients to allow them also to get the benefits, to allow people on JobSeeker, people on the disability support pension and people on youth allowance to earn more so that they too don't have to suffer the huge increase in the cost of living. It would mean that they might actually, at least in some weeks, be able to scrape by and afford to put food on the table as well as pay the rent and pay for their medical costs.

I indicate that the government will not support this amendment. The purpose of the bill is to provide the relief and the incentive that have been set out at the Jobs and Skills Summit by the proponents of the bill more broadly in the community and by the government to extend that support to age pensioners and categories of people on veterans payments. The effect of adopting the amendment proposed by the Greens party would be a very significant change to the bill. Indeed, it would take it away from its primary purpose and, in our view, would have unintended consequences. I understand that that is not material for the proposes of the amendment because they want to make a political point about the system more broadly. I understand that, and I do appreciate that some of those points have been made and the manner in which they have been made over the course of yesterday. I expect more courtesy today, but the government won't be supporting this amendment. I urge the Senate not to support it either.

I briefly indicate the opposition won't be supporting this amendment.

The CHAIR: The question before the committee is that the request for an amendment be agreed to. The request is request (2) on sheet 1698, as moved by Senator Rice.

I now move Greens amendment (4) on sheet 1698:

(4) Page 38 (after line 27), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Increase rate of income support payments

Social Security Act 1991

1 Subsection 1061JU(1)

Omit "half".

2 Point 1064-B1

Repeal the table, substitute:

3 Point 1065-B1

Repeal the table, substitute:

4 Point 1066A-B1

Repeal the table, substitute:

5 Point 1066B-B1

Repeal the table, substitute:

6 Point 1067G-B2

Repeal the table, substitute:

7 Point 1067G-B3

Repeal the table, substitute:

8 Point 1067G-B4

Repeal the table, substitute:

9 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1)

Repeal the table, substitute:

10 Point 1067L-B3

Repeal the table, substitute:

11 Point 1068-B1

Repeal the table, substitute:

12 Point 1068A-B1

Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$32,032.00 per year ($1,232.00 per fortnight)".

13 Point 1068B-C2

Repeal the table, substitute:

14 After section 1198B

Insert:

1198BA Adjustment of ABSTUDY payment amount

If:

(a) a person is receiving a payment under the scheme known as the ABSTUDY scheme that includes an amount identified as a living allowance; and

(b) the amount of that living allowance equates to less than $88 per day;

then the amount of that living allowance is to be increased by an amount equal to the shortfall.

15 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a payment period that commences on or after the commencement of this item.

This amendment would raise the rate of income support to all income support recipients to $88 a day—to above the poverty line. I know the government is going to say, 'You're just making a political point.' This is not a political point. This is an attempt to improve the lives of millions of Australians who are living in poverty, who are starving, who are suffering from malnutrition, who are suffering from scurvy, who cannot afford to live in a home at the same time as putting food on the table or at the same time as paying their medical bills. We can afford this, and this parliament—this government—should be doing this. While they are not doing this, they are saying, 'We're going to go ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts and give the richest people in our country—the billionaires, the wealthy—$250 billion over the next 10 years.' That's the choice that's being made.

Poverty is a political choice, and the Greens have decided that we will not stand for it any longer. We are going to take every opportunity we can to be advocating, to be pushing and to be working so hard for the people who are mired in poverty at the moment. We need to raise the rate of income support. We need to raise it above the poverty line. We need to raise it above $88 a day. And we need to do it now.

The government will not be supporting this amendment—

Honourable senators interjecting—

and I thank you for the cheers. I welcome the fact that Senator Rice adopts the position that she advocates. There are many people in the community who live on the Newstart rate and find it very difficult to live on. The government has made it very clear that if we could raise the rate, we would, and that we will consider it in the light of every budget. The government is responsible for managing the fiscal circumstances of the budget. We've made it clear that we will consider it in the light of every budget, in terms of its circumstances as we come on, and we will not be supporting the amendment today.

I will briefly indicate that—

The coalition doesn't support poor people.

Pardon? That's an outrageous thing to say, but we won't be supporting this amendment.

The CHAIR: The question is that request for amendment (4) on sheet 1698 be agreed to.

The CHAIR (18:58): Senator Rice, I understand that the further amendment request (1) on sheet 1698 is contingent. Would you like to seek leave to withdraw it?

by leave—I withdraw amendment request (1) on sheet 1698.

by leave—I move requests (1) and (2) on sheet 1681 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 38 (after line 27), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Pensioner work bonus increase from 1 January 2024

Social Security Act 1991

1 Subsection 1073AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)

Repeal the examples, substitute:

Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. David's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Amy's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.

2 Subsection 1073AA(4) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Bill's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.

Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.

Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.

3 Subsection 1073AA(4A) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

4 Paragraph 1073AA(4C)(a)

Omit "$300", substitute "$600".

5 Paragraph 1073AA(4C)(b) (formula)

Omit "$300", substitute "$600".

6 Subsection 1073AB(2) (example)

Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".

7 Application provision

The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to an instalment period that starts on or after 1 January 2024.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

8 Subsection 46AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)

Repeal the examples, substitute:

Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. David's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in a pension period. Amy's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.

9 Subsection 46AA(4) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. Bill's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.

Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.

Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.

10 Subsection 46AA(4A) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

11 Subsection 46AA(4C)

Omit "$300", substitute "$600".

12 Subsection 46AC(2) (example)

Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".

13 Subsection 46AD(3) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

14 Application provision

The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a pension period that starts on or after 1 January 2024.

15 Annual reviews of income concession amount

(1) The Social Services Minister must cause to be commenced, at least once in each calendar year beginning on or after 1 January 2024, a review of the suitability of:

(a) the income concession amount in subsection 1073AA(4C) of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; and

(b) the income concession amount in subsection 46AA(4C) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, as amended by this Schedule.

(2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Social Services Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(3) The Social Services Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

(4) In this item:

Social Services Minister means the Minister administering the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1991.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the income concession amount under the work bonus scheme. The income concession amount contributes to the amount that certain recipients of a social security pension, a service pension or income support supplement can earn before their payment begins to decrease. This means that increasing the income concession amount would result in recipients receiving a higher payment.

The effect of the amendments would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendment (1)

This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

I outlined the coalition's rationale for these requests in the second reading debate, but I will quickly recap. There has been a lot said about our desire to improve the capacity for pensioners and other recipients of income support to contribute to the economy and receive income without it penalising them. Currently, under subsection 1073AA of the Social Security Act 1991, pensioners are limited to earning income concessions of up to 300 bucks over an instalment period of 14 days. The amendment request we're making here is in relation to doubling that amount to $600 and enabling those recipients of the pension payment to continue to receive that without the penalty that they would otherwise be exposed to.

Noting all of the benefits that flow from that, given the worker shortages we have across Australia, particularly in regional communities, a couple of points have been made by organisations like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They said in their prebudget submission of last December:

There is an army of older workers with the skills Australia needs who would still like to work, but don't participate in the workforce as it reduces their pension.

The same organisation, in its submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill we are debating now, stated:

Considering the deeply rooted labour market conditions, faltering productivity rates, and downgrades to domestic and international economic growth forecasts, these amendments will end long before the challenges facing businesses and the economy are solved.

That relates to the provisions the government have contained in their legislation without the further changes that the coalition is proposing now.

On that basis, I would commend the proposals before the chair to senators and seek their support.

I'm grateful to the opposition for dealing with them cognately, but they don't really stack up singly or together. They aren't affordable. They won't incentivise older Australians to take up work in the immediate term where the workplace shortages they claim to be concerned about are. After a decade of mismanagement in this area, with a trillion dollars in debt and very little to show for it, these guys want to double the incentive. That is not a serious proposition. It's not supported by anybody serious out there in industry. We can't sustain it as we go about a focused approach on sustainable budget repair.

The former government used social services as a political football and had a new minister in social services about every 12 months. They didn't take social services seriously, either. The idea that the new opposition can claim to have an interest in labour shortages, after a decade of policy failure in this area—of falling productivity, falling wages, falling capital expenditure and the remarkable achievement of an enormous reduction in temporary labour—and the idea that they'd come here today proposing to double the incentive, are pretty extraordinary. The government urges the Senate to oppose the amendments.

The Greens won't be supporting these amendments. We negotiated with the government to get an amendment in the House to extend the time period of this scheme until December next year. We think that that's a good period of time to have this workplace bonus in place. We're happy with a date towards the end of next year, potentially, to see whether it should be continued. But at this stage we are not supportive of moving the amendments that would extend it now.

The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that the request for amendments be agreed to. The amendments are requests (1) and (2) on sheet 1681 moved by Senator Duniam.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

It seems somewhat incongruous that we are debating the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022, a bill that changes its name, moves money from one pocket to another, from response to emergency management to mitigation projects, while across the eastern states we have thousands of people displaced by floods, children who can't go to school, parents who are probably a bit traumatised about what to do next, communities, including my home town, on evacuation orders and immeasurable losses that we're facing. We've had crop losses across the eastern seaboard, and not just the crops that are in the ground. But we have opportunity loss as well because we can't get the tractors on the paddocks to sow the summer crops, and we can't get the harvesters on the paddocks to take off or salvage any winter crops we may have had.

We have a town in the southern Riverina right now that is absolutely isolated. People had until one o'clock today to be escorted out of town. If they missed that window, they will remain in that town because, while the town is above the floodwaters, every road in and out of town is closed. Some properties will remain isolated for weeks, if not longer. The way the floodwaters move in the southern Riverina is slow—and I mean slow. Personally, my front driveway is about to be blocked off. We'll be taking a tinny across the main road to get the shops.

But against all that sadness and all the hardship, I am so proud to be part of a coalition who, when we were in government, established the Emergency Response Fund and the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements that are being used by the current government as we speak. These provide a method of partnership between state and federal governments so that we can respond without delay and so we don't have to wait for the layers and layers of bureaucracy to come into play. The Emergency Response Fund invested in this sort of work to help focus resources on the important work of both mitigation and—when we were in government—response.

For many at this present time, planning for prevention is not the front-of-mind issue. What people are asking is: how do we clean up, how do we patch up and how do we move forward? But I do agree that we do need to assess how we can be better, and this bill does help to do that. The two main policy changes in this bill are a renaming and a swapping of the primary responsibility of this bill from what we had as response to funding preparedness and mitigation activities so that communities can be better prepared for future disasters, be they flood, fire, cyclone or any other natural disaster.

Earlier this year, we would have liked to have thought the floods were behind us. March was dreadful. The Northern Rivers were devastated, and that region is looking not only at how to build back better but at how to mitigate for what the future may hold. There is so much work that needs to continue to rebuild Lismore and the Northern Rivers area. But now we're seeing flood after flood. We've seen the community of Broke in the Hunter have multiple floods in just months. We're seeing Forbes facing river peak after river peak. Then there's Echuca, Shepparton, Swan Hill, Deniliquin, Moulamein and Conargo—my little home village, where we've only just reopened our pub after eight years. Our pub burnt down eight years ago. We just reopened it in October, and they are now sandbagging as much as possible in the hope to protect the brand new flooring they put in.

In 2019 we set up the Emergency Response Fund—our government, the coalition government. The intention was for it to be an investment fund so that we had money ready for when disasters hit. This initial investment would grow over time—and it did grow over time. As at the end of December last year, the balance was $4.7 billion. That's an increase from a $3.97 billion initial investment. When the current minister, Senator Murray Watt, who I rate and who I work very well with, was shadow minister he—almost from the time the fund was established—criticised the government for not spending the money, even when we did haven't a disaster to respond to. He believed we had a crystal ball and that we could have predicted the level of damage caused by the one-in-500-year Lismore floods. He believed that we could have predicted that we would have three consecutive La Nina events that would lead to what is happening at the moment. We didn't think that. We thought we needed to be ready to pay for the repairs when natural disasters hit.

But I do acknowledge that preparedness and mitigation are very important, and the now government, when they were in opposition, made a commitment that they would spend $200 million annually on disaster prevention. This bill delivers on that commitment that they made, but what this bill lacks is the critical detail about how they will do that, what the money will cover, how potential projects will be assessed, transparency as to how funds will be dispensed, what prioritisation they will have and how it will be dispersed amongst the states. In introducing this bill into the House of Representatives it was evident that much of this important administrative and financial probity detail was missing.

As we know, the Senate Selection of Bills Committee raised concerns. The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee held public inquiries, and while there was overall support for the intent of the legislation, concerns were raised about the why and how of its operation. The insurance industry believe $200 million annually is a bare minimum. The Red Cross in their evidence suggested there should be a significant proportion of the fund directed to building social and human resilience for people in communities. On the other hand the Australian Local Government Association suggested the bulk of the money is needed to be directed to local government for local mitigation projects and infrastructure and be allowed to build back better, because that's where it is needed to start.

Other witnesses raised a number of issues, from better database collection and improved accountability to accessibility and overall better access to information, but that's what's missing in this bill. I asked the Local Government Association about their reference to 'build back better' and whether there is a grey area between recovery and mitigation. Their response was clearly that it's very important to have a sharp and clear definition about the fact that this funding in the future, if this bill passes, can be used only for mitigation infrastructure and that local government advocates for a formula and needs-based funding arrangement that is transparent.

Other witnesses and submitters indicated a need to determine who the stakeholders might be, how and what funds could be used for, how projects are prioritised and how the jurisdictions are all covered. My concerns expressed at the inquiry and since are around these grey areas and around the recovery and mitigation. We know some local government areas were in the process of building mitigation projects but have been delayed by the current floods, by the lack of labour or by the inability to get materials. Now, I know that we don't have that crystal ball. We can't predict. We can look at the models. We can make our best guess. But that is not a silver bullet, and we all need to always be prepared for disaster. But I am willing to support this bill with an amendment that improves the transparency of the bill and improves the accountability of whoever is in government in the future.

There are many examples of impacts that have not been expected or previously experienced. Take, for example, Eugowra. They were preparing for a flood. They thought the waters would come on. They didn't expect a tsunami. I agree that we do need to invest in resilience and building measures and risk reduction, and that's why our government committed out of our Emergency Response Fund $150 million for the Northern Rivers resilience and mitigation projects that will be advised by work that is currently being done by the CSIRO. But we don't have the luxury of doing that in isolation from current and repetitive events.

Right now our communities are asking us to rebuild. We are learning. The latest floods have shown us that we need to reconsider where and how we build houses, roads, bridges and other transport routes. I acknowledge that the current minister has finally accepted that. When the former National Recovery and Resilience Agency Coordinator-General said the same thing, the guy who is now our Minister for Emergency Management called for him to be sacked. There is much talk now about planning laws. Those discussions need to be had, but we also need to acknowledge that we have allowed planning and development on floodplains. We need to work with those communities on what works best for them.

The opposition will support this bill. We will be moving an amendment to make it more transparent. We cannot underestimate the current fragility of our rural and regional communities. We pride ourselves on our toughness and our ability to get on with the job, but large parts of Australia are at present struggling and they need to know that we are going to stand by them in both recovery and future mitigation efforts. I implore the government to make sure that, while moving this funding from recovery to mitigation projects, they don't turn their back on the funding that will be required following these floods. In this latest disaster the road infrastructure that needs to be repaired is going to require a significant commitment from the government, so I implore the government not to forget this hard task at hand. We will support the bill with an amendment for this Emergency Response Fund.

I rise today to speak to the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022. I acknowledge the experience of Senator Davey, the towns she spoke of and so many farmers and others in communities that are today dealing with disasters across our country. This bill is not spending any more money on natural disasters; it's simply reprofiling $150 million set aside for recovery spending to now be spent on public works to minimise the impact of disasters when they strike. Instead of $50 million for preventative work and $150 million for recovery, the entire $200 million will be spent solely on disaster readiness rather than mixed on pre and post disaster responses.

The Productivity Commission and the insurance industry have made it crystal clear that spending on disaster prevention saves much more money than just spending on clean-up after climate fuelled disasters strike. This will only become more obvious if we continue to let the climate crisis continue on its current path. A government's first duty is to keep its citizens safe, so we should be spending more on resilience. For this reason the Greens support the principle of recalibrating all of the Emergency Response Fund's allocations to predisaster preparedness. However, the funds on offer do not go anywhere near what is required to keep Australians safe from coal and gas fuelled natural disasters.

Further, this investment is completely undercut by the fund's investment in fossil fuels and the government's continued handouts to the fossil fuel industry. For example, we saw the government recently provide $1.5 billion in the budget to expand Australia's gas industry in the Northern Territory. You can't claim to be putting out the fire while pouring petrol on it. This is why the Greens will move amendments to increase the spending cap from $200 million to $300 million a year and to require the Future Fund in its management of the Disaster Ready Fund to ensure that the fund is not invested in fossil fuels. It's a rich irony which cannot be lost on so many Australians that the Disaster Ready Fund is invested in the very same coal, gas and oil companies whose activities are causing the climate emergencies that the fund has been set up to mitigate. These are companies like Woodside, Chevron, Santos and Whitehaven, which have no plans to diversify; they're just taking actions which are destructive of our planet.

When this bill passes the parliament and becomes the Disaster Ready Fund, it will start off by holding $21.2 million in coal, oil and gas companies. This is like a hospital being funded by dividends from tobacco companies. The Future Fund, which manages the Disaster Ready Fund, has a staggering $3.4 billion invested in the world's biggest 50 polluters. If the Future Fund isn't going to instruct its fund managers to engage with those companies to stop them opening new fields and to move away from destroying the planet, then they simply should divest.

We're experiencing the impacts of the fossil fuel-emitting activities of these companies across Australia right now. Nationwide, 200 local government areas are disaster declared—including about 75 in New South Wales alone. The floods have taken a toll on the national economy, with the agriculture industry—so many farms and farming communities—taking a sizeable hit. We're already experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, which will only be exacerbated by continuing floods affecting our food production and our supply chains. The effect of flooding will last for weeks, and even months. For some people, the impact will be for years as communities struggle to rebuild.

I'm constantly inspired by the strength of communities coming together to support each other. We see it every night on the news. But they can't keep doing this on their own forever. They need a government that has their backs. For these reasons, the Greens are moving amendments to require the Future Fund to sell off its future fuel shareholdings as quickly as practicable and to prevent future investments in climate-destroying companies or projects. The Future Fund, in its management of the Disaster Ready Fund, must ensure that the Disaster Ready Fund is not invested in fossil fuels. This makes sense; it is so obvious.

Governments need to spend much more than $200 million a year to keep Australians safe from climate damage caused by the burning of coal and gas. We need so much more than is offered by this bill. As Senator Davey pointed out, the Insurance Council of Australia has said that we need to spend $30 billion in large-scale coastal investment over the next 50 years—that is $600 million a year—to protect against storm surges, erosion and sea level rise. The ocean is a very slow-moving beast. From the heat absorbed so far, Australia will experience one-in-50-year storm surges every year by 2050, no matter what we do. That is what the science is telling us; it is locked in. But every extra tonne of coal and gas adds to the catastrophe and makes the damage worse.

This bill and its $200 million equals just one-third of what is needed to cover natural perils from the ocean. This is before we factor in the damage arising from floods, fires, heatwaves, droughts and cyclones moving southwards. For these reasons, we're moving an amendment to lift the spending cap from $200 million to $300 million a year, which we would hope the government will support. The PBO has advised that the fund would operate with this level of disbursement until 2047, in line with the government's net zero goal.

The Greens believe that coal and gas companies should have to pay to clean up the mess they're causing. In 2011, when the Brisbane floods hit, everyday Australians had to pay through a temporary increase in the Medicare levy. When the floods hit again this year, clean-up costs are being paid for by Australians through higher levels of government debt. Coal and gas companies can afford it; they're earning billions off the back of Putin's invasion. They don't pay enough tax, they shift 96 per cent of their profits offshore and they donate heavily to the major parties. That's why both the government and the opposition don't want to make them pay to clean up for the disaster that they're inflicting on the rest of us.

The entire outlays of the Disaster Ready Fund hang off how successful or unsuccessful the Future Fund is in the stock market. We should fund these investments into disaster prevention but it should be done directly, not off the earnings or losses of a capital fund in any given year and certainly not off the dividends of coal, oil and gas. We have concerns that the entire funding model of this bill is based around the Future Fund following Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan around the stock market paddock. Our climate resilience is hitched to the success or failure of global stock markets. Funding may go above or below the legislated $20 million per year, depending on how the stock market is travelling. That is not a recipe for success. It is not a good way to fund a fund like this.

Stock markets are erratic, in fast decline at times. If this happens, it's highly likely the Future Fund or the government will be wary about drawing down from the fund and committing even to the $200 million limit in this bill. This money should be provided as a matter of course to meet the necessity, not on the ebbs and flows of financial stocks and derivatives.

We also have concern that this bill doesn't even compel any spending. This fund was established in 2019 by the Nationals, by rebranding a $4 billion capital fund for education established by the Gillard government. However, from 2019 onwards, the Morrison government only made one payment of $200 million while the earnings accrued $809 million since its inception, leaving a current balance of $4.6 billion. In other words, the fund has earned $600 million more from the stock market than it's paid out to communities. That $600 million should be brought forward and spent on flood and fire affected communities next financial year.

We support the principle of this bill. The government has a duty to keep citizens and communities safe. We should be investing to develop climate disaster resilience and preparedness but this fund does not go far enough. Climate disasters are forecast to increase, and we can see them around us and around the planet. We need to ensure that we have the capacity to support communities by lifting the spending cap from $200 million to 300 million. We also need to require that the disaster fund does not invest in fossil fuels. We cannot have a fund invested in the companies that are responsible for causing the very same climate disasters that the fund is set up to protect against.

We urge the government to maintain the integrity of the intent of this legislation by supporting our amendments.

I rise to speak on this Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022. It will benefit thousands of Australians across the country. It will create what Australia should have had years ago: a proper disaster-ready fund. It recognises the reality that many Australians will be devastated and displaced by natural disasters, such as fire, floods and extreme weather—just as too many Australians on the east coast are right now. These conditions, we know, will only get worse as the climate continues to change.

This government believes climate change is real. The previous government had nine years to prepare Australia for future extreme weather. Even when they did try something, it wasn't properly thought through. They established the $4 billion Emergency Response Fund in 2019. At the time, its stated purpose was to provide $150 million in recovery funding each year and $50 million in mitigation funding each year. In the three years the fund existed it did not complete a single mitigation project or release a cent in funding recovery. Instead, it earned the previous government more than $800 million in interest, taking the total towards $5 billion—with nothing to show for it. Too often, they were there for the photo opportunity but never there when the hard work had to be done. In a country prone to natural disasters, this attitude is truly unbelievable.

In contrast, the Albanese government is getting on with the job of building a better Australia, building a country that's ready to face the future. This bill will ensure that Australia is better prepared for future disasters. It will provide up to $200 million per year to invest in mitigation projects, like flood levees, cyclone shelters, firebreaks and evacuation centres around Australia as well as building natural disaster resilience.

By preparing for natural disasters, we can protect lives and livelihoods and lower damage bills from floods, fires and cyclones. We can reduce the physical, economic and psychological impact of disasters for the Australian community. With a specific focus on disaster resilience, the Disaster Ready Fund will help prepare Australians as best it can for future catastrophic weather. It's a policy that we need for thousands of Australians across the country, and it's a policy that's very close to my heart.

Earlier this year I had the privilege to visit communities in Mallacoota and East Gippsland, including community leaders from the Mallacoota & District Recovery Association, the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation and volunteers from the local Country Fire Authority. The area was severely effected by the black summer bushfires and then by flooding. We all remember the harrowing scenes of devastation and loss in the aftermath of catastrophic bushfires and then floods. The scale of the devastation was almost unimaginable. From local people I heard what was important and what they need, and they told me that they need to be part of the solution. Rebuilding, recovery and resilience in the face of growing threats from natural disasters are best achieved when local people are put in charge of local solutions, including First Nations people, whose profound and deep understanding of the land and its challenges is invaluable to successful planning and management of disasters.

The Mallacoota community has rallied magnificently in the face of some really challenging times. Sadly, though, the circumstances that produce the Mallacoota fire and recent Gippsland floods are getting more common, as we're seeing today, with absolutely tragic consequences. In my state of Victoria, last month was the busiest month on record for Victoria's State Emergency Service, with volunteers responding to a staggering 13,700 calls for assistance after the recent floods, a situation reflected in communities across the country, even as we speak. This is our new reality.

The Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to ensure Australia is better prepared for natural disasters in the future. The Disaster Ready Fund builds on other measures by this government to strengthen Australia's disaster management response, including increasing the capacity and capability of our amazing volunteers, supporting up to 5,200 additional volunteers to join the existing disaster volunteer workforce by covering the costs associated with recruitment, deployment, equipment and training.

We know we have a big job ahead of us and we are tackling the root cause of all of this, which is climate change. We know governments, not only here but around the world, have to be part of the solution. That's why this government is taking strong action and showing new and real leadership on the global stage when it comes to climate. This government is working hard to catch up on the nine wasted years of the previous government. We understand the urgency of the problem, and the time for action is now. That's why we're working with all parts of the community—unions, businesses and community groups—to move to a renewable future, while also helping people through the disasters that we're facing today. The things that matter—climate, community and the future—are worth fighting for.

As I rise to speak to the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022, Australian communities are again behind sandbags, beneath flood water, covered in mud. We heard from Senator Davey about her community in Deniliquin—flooding, crops being ruined, livestock being lost, people being displaced and, in tragic cases, lives being lost. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more severe across the world. With the natural extremes in our climate, our country is more exposed than most.

It's not like we haven't been warned. For decades, our scientists have been telling us that our climate is at risk. For decades, we've been told about what climate breakdown will mean for our future. We know that natural disasters will impact our lives and our environment more profoundly and more frequently unless we take urgent action.

Today's children—those who come here on their school tours and watch this place from up in the gallery—will live through at least three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents. You don't have to look far to see this trend—turn on the evening news. We had one of the worst bushfire seasons in our history just a couple of years ago, and now we're seeing some of the worst flooding across the country. These disasters are imposing huge social and economic costs: $24.5 billion was spent on disasters between 2005 and 2022. But the overwhelming majority, 98 per cent, of that was spent on recovery and relief, with only two per cent on risk reduction. That is despite estimates from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, that every dollar spent on disaster preparedness saves us $11 on disaster relief. It seems like a pretty good return on investment to me. We've also had, from the Productivity Commission and the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, recommendations that we should be spending more on resilience and adaptation. We should be investing far more into adapting to climate change and preparing for natural disasters.

I sit in this place and see a lot of finger-pointing across this chamber, and it points to the political short-termism that needs to be overcome in developing policy solutions for disaster preparedness that invest in the long term and invest in our communities across the country. Clearly, we see the political will when communities are confronted with natural disasters and are grappling with losing homes, losing livestock and losing livelihoods. This same care and urgency is lacking, or even missing, when we're talking about preparedness and ensuring that our communities are as resilient as they can be, given that we know that more natural disasters are coming.

This bill is a step in the right direction. I commend the government and, in particular, Minister Watt for the change. This starts to shift the focus to preparedness, and I commend Senator Sheldon for the work that he's been doing with flood affected communities in how they prepare for the next flood—because we know that the next flood will come; it's simply a matter of time. Earlier we heard Senator Walsh blame the coalition for not doing enough. That may well be the case, but both major parties have failed us when it comes to climate change. This has been something we've been warned about for decades, and we're now seeing the results of inaction. I urge people in this place to stop the finger-pointing and begin to work on this issue.

Two hundred million dollars is a great start to begin to prepare communities, but, when you compare that to the $3.5 billion that APRA estimates we need to be spending annually to effectively reduce the impact of natural disasters, we've got a long way to go. I understand the argument that we are in a tight financial situation. We do have a big debt, and clearly the government is trying to rein in spending. But, at the same time, we're happy to give fossil fuel subsidies of $10 billion plus. And then we see more investment in the Middle Arm Petrochemicals hub of $1.9 billion. Our efforts to mitigate and adapt really pale when we look at how much we're spending on perpetuating the very problem that we're trying to solve. The other Senator Pocock has rightly pointed out that our Future Fund is invested in industries that are causing the very problem that this part of the Future Fund is aimed at helping communities address.

We've clearly seen an underinvestment in disaster preparedness, and the flooding in central west New South Wales over the past fortnight is the most recent example. My office has heard from a number of those affected, including Sue. Sue owns the chemist in Molong which was under water and suffered extensive damage. She recounts the terror of a rapidly rising river in the middle of the night and the windows shattering as water came into her shop. But there's not a word of complaint or self-pity; she describes the strength of the community and the army of cleaners who pitched in to clean her shop and make sure that vulnerable people can still receive the medication they desperately need. There are hundreds of people like Sue across this great country. They deserve the best solutions, not only after disaster strikes but also beforehand to ensure their communities are better prepared when these disasters inevitably come their way.

Our obligation to support those worst affected by worsening natural disasters does not end at our geographical border. Global warming is driving the increased severity of natural disasters around the world, and we've seen flooding in Australia, Pakistan and Nigeria. We've seen record-breaking wildfires in Europe, and we've seen the conditions set for huge hurricanes in North America. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world and one of the highest per capita emitters, we have a duty—a moral obligation, I would argue—to help those suffering on account of our contribution to heating this planet. I'd like to read a brief statement from Nakeeyat Dramani Sam, a 10-year-old girl from Ghana. She told COP27 delegates last week about flooding where she lives in the capital city of Accra:

Cars were under water, people were paddling canoes where there had been streets. Thousands fled their houses. It was very scary for us. If it is going to get much worse, then I think we fear how much our future is on the line.

…   …   …

… Decide now, … if you are rich and powerful nations, to provide funds to help the ones who suffer most the costs of climate disaster not caused by us.

Having lived and been involved in community development projects in incredibly poor rural communities in Zimbabwe, that sentiment is shared. This is a problem that has not been caused by billions of people who share this planet with us. But it's a problem for all of us to bear, and I would argue that Australia needs to step up and show more global leadership on this.

Clearly, this fund is not dealing with that, but I think this is all connected when we're talking about disaster preparedness and response. The good news is that we have so many of the world's leading scientists and experts in all of these fields to help us deal with this, to help us better both mitigate emissions and prepare for the natural disasters that are coming our way. The ACT, in particular, has a lot to contribute in the disaster resilience field. Last week I visited the CSIRO's National Bushfire Behaviour Research Laboratory, just across the Molonglo River at the base of Black Mountain. I talked to scientists there who are working to better understand bushfire dynamics and are running a whole range of experiments that they can't run in the field to better understand the likely movements of bushfires and inform firefighter crews and emergency personnel on both how to extinguish fires and then also how to prepare surrounding communities.

The CSIRO are also doing work with the ANU's Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions in developing tech-based interventions targeting bushfires. They are doing some incredibly exciting stuff, like using drones to identify fires ignited by lightning strikes, or by another source, and then using disposable, GPS-guided water gliders to control remote bush ignitions. It's our responsibility as a nation to invest in this science and to back these scientists in ideas that are going to help us deal with the kind of world we are living in and the future we are going to continue to be faced with.

Another amazing person at the CSIRO is Dr Deborah O'Connell. She is building on the work of the great Dr Brian Walker and his amazing work in the field of resilience-thinking and practice. He has been working on helping to further our understanding of how to deal with complex adaptive systems, how to best know when to intervene, and how we can deal with them. Dr O'Connell is in that field and is an expert in systems leadership and in helping people think through preparedness and responses to natural disasters. For too long we have ignored scientists' warnings about climate change, and climate change is now here. It's crucial we listen to scientists now in terms of reducing our emissions as fast as we can—as a developed country we have more of a moral obligation to do that fast.

During the committee inquiry into this bill and into the Emergency Management Fund in 2019, concerns about transparency were raised. The bill is unclear on whether there will be publicly available information about how funding has been allocated or whether funding has been allocated at all. I welcome the government's commitment to set out guidelines on how projects will be funded. I will move amendments that promote greater transparency and address the risk that grants under the disaster relief fund will be used for politics rather than for people.

I highlight the work of Senator Barbara Pocock, who has raised concerns about the way that the Future Fund is invested. I urge the government to consider this. To me, it does not align with the objectives of the Future Fund. I welcome the government's decision to give greater focus to resilience in Australia. I call on the government to continue to invest more so we can better adapt to our changing climate and invest in the clean industries of the future—not the emissions-intensive polluting industries of the past. There is a lot more to do in this country and a lot more to do internationally. This is a massive challenge but what an incredible opportunity for us in this place to be part of.

I rise today to speak to the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022 and about one of the Albanese government's key election commitments, the Disaster Ready Fund, which is designed to help communities better prepare for the impact of natural hazards. We are increasingly reminded of the need to strengthen Australia's disaster management capacity. Communities are regularly hit hard by natural hazards which then become humanitarian disasters. But with better advanced planning we might be able to avoid or at least mitigate the disastrous outcomes.

Disasters are neither natural nor inevitable.

Last week, I visited Eugowra, Parkes and Forbes in the New South Wales Central West to hear from communities affected by the ongoing devastating floods there. Eugowra is a small town with a population of 779 people that was absolutely smashed a week ago by what locals described as a 'tsunami of floodwater'. They were blindsided by the wave that roared through their town. One in five residents in Eugowra were rescued by boat or helicopter after that tsunami hit last Monday, and, sadly, lives were lost.

Just today, the Prime Minister visited Eugowra with the New South Wales Premier to meet people affected by the crisis and to announce recovery grants of up to $50,000 for small businesses and not-for-profit organisations affected by the September-October flooding events in New South Wales. That is an important quick-response aspect of this government's approach to dealing with the disaster.

But a vital point was made to me in Eugowra last Friday that reminds us why the resilience focus of the Disaster Ready Fund is just as important as the immediate recovery after a disaster. We need to build resilience ahead of time and not just respond to natural hazards when they get out of hand and become disasters. In Eugowra last Friday I spoke with small-business owner Greg Agustin, who owns a small auto mechanic shop in the main street of the town. Greg is a local SES incident controller, and he and his wife have been with the SES for decades. I asked if he had ever experienced a disaster of this scale, and he said, 'No flood like this.' Greg's workshop was absolutely devastated by the wall of water that hit Eugowra. He said he was initially thinking of just walking away from the business, such was the devastation, but he said he was already having second thoughts about that decision. He said: 'It depends on how the town goes. If they still need work done, well, I can still do it.' With each day that passes, there is a growing sense of optimism that the people of Eugowra will stick around and rebuild and that businesses will open up again.

Today's visit by the Prime Minister to announce the $50,000 business grants is a step on the path to recovery. I met with Mark McMullen and Sandra Arnold, local emergency service officers from the Australian Red Cross who had been first responders on the ground in Eugowra. Mark said, 'We need to continue to build community resilience through cross-training of services so we can adapt to the changing circumstances.' He was talking about improving the ways in which we respond to disasters by better coordinating our relief groups and working together.

Sandra told me of the importance of letting others know when you are safe in an emergency. The Red Cross Register.Find.Reunite service lets family, friends and emergency services know that you are safe in the event of an emergency. Sandra said that, during the summer bushfires of 2019-20, a staggering 71,000 people registered with the service and over 650 people were reunited thanks to it. It was used by agencies to learn the whereabouts of people who had fled the fires and to follow up with them.

We know that natural hazards such as floods, bushfires and violent storms are becoming more frequent and more severe, but there is much we can do individually and collectively to prevent them from turning into disasters. The Disaster Ready Fund seeks to curb the devastating impacts of natural hazards by investing in important disaster prevention projects. The Disaster Ready Fund will provide up to $200 million per year for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives, as recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2015.

Dedicating the Disaster Ready Fund to natural hazard risk reduction and resilience initiatives will provide a clearer distinction between funding sources for recovery and resilience and will enhance the focus on building resilience for future natural disasters. This will include investments in a broad range of infrastructure initiatives. Two areas for this could be so-called grey infrastructure, which includes human made structures, such as dams, sea walls, roads and water treatment plants; and green-blue infrastructure, which is the use of vegetation, soils and natural processes.

Both of these infrastructure approaches seek to mitigate the impacts of climate change and natural disasters on communities. These kinds of activities help deliver on the government's agenda for climate adaptation by implementing projects that futureproof Australian communities against future disaster impacts. The bill will transform the former government's inadequate Emergency Response Fund into a dedicated, ongoing source of funding for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives. Over three years their Emergency Response Fund didn't complete a single mitigation project or release a cent in recovery funding, which at the same time earned the former government over $800 million in interest. This left us dangerously unprepared, and the Albanese government won't repeat the mistakes of any previous government.

I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the opposition and those within the Senate. Whilst there are some amendments moved, the essence of this bill is being supported, to the credit of the opposition as well, because not only is it important to hold us responsible for decisions that we all make in this place, including those in the past, but it's important that we are forward thinking for how we move together on this very important issue of dealing with these terrible disasters. By preparing for natural disasters we can protect lives and livelihoods and lower damage bills for floods, fires and cyclones. We are committed to better protecting towns—like all of us here—like Eugowra, for people like Greg, Sandra and Mark. We support the bill.

I rise to speak to the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022. While we're debating this bill, communities across New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are experiencing record floods, with lives lost, properties destroyed and towns in shock after what has been a devastating 12 months. While we're here, major flooding is swelling and overflowing the Lachlan, Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers, amongst others. Residents in Forbes, Condobolin, Deniliquin, Eugowra—and just stopping on Eugowra, think about that tsunami that just swept through that town last Monday and the damage and the devastation that was caused. As Senator Sheldon pointed out, one-fifth of the town was rescued in boats in just one town, as the floodwaters washed down through the river system. But we've seen flooding in Bourke, Walgett, Hay, Albury, Echuca, Mildura, Wentworth—town after town either flooded or watching as those slow-moving inundations pour across the west and south-west of New South Wales into Victoria, into South Australia. People have lost everything, and we know this is the devastating impact of worsening climate change.

People who have lost everything deserve serious, considered support, they deserve urgent support and they need a government that's going to address this problem head on. Whilst this bill does do some good work, it does nowhere near enough. The government says that it's taking action on climate change, but we know, while we're debating this bill and talking about a $200 million annual measure, that governments across the country are handing out a staggering $11.6 billion a year in subsidies to fossil fuel companies—$11.6 billion making the problem worse, making the next floods more severe. The response is $200 million of additional public money to try and address a tiny amount of the damage. To get $11.6 billion a year in context, that's $22,000 every minute of every day for the entire year. Just imagine if that money were invested in preventing, mitigating and adapting to climate change, instead of making the problem worse. We know that this Disaster Ready Fund will provide some $200 million a year—not new money; repurposed money.

But to give some idea about what the cost of climate change is, let's look at what the Insurance Council of Australia says. They've calculated that the investment needed just to protect against coastal storm surges in this country over the next 50 years is some $30 billion. That's $600 million this year and every year for the next 50 years just to deal with one of the natural perils we face from exacerbated climate change. The response from the government is $200 million a year, in total, of repackaged, rebadged moneys.

The Disaster Ready Fund is peanuts compared to the crisis we're facing. It's floods today. Next month it'll be fires, droughts, storms and cyclones. We need the kind of investment and joined-together policy that will keep Australians safe from coal and gas and climate fuelled natural disasters. Again, to focus on my state, New South Wales, we've seen the flooding in the north of the state—the savage flooding in Lismore. I've been up there twice since the floods, once in the very near aftermath of the devastating rain bomb that destroyed Lismore in February. It's hard to think that was just nine months ago. I went there and the town looked like a mixture of a disaster scene and a film set. You could walk through the whole of the centre of Lismore, and they'd cleaned out the worst of the debris, but every shop was empty, for block after block after block. Lismore is a town that's been there well over a century, and it was destroyed in a climate fuelled rain bomb the likes of which they'd never seen before.

I want to give a shout-out to the Koori Mail for their work and for the organising work of the First Nations community up there, who formed the hub of the community response when government wasn't anywhere to be found. They came together, like First Nations communities know how to do. They don't expect government to help. They came together and formed the hub of that amazing community and the disaster relief up there in Lismore. They stepped up when governments failed.

I remember speaking to one of the employees of the Koori Mail. He was in a second floor apartment in an old shop in the centre of Lismore. They'd marked on the side of the wall where the earlier record flood from the seventies had been, and they knew that they could get above that and be safe. But, when this rain bomb hit, the waters kept rising and rising and the 1970 flood level just got inundated. He put himself and his partner and his dog on a surfboard, and they rose up inside their house as the floodwaters were rising. It was at night, in the dark. As they were rising up, they had to smash a hole through the ceiling to get into the roof cavity. They were pulling their dog up while they were on the rafters in the roof cavity, having smashed a hole in the ceiling. And then they had to knock a hole through the tin roof.

Imagine the chaos and the panic. That was repeated hundreds or thousands of times across Lismore. They knocked a hole in the tin roof. They were there on the roof and they got rescued by a bloke on a jet ski. Thank God he turned up. But where was the disaster relief? Where was the planning? Where was the acknowledgement that what we're doing with fossil fuels is creating that problem for Lismore and for towns and communities all across this country?

So, yes, let's talk about the $200 million, and let's say something has been done. But let's acknowledge the scale of the human suffering—the trauma that we're going to see from climate disaster after climate disaster. Let's be honest about it, and have an honest, genuine response. This bill does not get there. It doesn't tick the box of 'honest, genuine response'.

You can go back to the Brisbane flooding. Again, it's hard to remember that was 2011. The country had to pay—taxpayers had to pay—through a flood recovery levy. In the end, I think, it was some $5.6 billion to try to recover from just that one flood in Brisbane. Now we're making our children pay, again, for increased government debt. All the while, coal and gas companies aren't paying; they're receiving $11.6 billion a year in collective subsidies. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Labor's climate test—I think it's one of the big climate tests we've seen in this parliament—came just yesterday. And they failed that test when they voted against the Greens' disallowance to stop what I thought was the Morrison government's but is now the Albanese Labor government's $32 million loan to a gas company in Victoria to destroy part of that coastline. The Golden Beach gas project certainly fails Labor's own weak test on coal or gas projects, which apparently have to stack up financially and environmentally, although how the hell a coal or gas project could ever stack up environmentally is a mystery to me! But they're meant to stack up financially before they receive any subsidies. The only way this project gets off the ground is if the Albanese government gives a cool, sweet, interest-free $32 million loan to create more gas extraction, make the problem worse and drive the floods more. So, yes, we have the Prime Minister in Eugowra—good! Let's see him down at Golden Beach, talking to traditional owners and explaining how making the problem worse with public money is good public policy! I'm yet to understand how that works.

Labor's first budget included that $1.9 billion investment of public money—and I say the word 'investment' in inverted commas—as a subsidy to open up a gas export terminal and petrochemical precinct in Darwin Harbour. I note your work, Acting Deputy President Cox, in opposing that ridiculous project. You worked with First Nations traditional owners there. I note that when the government went to COP27 recently that that was the exact project on which the world was saying: 'Stop! Don't do that.' But there they are, the Albanese Labor government, enabling gas to be fracked and exported out of the Beetaloo basin against the wishes of traditional owners and against the rhetoric they took to COP27 and the rhetoric which we keep getting here in the chamber on climate action.

The Australian Greens support the principle of recalibrating the Emergency Response Fund's allocations to pre-disaster preparedness, and I do acknowledge the genuineness of Senator Sheldon and his work in trying to turn the beast around and get preparedness, mitigation and adaptation as public policy and get the funding we need. I acknowledge that; it's genuine work and it's hard work. But this bill does not come close to what is needed to prevent the coal and gas field natural disasters.

We're calling on the Albanese Labor government to end the handouts to coal and gas companies. Instead, make them pay, not taxpayers, for disaster preparedness and to rebuild and support devastated communities. It's those fossil fuel companies that are creating the problem in the first place. Communities suffering the deadly impacts—and they are deadly; we've seen that just this week—of climate change deserve so much more than what the Albanese government is offering them here. We should work together in this place. We have a new parliament, a new chance and a new opportunity. Between Labor and the Greens there's a powerful opportunity here to come together and keep coal and gas in the ground. We could make the fossil fuel industry, not taxpayers, foot the bill for the damage it causes. But we can only do that if we focus on the needs of flood, fire and drought impacted communities instead of cashed-up multinational fossil fuel companies. That's the test that matters, and that's the test that the Albanese government is failing with this bill.

Firstly, I'd like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate so far. I remember travelling to Mackay with now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the middle of a Queensland summer earlier this year to announce that an Albanese Labor government would establish the Disaster Ready Fund. At the time, as a country, we were still facing the long recovery from Black Summer. We were still reeling from the lack of responsibility the former coalition government took in preparing for what would become a seemingly endless bushfire season. We said back in January, when I was with the Prime Minister, that Australia was facing more intense, more frequent natural disasters due to climate change and that we as a country needed to be much better prepared than how we had been left by the former government. But even then, back in January, we couldn't possibly have anticipated what was to come.

In February-March this year, we saw floods swamp South-East Queensland and northern New South Wales and bushfires hit Western Australia, and it hasn't stopped since. Over the last 10 months, we've seen towns and regions across Australia battered by devastating, unprecedented and compounding floods. Over the last few weeks alone, we've continued to see those floods smash New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, parts of Queensland and, increasingly, South Australia. We've seen lives lost, homes destroyed and communities traumatised.

As I say, we know we face more frequent and intense disasters due to climate change, and our government is acting on the root cause by reducing emissions. But we can also better protect communities from floods, fires and cyclones well into the future. Our government said that if we were elected we would try to switch the focus from only being reactive to being much better prepared as a country, and the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022 is a crucial part of that change in approach.

This bill will implement our election commitment and will replace the former government's failed Emergency Response Fund. In the three years since that fund was established in 2019, with what ended up being $4.8 billion in it, the fund did not build a single disaster mitigation project or release a cent in recovery funding. All it did was earn the former coalition government over $800 million in interest. This legislation will replace this failed fund with a dedicated ongoing natural disaster resilience and risk reduction fund, the Disaster Ready Fund. The Disaster Ready Fund will provide up to $200 million a year, matched where possible by state, territory and local governments, to mitigate the devastating impacts of natural disasters by providing funding for disaster resilience and mitigation activities. Now we are finalising this commitment and delivering on it by writing the Disaster Ready Fund into law.

Over the course of this debate, the opposition has made the point that we need to continue to fund disaster recovery, and we do. Funding for natural disaster recovery efforts will continue under the Albanese government with other dedicated Commonwealth programs—in particular, the joint Commonwealth-state disaster recovery funding arrangements. Those recovery funds are flowing right now across those disaster affected areas in Australia, and that will continue to occur regardless of what happens through this bill. The crucial distinction that this bill provides for is that we will at last have a permanent, dedicated disaster mitigation fund at a federal level to back up the recovery funding which we continue to provide

I want to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration for reviewing this bill. The committee's report, which was published on 16 November, recommended that the bill be passed. I note that both coalition and Greens members made additional comments and recommendations for amendments to the bill. These have now been considered and addressed through the debate on amendments moved to the bill. The coalition also made a recommendation that guidelines be published that set out relevant eligibility criteria and assessment criteria, including wide consultation with key stakeholders on the allocation of funding from the Disaster Ready Fund. The government was already in the process of doing this and so we therefore support this recommendation.

I can advise that our new National Emergency Management Agency is currently developing Disaster Ready Fund guidelines in close consultation with stakeholders. These guidelines will detail the intent of the fund and set out the eligibility criteria for funding proposals, the application and assessment processes, and mechanisms for monitoring evaluation and learning. NEMA is developing these guidelines in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, including Commonwealth, state and territory agencies, local governments, insurers and the private sector. The guidelines are expected to be published in early 2023, with projects to be funded and implemented as soon as possible from 23 July onwards.

Again, I thank senators for their contributions and for their positive engagement on this bill. Australia has had a long and difficult three years when it comes to natural disasters, facing fires, floods and cyclones. An Albanese government can now begin the work in earnest to protect our community. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1703 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 28), after item 26, insert:

26A Section 4

Insert:

fossil fuel financial asset means a financial asset that relates directly to:

(a) infrastructure that is intended to be used wholly or predominantly for extracting, processing (including refining), transporting or exporting coal, gas or oil; or

(b) a person that operates such infrastructure; or

(c) a related body corporate (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of a body corporate that operates such infrastructure.

(2) Schedule 1, item 105, page 20 (line 21), omit paragraph 34(1)(c), substitute:

(c) $300 million; or

(3) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 4), after item 112, insert:

112A After section 36

Insert:

36A Prohibition on investing in fossil fuel financial assets

(1) The Future Fund Board must ensure that no investments of the Disaster Ready Fund are fossil fuel financial assets.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a financial asset to which section 9A (about transitioning investments of the Emergency Response Fund) applies.

(3) However, if a financial asset to which section 9A applies is a fossil fuel financial asset, the Future Fund Board must realise the financial asset as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section.

(4) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act.

I foreshadowed the amendments in my speech, so I don't need to speak to them.

The government does not support the amendments proposed by the Greens, and I will quickly run through why. One of the amendments seeks to increase the annual disbursement amount from what will be the Disaster Ready Fund from $200 million per year to $300 million per year. I inform Senator Pocock that, fundamentally, the reason for us opposing this amendment is to preserve, if you like, the principal of the fund so that it has enough money in it to be invested and to keep generating the return that we would then be spending on disaster mitigation going forward.

The Future Fund Management Agency has considered the proposal in your amendment and advised that it would likely deplete the fund. It would essentially be taking out too much every year from that principal, rather than making sure that there were funds left to be invested. The bill's $200 million per year limit for resilience mitigation has been set for long-term sustainability of the fund, making sure that we can deliver sufficient funding for disaster resilience, while not overdrawing the fund. None of us, I think, would want to get to a point where this fund is fully depleted and unable to invest in that disaster mitigation going forward, and $200 million a year is the amount that we're advised can be spent from the fund every year without depleting it.

Aside from that, that figure lines up with what has been recommended for investment in disaster mitigation at the federal level by the Productivity Commission. They delivered a report in 2015 which recommended that the Commonwealth invest up to $200 million per year on resilience projects and for that to be matched by the states and territories. That's what we're proposing to do here. The amount also lines up with figures that the Insurance Council of Australia has called for to be invested in mitigation, which hopefully will provide some level of insurance relief to Australians as well.

This is far from the only investment that our government is making in disaster resilience. While I appreciate Senator Pocock's desire to see even greater investment in disaster mitigation, our position is that we're keen to do that but not necessarily only through this fund. In addition to the funds that this bill will provide for, we've recently committed $800 million with the New South Wales government to the New South Wales Resilient Homes Program for home buybacks and house raising and mitigation. We've also committed $750 million with the Queensland government for a similar program in Queensland. So there is significant money for betterment funding of infrastructure to bring it to a higher standard in both Queensland and New South Wales.

The second proposal put forward by Senator Pocock in her amendments is essentially around the investment strategy to be used by the Future Fund. The government is not able to support this proposed amendment to introduce what would be a prohibition on certain types of investments from the Future Fund. However, the finance minister will work with the Future Fund and the Department of Finance to explore options for investments within the Future Fund that better align with the government's commitment to net zero by 2050.

The legislation governing the Commonwealth's investment funds requires the board to maximise returns over the long term, consistent with best practice for institutional investment. The board integrates environmental, social and governance considerations into its decision-making process by assessing the potential impacts of ESG matters on the risk and return of the portfolio. The board also exercises its ownership rights associated with investments according to the board's ESG policy, which considers a range of issues, including climate change, human and labour rights, sustainable supply chains, corruption and bribery. For those reasons, we'll be opposing the amendments.

The opposition will also be opposing these amendments. As pointed out by the minister, one of the core things that would make for the success of this bill is the ability for the fund to generate returns. I note the government have made quite the story about the fact that, since its inception, the Emergency Response Fund has generated $800-odd million of returns on the initial investment. They are returns that are now in the fund. They are not returns that have been squandered or used by the former government in any way, shape or form, and they now underpin the ability for this fund to generate further returns. I really do want that noted.

We also would not support anything that ties the hands of the Future Fund and its ability to invest following best practice and due diligence. On that basis, we will not be supporting these amendments.

If I may, I'll follow up with a question to the minister relating to this amendment. I'm interested to understand the government's thinking and direction it intends to go with the Future Fund in maximising returns versus investing in industries that are adding to climate change—which we are seeking, in this piece of legislation, to mitigate and adapt to. How are you weighing that up? Do you not see something like the Future Fund as having a requirement to invest in companies and industries that are congruent, that align with a future that Australians can be excited about and where young people can look us in the eye and know that we're doing what's required?

Thanks, Senator Pocock, and thank you for your constructive engagement on this bill more generally. As I was saying in my speech—I'm not sure if you were here for that part of it—of course our government is taking serious action on climate change and the root causes of it, being carbon emissions. I think you supported the legislation that we put through the parliament around increasing Australia's emission reduction targets. That's what we really need to do, to bring down those emissions, and we're taking action on a global stage by being an active participant in negotiations around these issues internationally.

When it comes to these investments, the finance minister is intending to work with the Future Fund and the Department of Finance to explore what options there are for investments, with the Future Fund, that better align with the government's commitment to net zero by 2050. I'm not in a position—that's not my role, finance minister—to give you a lot more detail at this point about exactly where that's heading, but that certainly signals to me an intention from the government to consider these issues.

I have two questions for the minister, and thank you for that clarification. You've used the language of 'alignment with the government's values' in the direction that you will now give to the Future Fund. Can you explore, a little further, what lies underneath that alignment? Is that an instruction to not invest in climate-destroying fossil fuels? What will that instruction say about fossil fuels? That's my first question.

My second question is this. The PBO says that, at $3 billion in the fund, a drawdown of $300 million a year will permit the fund to last until 2047. When do you want to exhaust the fund? On your projections, keeping at $200 million a year drawdown, what year would you be exhausting the fund as currently proposed in the bill?

or WATT (—) (): Thanks, Senator Pocock. In relation to your first question, I probably can't give too much more detail than what I've already said today, which is that this is something that is being explored by the finance minister in discussions with the Future Fund, as to what the investment strategy of the Future Fund is. I'm sure that Senator Gallagher would be happy to talk with you a bit further if you'd like to have some more detail about that. But, clearly, by me saying that we intend to better align the investment options with the government's commitment to net zero by 2050, this is clearly something that the finance minister is giving some thought to.

For your second question, I must admit I haven't seen that PBO research that you're citing. What we're relying on, as I said earlier, is the advice from the Future Fund. That advice is that, really, we can only have a maximum of $200 million per year to ensure that we don't run down the principle of this fund at any point. I stand to be corrected by the advisers who are here, but my understanding is that we don't see the fund being fully depleted by setting a $200 million mark. Obviously, the amount that the fund earns every year will differ depending on investment returns in the market. Even in the time I was the shadow minister, I remember there were some years that generated a very big return, and some years generated a lower return. But, if you like, the $200 million figure is essentially an averaging out—and I don't mean that precisely; I'm just talking generally. But that is an average amount that we could spend from this fund while maintaining that principle at around the $4 billion mark so that we can keep investing it and generate the kinds of returns that we can then spend every single year.

As I haven't heard the entire debate, I'm happy to move to a division on this amendment. I'll seek your guidance, Chair. I have a more general question for the minister.

Senator, you can ask a general question now.

Minister, I'll take you back to my time as policy director with the Pastoralists and Graziers Association. One of the difficulties Western Australia had with the exceptional circumstances legislation in agricultural support is that the particular circumstances of Western Australia, in terms of its geographical spread of population, was quite different to the eastern states. Have you considered how disbursements from this fund will cater for the particular requirements of the jurisdiction of Western Australia, given that, whilst we are relatively small in terms of population, we are a significant contributor to both the economic output of Australia and the economic exports from Australia?

I'm not sure if you heard the part of the debate where I was mentioning that we're currently in the process of developing the guidelines for how this fund will be used, the types of things it will be able to be used for and where it would be spent.

I would not envisage that we would go forward with a specific allocation by state or territory, and I don't think that was done under the former scheme by the former government. But I would certainly expect that all states and territories would share in the benefit of these funds. I think it's pretty commonly known that there are some parts of the country that are more disaster prone than others, so it may well end up being that there is a bit of weighting towards those. But none of those decisions have been made at this point in time. I'd be more than happy, if you'd like to participate in the consultation about those guidelines, to include you in that.

I certainly accept that some parts of Australia are more population heavy and differ, perhaps, in terms of the particular needs of individuals and communities within the Australian society. However, I'm wondering if, for those guidelines, you would envisage taking in economic impacts as well as purely human impacts?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Brockman, in future, wait for the call, please. Minister.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sure the former President of the Senate respects your upholding of the standing orders and processes here! As I say, Senator Brockman, we're still working through what the guidelines would involve. But I think it's a fair point that you make—that we need to be thinking not just about human impact but about economic impact. I had some meetings today with some groups about the economic impacts on supply chains that we see from natural disasters, so I think it would be reasonable to expect that there would be a broad range of factors that would be taken into account in determining what gets funded and what doesn't. But again I'd be happy to take any thoughts that you've got as we're preparing these guidelines.

ator DAVEY (—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (): Just a follow-up question to that: given that the provisions of this bill commence from 1 July 2023, what do you envisage as the time line to see draft guidelines and finalisation of the guidelines because that deadline is going to be upon us before we even realise it?

As I say, there is a consultation process underway at the moment. Again, I'm more than happy to have our agency brief you on where they're up to it and to take your thoughts on that. I would hazard a guess that we'd be looking at early 2023 by the time the guidelines are finalised. Given that money is available under this fund from 1 July next year, I'd be quite keen to start an application process in the first half of next year so that we can then start funding projects as early as possible once that financial year starts. I'd be looking at early 2023 finalising the guidelines.

Just by way of example, the port of Port Hedland is obviously a significant economic driver both for the economy of Western Australia and the economy of Australia and so, if there were some resilience measures that could be put in place in terms of natural disasters in that port, I would hope that this would be considered, even though the population of that area is very small. I'll take that as a comment, and I will absolutely take you up on your offer for a further briefing and consultation on the matter.

To move back to Senator Barbara Pocock's question about the investment strategy of the Future Fund, are you proposing an extension of investment restrictions as part of the finance minister's consultation with the Future Fund?

Again, Senator Brockman, not being the finance minister I'm not really in a position to say anything other than what I've advised, which is that the finance minister will be working with the Future Fund to explore options for investments within the Future Fund that do better align with the government's commitment to net zero by 2050.

Minister, do you envisage that the Future Fund's investment in gas projects may be part of that?

I can't add anything to what I've said, but I don't think that anyone should be ruling things in or out. I don't think that anyone should be taking what I'm saying as anything other than the finance minister exploring options. No decisions have been made about what types of investments would occur and which ones wouldn't. But clearly the finance minister is intending to have this matter discussed with the Future Fund at some point in the future.

Minister, firstly, as a former emergency management minister, I want to congratulate the Labor government on continuing an investment fund that will ensure that our nation can invest in mitigation projects on the ground in local communities to really flip the traditional model in this country of droughts and flooding rains, where we spend 97 per cent of money on fixing up floods and bushfires and cyclonic activity and only three per cent in actually preparing for the future. It's one of the great legacies of the coalition government that we took the brave step of setting up this fund and setting aside portions annually to be supporting state and local governments to mitigate against future disasters.

I had the great pleasure of speaking at the AustralianFinancial Review NationalInfrastructure Summit this morning and caught up with the Lismore mayor, Steve Krieg, who had been speaking at the summit about the importance of exactly these types of projects. He thanked me for our government's commitment—and your government's similar commitment following ours—to provide the Northern Rivers in New South Wales every support to ensure that their community can build the types of infrastructure on the ground that will ensure that what happened in the Northern Rivers—and particularly to the city of Lismore—won't happen again.

I do have a couple of questions. My first is: how has this money has been raised? I had the opportunity to speak at the Australian local government roads seminar down in Hobart a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure a lot of local mayors have all contacted you and your office about the torrential rains and flooding that we're going through at the moment, but the ongoing La Nina situation has also wrought havoc on rural and regional roads. The New South Wales regional councils have come out saying it's a crisis. The Victorian regional councils have all similarly come out saying it is a crisis. Some are looking to the DRFA arrangements to really fund that recovery process; others are looking at similar times in our history when we've had to go to the infrastructure portfolio to fund the particular and specific needs of such unique situations that we're finding ourselves in at the moment with the flooding impact on regional roads in particular. Would you be able to give us an understanding of whether it's going to be DRFA? Is it this particular funding pool that will be able to be accessed or is it a matter for infrastructure ministers—state and federal—to come to an agreement on?

Thanks, Senator McKenzie. I well remember our many discussions about these funds in past estimates hearings and on other occasions. You're right—and I've made this point in the Senate just this week—that one of the major consequences of the flooding that we're seeing at the moment is the massive damage to roads and infrastructure around a lot of rural and regional Australia. I've seen those roads, I've driven on those roads, and you probably have as well. Whether we're talking about roads that are cut off or bridges that are suffering from erosion or potholes, or rail impacts, there are massive impacts out there and it's going to be a very costly bill. I've had a number of discussions with mayors already as I've travelled around the country into these flood areas, and it's pretty much the No. 1 issue they are raising with me.

At this point in time, our intention is to fund those sorts of repairs through the DRFA arrangements, as your government often did in these situations. In some parts of the country we're still at a relatively early stage of assessing the exact impacts of these floods. There are some parts of the country where we still have flood waters in place at the moment and we may well be seeing more. I know for a fact that there are state governments and local governments who have already begun the work of repairs to infrastructure in some parts of the country. In other parts of the country, that hasn't been possible yet because of the conditions. I have personally told a number of mayors that they can absolutely rely on the federal government to deliver funding for those repairs and infrastructure in the way your government did, through those DRFA arrangements. If something additional to that is necessary through the general infrastructure program, then of course we would consider that, but at this point in time what we're trying to do is make those DRFA arrangements work.

I should also say that, even in the short time we have been in office, we have announced substantial amounts of funding for betterment of roads and infrastructure. That's something that mayors have been speaking to me about for many years—back to my days in the Queensland government. We need to be building back better, not just repairing things to the standard they were, so we've done a lot of that already in New South Wales. I feel like we may have committed to a similar program in Queensland as well, and where there's an opportunity to do that around the current floods, we'd look at doing that as well.

Thanks, Minister. That's of great relief. I just last week had a hook-up with my Wangaratta, Towong, Wodonga and Indigo mayors, who just at a rough guesstimate—and these were councils not as severely impacted as further upstream and downstream of the Murray and into western New South Wales, Mayor Jamie Chaffey's shire et cetera—did talk about at a minimum $5 million to $7 million a pop for bridges which were out that were going to impede not just social connectivity but obviously significant economic activity. There was a real concern that the money that the state government had put on the table, when you shared it around, wasn't actually going to cut the mustard, so that will be of great relief. You mentioned building back better under the DRFA, and I know when we were in government we started a review of the DRF Arrangements to have those sorts of much more forward-looking and futureproofing arrangements with state governments. Have the regulatory guidelines and frameworks within the DRFA itself been changed so that state governments will be applying to build back better on assessments, or is that still work that is under discussion with states?

The short answer is that the work is still under discussion with state and local governments. I am aware that your government commenced two reviews of the DRFA, neither of which were completed by the time of the election, so that is work that we've picked up. To be honest we have decided to broaden that further, and we're in discussions with the states and territories about that at the moment. Having said that, where there are opportunities to streamline payments while we're doing that broader review, we're taking those opportunities, and we've made some changes to that effect already, not so much in the infrastructure space but in payments to individuals, small businesses and other groups—I think primary producers as well. That review I expect to be kicking off before too long. Certainly, as I say, we would like to think that building resilience into the system would be an outcome of that review, and it sounds like it's something that you've been a fan of as well.

My question probably goes back to how we can actually be building back better in this round of DRFA, given that work is yet to be completed, because—and correct me if I'm wrong—under the current guidelines we can only build back to spec rather than the 'build back better' piece. So I just want clarity around that, please.

You're right that the general way that the DRFA works is to repair infrastructure back to its pre-disaster standard, but as I'm sure you would recall, the DRFA also does allow for betterment funding, if you like, as a separate stream of funding. My recollection is that it's categories B and D of the DRFA that allow for betterment funding to be provided. That's the way that we have provided that betterment funding to New South Wales, and I think Queensland was the other state we've done it for since taking office. So there is still the ability to do betterment programs, but they have to be, if you like, separate to the usual repair programs. We may well end up doing similar things for these floods, but as I say, it's still fairly early days in actually assessing the scale of the damage across the number of different states that it's impacting on.

McKENZIE (—) (): I did come in for two questions, but thank you, Minister, for your openness. Looking at Victoria, I know in the Western District a local member had a farmer who has a photo of somebody with a sinkhole in his local road up to his hip. We've got the Rutherglen situation of our local roads, and no matter where we go across regional Victoria, whether they've been flood-impacted or indeed just subjected to the torrential rains over probably the last 12 to 18 months, there's significant degradation of our local roads. Has the Victorian government requested the betterment stream, as have Queensland and New South Wales, for these rain events and roads?

I would have to take on notice whether that request has come in—to see whether anything has come into our agency or my office. I know that officials at NEMA, the new agency, have been in regular discussion with the Victorian government about repairs to infrastructure. I myself have had conversations with the Victorian emergency management minister about this issue and that there is going to be a need for significant funding. We've talked about the potential for betterment as well.

One of the issues is that Victoria is in caretaker mode at the moment, which you would recall makes these discussions a little more difficult than usual. Also, as I said, I know that some road infrastructure repairs have already started in Victoria, but there are still a huge number of assessments going on because of the scale of the damage.

You are right; definitely sinkholes exist out there. As I said, on Sunday when I was in Eugowra I saw potholes across the roads there. Equally, a lot have been fixed due to the hard work of local and state governments and many others as well.

I absolutely agree, Minister. It's my understanding from communities in Victoria that your forward-leaning posturing as a federal government with that jurisdiction would be much appreciated, as there has been with other jurisdictions. As the DFRA arrangements have become more sophisticated over time and the emergencies these communities have faced over time have become more complex and more critical some state governments have been better than others at actually understanding their responsibilities under the DFRA arrangements to access the critical funds that we have available at a federal level. We saw that obviously with New South Wales in the Northern Rivers situation where there was confusion about who was doing what. That has obviously been ironed out, which is great. Thanks.

I would appreciate you leaning very forwardly into the Victorian jurisdiction to assist them. Queensland is very highly developed. Unfortunately, Queensland is a jurisdiction that experiences more than its fair share of natural disasters, but as a result it has a very highly developed and professional response to those disasters and a very nuanced understanding of the opportunities available between state and federal governments.

I want to finally address an issue that was raised with me by ALGA and by local governments more broadly about the changes the government is bringing in for the Emergency Response Fund. Did we change the name?

We are.

There we go. For my sake let's call it the Emergency Response Fund. Local governments already have long pipelines of local projects that they know they need to deliver to mitigate future disasters, whether they be flood levees, seawalls or other hard infrastructure to protect their communities from a future disaster. There is a concern that this money will be set aside for mitigation projects. It is often hard for local governments to actually source that funding from state governments. There is a concern that this will be going towards those pipelines of infrastructure projects that already exist across the country with local governments in conjunction with state governments and won't be going to social services, charities et cetera. It will be for those hard, often unsexy, infrastructure projects that actually do the heavy lifting during natural disasters.

Just before I respond to your questions, Senator McKenzie, I want to say that your questions have obviously been about Victoria, but I have now had similar discussions with emergency management ministers in a number of states—not just in Victoria—about repairs to infrastructure and betterment opportunities. As I said, we have approved funding for betterment definitely in New South Wales and I'm pretty sure in Queensland as well, but that's in relation to events that took place several months ago, so no criticism should be levelled at the Victorian or any state government about what's happening right now. As you would know, sometimes those betterment discussions happen a little bit further along after the event.

I think I understand your question to mean, 'Will we use what will be the Disaster Ready Fund to invest in physical infrastructure?' I would certainly expect that a sizeable portion would be used for that purpose. You may not have heard me say we're in the process of consulting on guidelines for the fund now. I've invited the shadow minister and Senator Brockman and I'd be happy to invite you to be part of those discussions about what we should use these funds for.

The examples I've always given in the public about how this fund would be used have tended to be physical infrastructure like flood levees, drainage improvements and cyclone shelters—things like that. But that doesn't rule out potentially using them for social services, community resilience and those kinds of things as well. You would know, I'm sure, that there are many communities out there, including local governments, that want to prepare community resilience plans. That's a really worthwhile thing to do. We're waiting until we have that consultation occur to finalise exactly how it could be spent, but I would certainly expect to see a substantial portion of this used to clear the long backlog of local government mitigation projects that exists.

I have a final question on the back of that. There is grave concern in the local government community. Can I have your guarantee that you will deeply consult with ALGA on where they see the best spend for this money? It is incredibly difficult for local councils to get the type of money they need to build these sorts of projects. It's been expressed to me that it is a great concern for them that this bill will change how that money is spent—on that community resilience piece instead of the types of infrastructure projects we need to stop the need for, potentially, those future resilience projects in communities. I understand it is not the government's intention for 100 per cent of the funds to be used to address the local government infrastructure pipeline that already exists in this country against natural disasters.

I think it is worth pointing out that, had the Emergency Response Fund been used more by the former government, we may not have had quite as long a backlog of local government and mitigation projects. But we are where we are, and we do have that backlog. For starters, local governments are being consulted, and heavily consulted, about how these funds should be used. If ALGA haven't been consulted so far, then they are absolutely on the list and will be consulted.

I should say that the discussions and consultation we undertook with ALGA, with state based local government associations and with individual state governments were one of the reasons we committed to creating this fund. The feedback we were getting was that we weren't seeing the level of federal investment in disaster mitigation at a local level that we needed to see. That's one of the reasons that we've decided to go down this path and set up the fund this way. They will certainly be consulted if they haven't been already.

I would expect that we would see a substantial amount of this funding used to assist local governments to build those projects that are needed; I would certainly expect to see that. I've said already that, where possible, we want to see our funds matched by state, territory and local governments. I always say 'where possible' because we recognise there are some extremely remote local governments, for example, that might have only a couple of hundred ratepayers but have a lot of disaster resilience needs. There might be exceptions in certain cases. But we want to work with local governments and we recognise they play an important role here.

Thank you, Minister, for your earlier offer of a briefing and discussion with the Minister for Finance. I'd be delighted to take that up. I have just one question. You indicated that you don't support the amendment we've proposed for a larger drawdown annually. We're suggesting $300 million. My question is: what's the purpose of having a fund last beyond a period in which we are theoretically at net zero, when temperatures are rising right now and natural disasters are getting worse right now? Isn't it sensible to be spending now for preparation, rather than holding on to the funds for later?

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I've been reminded that the legislation provides for a review of the annual disbursement level in five years time, so there would be an opportunity to have a look at it at that point in time. I would like to see this fund last in perpetuity, beyond 2047, beyond 2050. I think that as a country we always need to be investing more in disaster resilience, and should the fund end up, due to very high investment returns, earning a much higher principal, it may be possible to increase the annual disbursement amount down the track. But the advice that we've received so far is that, if we want to be able to continue generating roughly $200 million a year in investment returns that can be used for this purpose, that is the limit of what we can be spending from the fund every year. If we were to go to $300 million in the way that you've proposed, that would gradually erode the principal of the fund, which would mean that we would not be generating the kinds of investment returns we need every year to be able to keep going at the $200 million level, let alone $300 million.

With your indulgence, Minister, I want to bring you back to a couple of issues that you raised when you were responding to Senator McKenzie. The first was about the existing disaster recovery funding arrangements and the investment in the response of the government. As I said before, I credit your government with taking the off-the-shelf arrangements that you inherited and utilising them. Having learned from past experiences, you are rolling it out. I have a question that was put to me today. There was an announcement put out by you and the Premier of South Australia about the funding for a pre-emptive flood response before the flood peak hits South Australia, whereas some local government areas in New South Wales are still waiting to find out whether they are eligible for disaster recovery payments, for example. I'm interested to understand from you how we can pre-emptively declare disaster recovery payments for South Australia while local government areas in New South Wales and, indeed, in Victoria—although a lot of them have been brought on board now—have had to wait for the flood peaks to pass for assessments to be made. That's my first question.

Thanks, Senator Davey. The announcement we made today for disaster assistance for South Australia is actually for nine local government areas that are already experiencing some level of flooding along the river, so they're not pre-emptive. I know the state opposition in South Australia have called for pre-emptive action here, and you might want to chat with them about why they think that should happen. But, in fact, the LGAs in South Australia that are eligible for funding are already experiencing a level of flooding. Of course, every indication is that that flooding is going to get worse, whether it be in those LGAs or in others. As that flooding occurs, we will inevitably end up extending the LGAs that receive that assistance. If you have examples of LGAs in New South Wales or any other state where flooding is occurring and people aren't currently getting disaster assistance, I invite you to provide that information so we can take it up.

Thank you, and I appreciate your offer. I will certainly take it up, and I also acknowledge the work that your office has done in keeping my office informed, as your shadow. There's only one other thing I want to ask about. Earlier I thought I heard you say that the Disaster Ready Fund going forward would be matched by the states. Have you got an intergovernmental agreement with the states already about them matching the funding for mitigation processes, or is that a work in progress?

That is a work in progress. What I have said is that, where possible, we want to see that funding matched by state, territory and local governments. As I said, we're working through the guidelines at the moment about how that will work, so it's a work in progress. Thank you for prompting me, Senator Davey, about the incredible work of my staff, some of whom are in the chamber here today. I think you have some appreciation of the amount of work that is involved in dealing with disasters on such a wide scale. My office and my agency have been working incredibly long hours on this, not just in relation to the current floods but really since we took office—so through July as well. I want to put on record my gratitude to them; they're a great team.

Minister, I want to go back to the investment strategy—and I admit I didn't hear the earlier conversation. Are you proposing a different investment strategy for this particular fund as opposed to the Future Fund, or are you just operating under the Future Fund's investment strategy?

This fund is, if you like, a subset of the Future Fund. So whatever investment strategy applies to the Future Fund in effect applies to this subset of the Future Fund as well. My recollection is that there's more than one of what I call sub-funds of the Future Fund, but there is one overarching investment strategy that applies across the board.

My recollection—I admit that it's been a while since I looked at this—is that the only veto, the only bar, within the Future Fund at the moment is investments in tobacco. You can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but are you flagging a further restriction on investments of the Future Fund, particularly into gas?

I've been informed that, in addition to the ban on investments in tobacco, there's also a ban for weapons, or armaments—I'm not exactly sure what word is used in the investment mandate. But I've already answered your question about gas. All I can do is keep repeating what I said earlier, which is that the finance minister will work with the Future Fund to explore options for investments within the Future Fund that better align with the government's commitment to net zero by 2050.

So you are considering a ban on investments in gas?

WATT (—) (): No, they're your words. If you would like to twist what I'm saying, then that's a matter for you.

Senator Watt, would you be able to inform the Senate—and I'd understand if you needed to take this on notice—of the date on which the decision was made by the Future Fund to not invest in weapons manufacturers?

WATT (—) (): I might need to take it on notice, and it may be that I slightly misheard the earlier advice. It sounds like the prohibition is in relation to weapons that are banned by treaties, including nuclear weapons and landmines. But why don't I get you the precise details so that I don't mislead the Senate.

So, Minister, you're considering expanding from tobacco and nuclear weapons to gas and coal?

I've answered that question from you probably six times and from other senators about ten times, and I keep repeating the same advice. It's a matter for you, if you want to twist what I'm saying, to say that we are considering certain things. I have said that we're considering options for investments that better align with our commitment to net zero by 2050.

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1703 moved by the Australian Greens be agreed to.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1734:

(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 7), after item 71, insert:

71A At the end of Division 2 of Part 3

Add:

26A Annual report regarding arrangements and grants

(1) The Emergency Management Minister must cause to be prepared, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, an annual report on the exercise of the Minister's functions and powers under section 20 (which deals with arrangements and grants) during the year.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following in relation to each process by which a decision was made during the year to make one or more section 20 arrangements or section 20 grants:

(a) details of how the process was conducted;

(b) for each arrangement or grant that was made as a result of the process:

(i) the name of the person (other than an individual) or body with or to which the arrangement or grant was made; and

(ii) details of the arrangement or grant made;

(c) for each person or body that, as part of the process, made an unsuccessful application (however described) for an arrangement or grant:

(i) the name of the person (other than an individual) or body; and

(ii) details of the arrangement or grant applied for.

(3) However, information described in paragraph (2)(c) can only be included in the report if the person or body that made the unsuccessful application provides their agreement in writing.

(4) The Emergency Management Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the financial year to which the report relates.

26B Review of arrangements and grants

(1) The Emergency Management Minister must cause an independent review of the following matters to be undertaken before the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this section:

(a) the section 20 arrangements and section 20 grants that have been made, including their purposes and the payments made in relation to them;

(b) the appropriateness of the processes by which decisions to make or not to make such arrangements and grants have been made, taking into account the information reported under section 26A;

(c) the implementation of any guidelines for making decisions of that kind, and compliance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and instruments made under that Act in relation to those decisions;

(d) whether any additional measures should be taken (including amendments of this Act) to improve transparency relating to decisions of that kind, and if so what those measures should be.

(2) The person or persons who conduct the review must:

(a) give the Emergency Management Minister a written report of the review; and

(b) do so before the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this section.

(3) The Emergency Management Minister must cause a copy of:

(a) the terms of reference for the review; and

(b) the report of the review;

to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

(4) The Emergency Management Minister must also cause a copy of the terms of reference and report to be published on the NEMA's website as soon as practicable after the report is given to the Minister.

The government will be supporting this amendment, and we thank Senator Pocock and his office for their contribution.

The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 1734, moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1726, in the name of Senator Hume:

(1) Schedule 1, item 105, page 22 (after line 15), at the end of section 34A, add:

(6) The advice given by the Future Fund Board in accordance with subparagraph (1)(b)(i) must be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the relevant determination.

Note: As the determination is a legislative instrument, it is also tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003.

This amendment gives effect to the recommendation included in the Senate legislation committee's coalition senators' additional comments that division 1, part 5 of the bill be amended to require the full advice of the Future Fund Board to be tabled with the legislative instrument that adjusts the maximum annual disbursement.

We'll be supporting this amendment. We welcome the increased transparency that it underpins.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The opposition will not be supporting this bill. The coalition's opposition to this bill is not about electric vehicles; it is about, instead, financial responsibility. It is about the sustainability of the federal budget. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office has said this bill will cost billions of dollars over the next decade. It will cost $200 million in the next four years alone.

The coalition does not oppose the increasing role of electric vehicles in our transport sector, but this bill fails to demonstrate value for Australian taxpayers, and supporting electric vehicles does not make us any less committed to responsible financial stewardship. What is not clear is what this bill will deliver for emissions reduction. The government cannot say what it will deliver to the EV market.

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries recently released data showing that the sales of pure battery EVs represented the highest market share ever recorded. We expect this trend to continue as it has in comparable advanced economies around the world. With demand increasing, it's not clear that this legislation will deliver value for money for Australian taxpayers. That certainly wasn't the clear evidence the Senate Economics Legislation Committee heard during its inquiry into this legislation. It's worth noting that the Institute of Public Accountants said that this measure:

… will have a negligible impact on reducing Australia's carbon emission from the transport sector.

They went on to say:

… there are other measures which would have a far greater short-term benefit to the environment than this measure.

Professor Miranda Stewart, Director of the Tax Group at the University of Melbourne Law School and fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School of Public Policy, said:

… given its fiscal cost, unequal benefit and uncertainty about the electric car market and the best policy to transition Australia—

the policy—

will deliver the subsidy to a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provides the largest benefit to the highest income earners.

It's also worth noting that, in evidence to the Senate committee, UnitingCare, a large fleet user, had this to say:

As it is currently modelled, the bill, we're not certain it would necessarily change anything.

Further, Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee shows the impact of this policy on emissions reduction has not been quantified. This is not a tax reform, as it was erroneously labelled by the federal Treasurer. It is simply more structural spending with little or no economic return.

This is typical of what we saw in the budget earlier this month: more baked-in spending for less benefit. There are more sensible alternatives to these quick, knee-jerk tax changes that have been prepared without consultation, as this particular initiative has. The government could invest in practical measures to drive EV infrastructure investment and to deliver real cost-of-living relief for many more Australians. This is the kind of infrastructure that Australia does need. Instead, the government is spending $2.2 billion on Premier Dan Andrews' pet project, the Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Auditor-General has said that Premier Andrews' Labor government:

… did not demonstrate the economic rationale for the entire project, and they have told us that they have no plans to do so.

The coalition believes that this is not a powerful demonstration of quality spending of Australian taxpayers' money. In government, by contrast, the coalition's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy was part of our plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Senator Smith, it being 9.30 you are interrupted. The Senate stands adjourned until 9 am tomorrow morning.

Senate adjourned at 21 : 30