I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

I move:

Question agreed to.

On 19 July 2013 Australia's government—a Labor government—reintroduced a policy of offshore detention, making it clear that someone who arrived in Australia by boat to claim asylum would never settle here and instead would be forcibly transferred to an offshore prison. That policy has resulted in murders, rapes, child sex abuse, state sanctioned child abuse, institutional brutality, deliberate dehumanisation of innocent people and the destruction of countless lives.

The policy was arbitrary, it was illegal under international law and it was contrary to Australia's international obligations. It established Australia's offshore gulags. They were designed to harm people so grievously that those people would be forced back to the country that they fled from in the first place to face the persecution and the risks that they had fled from in the first place. It undoubtably qualified under international law as a system of torture. This is because it consisted of the deliberate infliction of severe harm on people for the purpose of coercing them and others into particular actions.

I hope those responsible for this system's design and implementation one day face the consequences of their actions. Charge them with torture, convict them of torture and lock them up for a while and give them a taste of their own medicine. That's what should happen to those people.

That Australia's offshore detention policy framework has been seized upon and promoted by fascists, Nazis and far-right political parties in Europe, even to the extent of using the very same words and the very same font as Australian government communications, tells us everything we need to know about its philosophical underpinnings and the kind of people it was designed to appeal to. Right now, as we debate this bill, the UK government is seeking to implement its own version of Australia's shameful policy. This is one of the most shameful exports this country has ever produced, and it has seen us go from an international human rights champion to an international human rights pariah.

Offshore detention has been a humanitarian calamity and has been one of the darkest and bloodiest chapters in our country's story. It is time we wrote the ending to that chapter, and this bill will help us do that. After 10 long years of offshore detention, it is beyond abhorrent that about 150 people remain in exile in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Every one of those people is suffering. Some of them are suffering grievously.

It is no exaggeration to say that the passage of this bill will save lives. It will save the lives of some innocent people who have been used as human billboards, who, like thousands of others, have been tortured in order to send a message to other people that they should not attempt to come to Australia by boat to claim asylum. This is the Senate's opportunity to make right a small part of the injustice, the lies and the degradations of the last decade.

This legislation does not require the government to settle people permanently in Australia, although that is the Greens' position, but it does require the government to offer to bring them to Australia to support them until a durable third country solution is secured. It is entirely consistent with Labor's policy platform, and on that basis there is no barrier to the Australian Labor Party voting for this legislation other than their own political courage. The fact that the Australian Labor Party sent every one of the 150 people who are still exiled in Papua New Guinea and Nauru to Manus Island and Nauru in the first place means every Labor senator today has a moral responsibility to vote to end their exile.

When Labor was in opposition, Labor senators and MPs were happy to support the Greens' medevac amendment. This bill gives Labor the chance to finish the job. It represents a compassionate and practical solution to the ongoing calamity of offshore detention. It provides a necessary step towards a durable solution for people who have been without one for nearly a decade now. It will offer people a chance at safety in Australia with the support and medical attention they need while awaiting resettlement in a safe third country. This is a critical step in ensuring that people who sought asylum in Australia and were treated so abhorrently finally get an opportunity at the dignity and respect they deserve, and a much-needed chance to rebuild their lives in safety and freedom.

The explanatory memorandum goes through the provisions of this bill. In short, it will compel the government to make an immediate offer of evacuation to all refugees and people who sought asylum in Australia who are still offshore in Papua New Guinea or Nauru—that is, about 150 people. It will compel the government to place all refugees and people seeking asylum who accept the offer into the Australian community and not into held detention, and it will compel the government to make available any medical assessments and treatments that people evacuated to Australia need.

There are many other provisions in this bill, and I urge senators to educate themselves about them by reading the bill and the explanatory memorandum. At the end of the day, there is one thing this bill will indisputably do—that is, save lives. It will actually save the lives of people who have now suffered for 10 long years. It will do that in a way that is completely consistent with the policy platform that the Australian Labor Party took to the most recent election. I could quote you chapter and verse, but time will prevent me from going right through all of Labor's policy positions that this bill is in line with, but Labor commit to giving permanent protection to those found to be owed Australia's protection. I make the point here that almost all of the people that this bill covers have been found to be owed protection. They have been found to be owed protection, and under Labor's policy they should be given permanent protection.

Labor promises that people in detention will be treated fairly and reasonably within the law and promises that people in detention will be provided an appropriate standard of care, including the provision of health, mental health and education services, to a standard consistent with that afforded to the Australian community. That is not being delivered to the people in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. I want to make it clear here: the people in Papua New Guinea whom the previous government, the LNP government, washed its hands of in a disgraceful abrogation of its duty of care still should be, and are, under Australia's duty of care. It is beyond shameful that a Labor government has refused to address the decision made by Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton and, instead, is carrying on like some kind of pale version of the LNP. It is beyond disgraceful. The people in Papua New Guinea have to be considered under Australia's care because we owe them a duty of care having exiled them—under a Labor government, I might add—so long ago.

It's critical in this debate that we hear some of the voices of the actual people, who are suffering and who have suffered under this disgraceful policy framework. I want to place some of those on the record now in a de-identified way. Firstly, here are some words from Shariff, who is a refugee in Nauru who is awaiting urgent evacuation to Australia. I might add, doctors in Nauru and an Australian specialist have recommended Shariff be transferred to Australia for treatment. That still hasn't happened, disgracefully, and it has been a decade since Shariff has seen his family, including his two children. Shariff says:

It is important to get evacuated because we do not get any treatment here in Nauru.

…   …   …

At the moment I cannot imagine being able to think about resettlement, I can only imagine after I have treatment.

Here is Rajah, a Tamil refugee held in Nauru who is in excruciating pain, which is increasing each day. Rajah says:

Take one minute for us and think about our feelings and our families. We are separated from our children, siblings and parents. It is not easy. If we have done anything wrong, tell us.

Nur Mohammed is a refugee recently transferred to Australia from Nauru for medical treatment. He says:

Australian immigration forced me to Nauru, and I did not want to go, but for 10 years I followed the rules.

…   …   …

I want to see justice for my friends in Nauru and PNG. Open your hearts and minds and do something.

Those are some of the many case studies that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard about during the inquiry, the report of which was tabled in the Senate yesterday.

I want to diverge slightly and refer to one further submission to that inquiry. This was the only submission the inquiry received, I might add, that called for this bill to be rejected by the Senate. That, completely unsurprisingly, was from the Department of Home Affairs. It is beyond belief that those rampant hypocrites in the Department of Home Affairs would dare try to use the Convention on the Rights of the Child as an argument against this bill. I mean, please! These people have been torturing children on Nauru for a decade. They oversaw a system of deliberate, state-sanctioned child abuse on Nauru, and then they have the barefaced gall to argue against this bill in their submission using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Give us a break! I mean, seriously! These people who deliberately tortured children have no right to be quoting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Get back in the bin, you absolute monsters! You absolute monsters, get back in the bin. You're a disgrace!

The 150 people left stranded in Nauru and in Papua New Guinea are the small remnants of the thousands who were exiled in the first place. They are innocent people who face murder, who face rape, who face child sex abuse, who face medical neglect, who face deliberate dehumanisation and who've witnessed the destruction of so many lives. They are innocent people who reached out a hand to our country and asked for our help, and they were treated disgracefully and abominably. They were used like the corpses that used to be impaled on the walls of medieval cities to send a message to other desperate people that they should not try to enter. Those who remain stranded today have been suffering for 10 years, and they are still suffering today.

We've got an opportunity today to take a small step towards ending some of that suffering. Many have chronic and critical health conditions that need urgent treatment that is not able to be provided in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. There is simply no point in extending their suffering. It achieves precisely nothing. It is simply brutality for the sake of brutality. Surely, colleagues, we are a better country than that. Well, we're about to find out.

I'm pleased to be speaking on the Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 today, the private senator's bill on amending the Migration Act. I rise and speak on this bill as Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I've had the opportunity to discuss the bill with the senator who has moved this bill's second reading and to receive a wide range of evidence from stakeholders and the department. Over the course of the inquiry, we received over 150 submissions about the bill and the issues it seeks to address. On the record, I want to thank the organisations and individuals who took the time to make a submission to the legislation inquiry. I understand that views on this issue are deeply held and strongly felt across the community and across the parliament.

At the last election, the now Prime Minister spoke of the need to be strong on borders without being weak on humanity. Being strong on borders without being weak on humanity—it's an important balance, and it's one that we are getting right in government. It's one that only a Labor government can get right, which is why we have already followed through on our election promise to provide a permanent visa pathway for existing temporary protection visa holders and safe haven enterprise visa holders. And—perhaps inconveniently to the mover of this bill—since the election the number of displaced people on Nauru has more than halved.

Why would that be an inconvenience?

Through you, Acting Deputy President, I'll take that interjection. What I'm going to do today is stand here and calmly state the facts, the policy and the actions that our government is taking. What I'm not going to do is to grandstand, speak over other senators and allow other senators to draw this debate into an exercise in making viral social media videos using emotive language.

Senator McKim, on a point of order?

Yes: improper reflection on another senator. Firstly, Senator Green has said that somehow people being removed from Nauru is inconvenient for me. That is a personal reflection which is not true, and I ask her to withdraw that. Secondly, she has stated very clearly that my outrage is confected and for the purpose of delivering social media content. It's not confected; it is genuine and appropriate. I ask her to withdraw that as well.

On the point of order, respectfully, senators across the chamber sat through the language that was used by the senator who moved this bill. There were no points of order called. I appreciate this is an emotive debate, but there is no point of order.

Thank you; I'll rule on that. I don't believe there was a point of order, but it may assist the Chamber if there was anything that you could withdraw. But it's up to you.

Thank you. If I made a reflection on the previous senator's motives, I withdraw that, to assist the Chamber. But what I will say is: as I progress with my speech, it would assist the Chamber and me if there were no interjections and I didn't have someone speaking over me while I was trying to give my speech. What I was contributing to this debate were the facts and the policy, and the actions that our government is taking. That is what I am doing today in this speech. I am highlighting the developments—what the Albanese Labor government is doing, now, to determine that our government is creating a functioning and effective migration and humanitarian program. That is what we are doing.

Again, at the election, the Prime Minister was very clear: we can be tough on borders without being weak on humanity. Regional processing does both of these things. I have to be clear that the Albanese government is committed to Operation Sovereign Borders and regional processing, including our ongoing partnership with Nauru. We know that people smugglers exploit and encourage vulnerable people to risk their lives on dangerous voyages to reach Australia. Regional processing is designed to break this model and to prevent deaths at sea. An essential aspect of this model is providing people currently on Nauru with permanent options through third-country settlement. For all their talk, the previous government achieved very little regarding third-country resettlement for people on Nauru. But since coming to government—let me say it again—we have more than halved the number of displaced people on Nauru, and we have secured resettlement into third countries, like the USA, Canada and New Zealand. These people can finally begin the process of rebuilding their lives.

I appreciate that some in this place want to see additional reform at a faster rate, and I appreciate—I'm sure, as other senators do—that not everyone in this place supports Operation Sovereign Borders and regional processing. But that is the government's policy, and we are delivering it. Regional processing has been settled policy on both sides of politics for almost a decade, and the government has been clear and consistent in its position on delivering this. The minister has consistently reiterated that this government is strong on borders—strong on borders because we know that regional processing breaks the business model of people smugglers. If you want to talk about saving lives and protecting people, that is what we are talking about today. In doing so, it saves lives of vulnerable people who would otherwise be exploited onto leaky boats to attempt a dangerous voyage at sea. It sends a message that persons will not be settled in Australia when they take a dangerous and often deadly route. It's as simple as that. I recognise that that is a tough measure, but that tough measure has broken a model that exploits vulnerable people. It exploits vulnerable people, and we have broken that model. The government has been determined and focused in its conduct on support of Operation Sovereign Borders, but, unlike the previous government, we haven't sought to politicise this issue in some sort of attempt to weaponise it or sow distrust in the community. What we have done, and what we are doing today, is to calmly get on with the job. We have a view that it is an important undertaking to be pursued and to be dealt with in the seriousness that this issue demands.

On third-country resettlement, can I say: an essential part of delivering this policy is working with third countries. It is working with the government that has led to the number of people on Nauru almost halving. Our government finally took action on third-country resettlement, including the longstanding offer from the New Zealand government, which was ignored by the previous government. Only our government, only a Labor government, has taken action to ensure work to resettle people is happening. Only our government is ensuring that this is happening through our close engagement with New Zealand. We've had a first group of refugees depart Nauru and resettle in New Zealand and start new lives. We continue to go about this work in an orderly but diligent way, with the care that it requires.

As a government we know that two things can be true at once. The Albanese government are committed to strong borders, but we are also committed to being a modern, responsible nation that finds space for vulnerable people fleeing persecution. We can do this important resettlement work because of the enduring deterrent value of regional processing. It is a system that has been and will be kept in readiness to respond to any contingency. While there may be disagreements about policy, the fact is that regional processing saves lives by discouraging dangerous voyages at sea. Our government is working hard to obtain viable third-country resettlement options for those on Nauru.

I want to address one of the other things that our government is doing to deal with some of the aftermath of the previous government's neglect of this migration program. Just last month, the Albanese Labor government confirmed it would provide a permanent visa pathway for existing temporary protection visa holders and safe haven enterprise visa holders. This was our government delivering on our election commitment to end the state of limbo for refugees who have been kept in Australia for the last decade. Around 19,000 refugees have been provided with a certain future here in Australia. These are people who have been found to be refugees. They are also people who have made a life in our communities. They have worked here or built small businesses. They have often made outstanding contributions to rural and regional communities. But, despite their contributions, their visa status meant that they couldn't buy a house or pursue further education. These people have been left in limbo over the past decade because of the belligerence of the previous government, but now they are on a fast track to build their lives with a sense of certainty that cannot come from rolling protection visa applications.

Just this weekend, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles, announced further funding to our government's economic pathways to refugee integration grant program. This program supports social enterprise that delivers employment opportunities for refugees. Programs like this not only provide an opportunity for communities to harness the potential of our diversity but also provide refugees with a sense of stability.

Our government takes the view that support for those fleeing persecution entails more than just visa approvals. We do recognise how much security and certainty that can provide. We understand the urgency that many TPV and SHEV holders would feel about settling their visa status. To assist with this, the Albanese Labor government has committed $9.4 million over two years for specialist legal support.

In summary, our government is taking the important, vital steps to give certainty to those people whose future was kept in limbo by the previous government. Whether it's by promptly processing visas, after the unacceptable backlog; providing third-country resettlement options, finally, for those refugees on Nauru; or providing certainty for thousands of refugees who have been on rolling TPVs, you can have tough borders without being weak on humanity. Our government seeks to do both. We are the only government that has done that. We are the only party of government that can do that. We have been and we will continue to be consistent in this approach.

Those on the other side of the chamber might seek to say that we're not being tough enough on borders, and some at the end of the chamber might say that we are not being strong enough when it comes to humanity. The truth is that none of this is black and white, and you do need a balanced approach. Only with a Labor government can you deliver a system which ensures that people are not enticed to take a vulnerable trip across the seas, that there is regional processing and an Operation Sovereign Borders that is well resourced to ensure people don't put themselves in that dangerous position.

At the same time we are working through years of neglect by the previous government, to make sure that third-country resettlement is a priority—and it's happening. We're getting on with it. We have halved the number of people on Nauru. We are working through this. We're doing it in a diligent and organised way without being sensational about it and without putting people at risk. This is what our government is doing, and it's because we can be tough on borders that we are choosing not to be weak on humanity. Only a Labor government can do that. Only a Labor government is ending the years of uncertainty for TPV and SHEV holders. I want to ensure those people who have contributed to the inquiry into this bill that we have undertaken to balance those very fragile considerations—this bill should not be supported. This bill is not the policy of the government for a very good reason.

At the outset, can I say I deeply respect Senator McKim for the introduction of this bill, the Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023. I respect his passion with respect to this subject. More than that, I think he demonstrates that passion and concern in terms of the actions which he and his office take to advocate for personal cases and individual cases. Senator McKim puts his argument with great passion, and I think it's based on a foundation of deep care for the people who are in the invidious position of being in regional processing centres. I respect his motives in terms of bringing forward this bill.

In terms of Senator Green's contribution, I think Senator Green appropriately summarised the activities of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. We received submissions from a very wide number of stakeholders who gave detailed evidence with respect to their concerns regarding the impact of regional processing on individuals. I commend each of those organisations for their advocacy in this regard, and I also commend them for the services and support they provided to people in regional processing centres.

This is not an easy issue. Over the time I've been a senator I've developed relationships through my office with people who have been in regional processing centres, and sought to assist them, in particular in terms of advocacy, to provide a pathway for family and friends, in particular after Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, to come to Australia. That is very difficult; many of those people are located in Pakistan, Iran, Turkiye and other countries, and there is an overwhelming demand for the humanitarian visa allocations which this country provides. This is not an easy issue at all.

One thing Senator McKim did not address in his contribution, and which was not addressed in his dissenting report, is the fact that between 2008 and 2013 some 50,000 people arrived by boat in this country. That's 820 boats that arrived in this country. Those boats, organised by people smugglers, organised by people preying on the most vulnerable in our world, led to a situation where Australia's system was essentially being overwhelmed, and approximately 1,200 people died at sea—an absolute tragedy. I commend everyone in Australian Border Force and our armed forces for their efforts and the tasks they had to undertake in response to that unfolding tragedy. Regional processing, under Operation Sovereign Borders, was in fact introduced to address that particular problem. It was introduced to address that problem of 50,000 people arriving between 2008 and 2013, by 820 boats, with at least 1,200 dying at sea. That was the issue. I think any contribution to this debate needs to recognise the fact that there was an unfolding issue which caused the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government to introduce regional processing. Those facts need to be considered and weighed in the course of considering this private member's bill.

The tragedy of that was that the Howard coalition government had effectively managed to deal with the issue of people smugglers providing boats for the most vulnerable in our world to arrive on these shores in an uncontrolled fashion. The problem had been solved. We wouldn't even be having this debate if it were not for one of the biggest policy failures, certainly in my lifetime, from any public administration at a federal or state level. That was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government reversing the previous policies of the coalition government.

Senator Green can talk about the actions that are currently being taken by the present government, but, again, any reasonable and balanced contribution to this debate needs to recognise that this issue had been addressed, and there would not be people currently on Nauru and in PNG but for the fact that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government reversed the previous policy of the Howard-Costello coalition government and then had to scramble to introduce regional processing. That's why we're having the debate—the failure of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. That's a fact.

It was that failure that led—between 2008, when Kevin Rudd came into government, and 2013—directly to 50,000 people seeking to arrive in this country by boats arranged by illegal people smugglers. There were 820 boats, with 1,200 deaths at sea. It was one of the biggest public policy failures I have seen in my lifetime. So it's a bit rich to sit here and listen to Senator Green's contribution, which seemed to say that everything was light and intelligent understanding and only a Labor government can fix this problem, when it was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government that failed to address this issue and changed Australia's policies, which directly led to 50,000 people arriving in Australia as unauthorised maritime arrivals. Those are the facts, indisputable, and any contribution in this debate, to be seen as reasonable and balanced, should recognise that, especially those contributions from the other side.

It is also a fact that the coalition government, when it came to power under Tony Abbott and then Malcolm Turnbull, actually did take positive steps to arrange third-country resettlement. That is also a fact, and, again, it indisputable. There has been plenty of publicity about a phone call between former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and then president Donald Trump of the United States with respect to those arrangements which had been entered into by a previous coalition government. Again, that's a fact.

But the issue we now have to deal with is: how do we humanely and appropriately deal with those people who are still within Nauru and Papua New Guinea, recognising that Papua New Guinea is no longer a regional processing centre? I agree with the majority report from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that this private member's bill, however well intentioned, is not a bill which is going to fundamentally address this issue and which, perversely, could actually lead to a restart of the people-smuggling business, even though that's not the intention. I recognise that that's not the intention, but that is my fundamental concern.

We cannot get back to a place where we have coming to these shores hundreds of boats organised by people smugglers and where we have people, including women and children, dying at sea. We simply cannot allow ourselves to go back to that place. We have to as quickly as we can, and as humanely as possible, deal with those who are on Nauru and in PNG, but we can't change the policy parameters in any way that will lead to a restart of the people-smuggling business. We did that once before as a country. The people-smuggling business was broken under the Howard coalition government. It had stopped. The policy levers were changed—however well-intentioned that was—and then 50,000 people arrived, unauthorised maritime arrivals, in 820 boats organised by the illegal people smugglers. That's the reality. That's what happened.

We can't give ammunition to the people smugglers to recommence their trade when their commodity is the most vulnerable human beings. We simply cannot allow that to occur. It would be irresponsible in my view—however well-intentioned—to allow that awful trade in people to recommence. That is the fundamental reason why I and those sitting on this side of the chamber in dealing with this very difficult issue recommend that the Senate reject this bill.

With respect to regional processing, we need to be respectful of those who this place, through our policies and our legislation, has imposed burdens on in implementing what the Australian government policy is. I do commend all the people in the department of immigration, in Border Force and throughout the Australian government who have had to deal with this awful issue over so many years. We don't want to again get into a position where Australians in our armed forces and Border Force are forced to deal with horrific scenes of people dying at sea and being lost at sea. We simply can't let that recur.

Having carefully read Senator McKim's private senator's bill, the intention is clearly to bring an end to regional processing. I respect that perspective. That would be the effect of the bill. With the way it's drafted I don't think it could have any other effect. In my view the great danger posed by that is that it would provide ammunition for the people smugglers to recommence their vile trade in the most vulnerable people.

With those comments and in conclusion, I deeply respect the work that Senator McKim does in this place and I deeply respect his passion in relation to this subject, but, considering the facts and the background, I'm firmly of the view that this is the wrong course and it would present a real risk that the people-smuggling business would recommence and we would go back to that period between 2008 and 2013 when 50,000 people arrived on these shores—the subjects of the vile people-smuggling trade—on 820 boats and there were at least 1,200 deaths at sea. From my perspective, this chamber simply cannot let that occur, however well-intentioned this private senator's bill is.

I thank Senator McKim for the Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 and the opportunity to debate this. I welcome this bill. For more than 20 years the plight of asylum seekers and refugees trying to reach Australia has been politicised. Successive governments have been in what seems to be a race to the bottom, campaigning on fear, division and cruelty. We must remember that this issue is about people and not politics. As politicians, we have a responsibility to the people that we represent, and we have a responsibility to build a nation that we can be proud of—a nation that treats everyone with respect and dignity and that faces complex challenges with courage, with open debate and, in the end, I would hope, with unity.

In recent years we have not faced this issue with unity and courage. People seeking asylum and refugees have been used as political footballs, with all sides using them for cheap pointscoring. The 150 people that remain in Papua New Guinea and Nauru are victims of our collective political failure. There are certain basic human rights that everyone should have. We should all have the right to work, to put food on the table, and to have a roof over our heads. The rights of those 150 people have been grossly violated. This bill is an opportunity to change that. If this bill were passed, there would finally be an offer to transfer people from offshore detention in PNG and Nauru to Australia, with the significant caveat that they are not subject to an adverse security assessment by ASIO. That's a really important caveat, and I think it's something that people pounce on when we talk about security threats and the impost on communities here in Australia. In Australia, they would have access to the medical treatment and mental health support that they require—mental health support which, in many cases, is desperately required.

Reading through the submissions to the inquiry into this bill was a moving and sad experience. It just reinforces that this is dealing with human beings like all of us—people who have hopes and dreams for their lives and who, for whatever reason, have found themselves in a situation where they were so desperate that they decided that they needed to leave everything they knew and leave their family to seek safety. And they have sought safety from Australia. On my reading of this report, we are failing them. One of my constituents, a Canberran called Peter, made a submission to the inquiry. He said:

… the human face of the policy for those remaining in Papua New Guinea and Nauru is one of desperate misery—and this for people who risked all to flee oppression, torture and death in their countries of origin.

The human face is missing from the committee report into this bill. In fact, accounts from those who are suffering are not even included in the text. So here are some of the stories in the submission from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. Case study 1 states:

Mohammad is a Hazara man from Afghanistan who is in PNG. He has been recognised as a refugee. He is currently under severe mental stress because he is worried about his family in Afghanistan who are living under Taliban rule …

Mohammad has suffered in offshore detention in PNG for over 9 years. He has a multitude of untreated health conditions which makes it difficult for him to eat. He also suffers from depression. His doctor suggests he exercises, but Mohammad does not want to leave his house for fear of his safety.

The submission quotes Mohammad directly:

My hopes are to be with family, find work, stand on my own feet, feel independent and feel like a human. To have a peaceful life. Just do not forget us and hopefully, you can help us get out of this situation. We are stuck and cannot do anything to change our life for the better.

Another case study states:

Qarar was hospitalised in Nauru earlier this year after he experienced severe pain. He has been approved for transfer, but has still not been evacuated or received the medical treatment needed.

The submission quotes Qarar:

My brother is in Australia, I need to go to Australia for treatment, it is easier for me in Australia. I have been to Australia 3 times—had an operation in Brisbane in 2014 for kidney stone removal, good hospital, I stayed for 2 weeks, with a lot of facilities, proper doctors and professionals, there is a lot of humanity, human being's health is important in Australia, it is nothing here ... Australia is spending a lot of money and could have spent it in a better way.

Another case study in the submission states:

Hiren has been held in Nauru for over 9 years. He was transferred to Australia in February 2023 for urgent medical treatment for chronic pain conditions. Hiren has been held in closed hotel detention. He has not been told when he will be released from detention.

He says:

People are getting crazy. Health issues are worsening. People are scared for their safety. Locals swear at refugees. Get people out of this situation please. They are under a lot of stress and face a great uncertainty. Pay attention to the corruption and torture that is continuing to go on in offshore detention.

The 2010 Australian of the Year, psychiatrist Professor Patrick McGorry, has described offshore detention centres as 'factories for producing mental illness'. It's no surprise that we hear stories of people who've been locked up for over a decade and have health conditions, including mental health conditions. That's on us. That is a direct result of politicians' policies. We have to own that, and we have an opportunity to change that.

Medecins Sans Frontieres found that on Nauru:

Among the 208 refugee and asylum seeker patients assessed by MSF, 129 (62%) were diagnosed with moderate to sev ere depression. The second highest morbidity was anxiety disorder (25%), followed by PTSD (18%), mild depression (11%), complex trauma (6%) and resignation syndrome (6%), also known as traumatic withdrawal syndrome.

We can't ignore this. We know what is happening: there are a small number of people who we keep offshore for political reasons. Please think about these people.

Clearly, there's also the economic cost. Offshore centres cost around $9.6 billion in the three years between 2013 and 2016. That's an extraordinary amount of money. They continue to cost around $1 billion a year to run, which comes to over $500,000 per asylum seeker per year. This doesn't make sense. There has to be a better way to do this. Offshore detention is cruel. It causes the destruction of the physical and mental health of those who seek our care and our community.

The time has come for Australia to adopt a more compassionate and humane approach to refugees and asylum seekers. We have to grapple with this issue. We have to grapple with the national security concerns—the concerns that Senator Scarr rightly raised about Border Force having to deal with horrendous scenes—and we have to grapple with the fact that these are people who are desperate—people like you and me who are seeking our support—and we're locking them up and spending a huge amount of our money do so.

We can and must find a way to ensure that people do not die at sea and people also do not languish in indefinite detention. I believe we need to start to play a more active role in our region. People are only leaving because their situation is intolerable or their life is at risk. We need to stand up alongside calls that call out human rights abuses in other countries. And we really need to start thinking about how we're going to deal with climate refugees, because, if we look back at the last couple of decades and think we've had a refugee problem over any of those years, we haven't seen anything. The thing to think about—and I encourage the major parties to start thinking about this—is that, when we start seeing the spiralling, compounding effects of climate change, our Pacific neighbours are probably not going to be in a position to just do our dirty work. People in those countries will potentially be looking to Australia and saying: 'We can't cope here. We need support.'

This is a really tough problem, but ignoring it or locking up 150 people and hoping that that solves the problem doesn't. I understand that this is not something the major parties will entertain, but I urge you in your party rooms—and in your thinking—to start listening to the Australian community. Once we hear these sorts of stories we start to understand the people and how desperate they are in seeking our support. People want a more pragmatic, humane approach.

I thank Senator McKim for bringing this bill to the Senate. It does have my support. A number of Canberrans contact me on a regular basis about this but not only this. There are people languishing in our community on bridging visas—people who've had small businesses for 10 years and are contributing and paying taxes but who don't have access to services, to tertiary education and all of the things that many of us take for granted. Thank you, Senator McKim. I support this bill.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with informal arrangements reached by senators.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I start by first acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and paying my respects to elders past, present and emerging, and I want to particularly acknowledge First Nations senators. I will speak briefly because I believe it's important that Senator Dodson and Senator Stewart give the balance of the government's contribution today.

Fifteen years ago, on his first parliamentary sitting day as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd offered a formal apology on behalf of the nation to Australia's Indigenous peoples—in particular the stolen generations. In acknowledging the past, Prime Minister Rudd said we were laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians, and part of that future was a commitment to close the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in health, education, employment and life expectancy within a generation.

Well, today we still have a long way to go. The last Closing the Gap annual report, tabled a few months ago, shows that gaps not only persist but in many areas are widening. This includes the number of children being school-ready, rates of incarceration and deaths by suicide. For too long, policies designed in Canberra and imposed on First Nations communities without meaningful consultation have failed to deliver the outcomes which we hoped for. We have tried to close the gap but we have done so without listening sufficiently to the voices of First Nations people.

This government takes responsibility for doing better. The Albanese government's first Closing the Gap Implementation Plan details the next steps that the Commonwealth will take towards achieving the targets and priority reforms of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. It shows all Australians what tangible and practical actions are being taken in partnership with the Coalition of Peaks to achieve progress. New measures in the 2023 implementation plan include support for water infrastructure to provide safe and reliable water for remote and regional Indigenous communities; a partnership with the Northern Territory government to accelerate the building of new remote housing; funding for the national strategy for food security in remote First Nations communities; support for family violence prevention and legal service providers; more on-country education for remote First Nations students, including greater access to junior rangers and culturally appropriate distance learning; and additional support for boarding for rural and remote students.

While the implementation plan sets out our immediate path for action, long-term and lasting progress requires structural change. This year Australians have the opportunity to be part of that change. The referendum for a Voice to Parliament is about two things. It is about recognition and it is about consultation. The Voice will give independent advice to the parliament and government, making recommendations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Community led, empowering, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed, it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures.

Before I conclude and leave—as I said—the majority of the contribution to the First Nations colleagues that I have the privilege of serving with, I want to make some observations as the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As well as having so much to gain within Australia from closing the gap and achieving reconciliation, we have much to gain in the world by elevating the experiences and voices and wisdom of First Nations people. This is a national asset, and it is a source of our strength. It opens new ways to engage on shared interests with partners in our region. In the countries of the Pacific to which I have travelled I have been welcomed by traditional owners, and the centrality of traditional custodianship, of custom, of leadership in the Pacific way is something we should respect in our regional engagement. It is something we should be sharing with the Pacific family by elevating the perspectives and voices of First Nations people across communities across the blue Pacific.

Yesterday I had the privilege of announcing Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia's inaugural Ambassador for First Nations People. Justin is a Gooreng Gooreng man from Bundaberg with extensive experience across many roles. He will lead the Office of First Nations Engagement in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Together they will work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to progress Indigenous rights globally and help grow First Nations trade and investment. This new position ensures, for the first time, that Australia will have dedicated Indigenous representation in our international engagement.

(Extension of time granted)

Elevating First Nations voices in our international engagement makes us stronger in the world. I was very proud to attend the United Nations General Assembly with Senator Pat Dodson, and I'm very proud that today, on International Women's Day, in New York the Australian delegation for the Convention on the Status of Women is led by Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. That is a great thing.

Today is about closing the gap, but it is about more than that. It has greater ambition than that. It is about our nation, it's about achieving our full potential as a nation, and that can only happen when every Australian has the chance to realise their own potential.

Closing the gap is a powerful concept because it bridges from the symbolic to the practical. The concept of closing the gap is to establish and pursue measurable, verifiable targets to achieve genuine equality in outcomes, in outcomes that are real to people's lives, in outcomes that are real to the opportunities that they and their families and their children have. That's why it is important that each year we assess progress, speak honestly and address directly the challenges that come with closing the gap. It is a stain on Australia that the gap exists and the gap is as wide as it is. It is a stain that successive governments of different persuasions have invested significant sums of funds, energy, policies in attempting to address, and in some areas some success has been achieved. But too much of it has not been closed. The gap is too wide and, we must acknowledge, in some areas is still widening.

The Closing the gap report that was handed down late last year, as I acknowledged at the time, was the first such report following the new national agreement and implementation plan that had been released just 12 months earlier under the previous government. It had involved a long and genuine process of engagement and consultation to establish new targets in genuine partnership with First Nations peoples. It had worked closely with the Coalition of the Peaks, and I want to again acknowledge them for their work in the establishment of the targets and the process against which closing the gap policies and measures are now pursued.

It is pleasing to see that against those measures there are new priorities and, importantly, new, more granular targets in place which reflect very genuinely the input of First Australians to establish them and to identify their priorities. But, most importantly, it is about giving that direct focus on the attributes that we seek to achieve change through in terms of genuine closing of the gap and the changes that are necessary to do so. In too many areas we are not making progress, and in some we are even going backwards. School readiness, adult incarceration rates, suicide rates are all highlighted statistics that paint a bleak and continually concerning picture. Sometimes, indeed, they present as contrasts in the Closing the gap report, if we genuinely get into the data.

We've seen significant growth and achievement in terms of the percentage of children enrolled in preschool. Target 3 was identified as being on track, improving. Similarly, target 2, as identified by the Productivity Commission, concerned babies born with a healthy birthweight in 2019. It's improving, on track, according to the Productivity Commission's assessments against targets. And yet we see in target 4, the rate of children commencing school who are developmentally on track, going backwards, worsening. Much work is required to drill down below those types of statistics and understand: if we are achieving more babies born with healthy birthweight; if we are enrolling more children in preschool; what are the causes that are seeing fewer children commencing developmentally on track when they begin their school education. The same types of questions can be posed across a range of areas in relation to incarceration, employment, health and other types of outcomes that are assessed in detail through closing the gap. That's why this is a valuable process: because it has set transparent targets for government; because they are transparently assessed independently by the Productivity Commission; because it is done with direct engagement with community, as it should be; but, ultimately, because we can use this information and analysis to see what is working, but to see where things are failing and to pursue the types of policy changes through consultation and engagement with all those affected that can help us to genuinely close the gap. We owe people no less than to remove such a stain on Australia.

I want to begin by restating the Greens' support for closing the gap and equity in First Nations health but also for First Nations people more broadly. As a proud Yamatji-Noongar woman, I'm proud to be the portfolio holder for the Australian Greens on First Nations issues.

First Nations people are overrepresented in our health system but also across all systems. We get sicker, we die earlier, we are poorer, we are arrested and locked up more, we have our children taken away from us more and we are less likely to finish school. On top of all of that, we are more likely to experience poverty and have less money. But make no mistake: this was not always the case. For thousands of years First Nations people managed their land and we managed ourselves. We looked after ourselves. We followed our cultural protocols and practices. We are, and were, deeply connected to our country, our culture and our community. This has changed since colonisation across various parts of our wonderful country.

First Nations people have been subjected to countless policies from successive governments since Federation, both with good intentions and with bad. Unfortunately, when the intentions have been good, such as with the Closing the Gap initiative, the results have been average. But, when the intentions have been bad, the results have been catastrophic for First Nations people. It is these policies that have resulted in the circumstances we are facing today, which the Closing the Gap initiative is aiming to address. They are the impacts of government after government telling First Nations communities what they need instead of listening to them, working with them and allowing First Nations communities to do what they have done for generations.

Unfortunately, what the last Closing the gap report showed is that many of these gaps not only continue to exist but are growing. In key areas, such as health, education, incarceration, life expectancy, suicide rates and children in out-of-home care, we are in fact going backwards, and this is shameful. Four out of the 18 socioeconomic targets are on track—only four—which is absolutely disgraceful. For the other 14, either they are not on track or there is no new data, so we don't even know if they are on track or not. This in itself is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

We are pleased to see the investments into closing the gap in the 2022 October budget, specifically in the areas of health, housing and justice. However, since its inception, governments have invested millions into closing the gap and, as I said earlier, only four of the 18 targets are on track. We absolutely need to see progress. Now the current government has released its implementation plan, which sets out a plan for making progress towards these 18 targets. This plan includes more funding. The Greens welcome this. Of course we want to see these gaps closed, but the reality is that nothing is happening. We are not seeing the results we need to.

What is integral to the success of closing the gap is not the amount of money that any government chooses to invest in it, although—don't get me wrong—that does go a long way. It is the involvement of First Nations people that is integral. First Nations people need to be deeply embedded as we tackle these issues. From housing to health to education to incarceration, it's not enough that First Nations people just provide some input and then go away and all the decisions are made at government tables. We cannot do the same things we've done before and expect different outcomes. As the Minister for Indigenous Australians said, more of the same is not good enough.

We need to do things differently by working in partnerships with communities to get better results. We need to make sure that cultural protocols are followed, that cultural differences and nations are considered and that information is communicated in language. The only way we can do this is by having First Nations people in the driver's seat and involved in driving this process every step of the way. This is key not only in achieving the targets but also in respecting our sovereignty and our self-determination.

I'm disheartened that this could not have been a more positive speech; however, I look forward to working with the government on making actual progress on these 18 targets, because First Nations people deserve better than this. Further, the government needs to implement the recommendations of the Bringing them home report and the deaths in custody report. These reports have been collecting dust for decades.

N (—) (): Labor loves that it was one of their very own who delivered the Stolen Generations apology. Kevin Rudd did the hard sell on the apology, telling Australians it was necessary for us to move forward together as a nation. However, Anthony Albanese has decided to turn us backward as two separate nations divided by race. That's the real endgame. That's ultimately where the racist Voice to Parliament will take us. Labor is committed to implementing the Uluru statement in full, so the Voice is only the first step. The next step is truth-telling, but Labor can't bring itself to tell the truth about its plans for the Voice. Labor can't admit the truth that they're elitist, out of touch.

Aboriginal industry, which concocted the Uluru statement, has for decades been responsible for the failure to close the gaps. Labor won't admit the truth that the uncounted billions of dollars that the Aboriginal industry has stolen from taxpayers has failed to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are living in the violence, plague, and economic and social dead ends we call remote communities. The truth is that this industry is made up of thousands of corrupt and dysfunctional Aboriginal corporations and land councils. The truth is that these organisations are only interested in lining their own pockets and using their power to punch down on the truly disadvantaged Aborigines they despise and the few good people who are really trying to help them.

The truth is that, like 80 per cent of Aborigines, this industry's leaders don't live in remote Aboriginal communities, and they're not remotely disadvantaged. They've done very well for themselves—better than most of us. The truth is that these leaders are the very same failures and frauds who are now eagerly looking forward to well-paid, constitutionally protected jobs with the racist Voice to Parliament. The truth is that this mob doesn't even have the discipline to follow the Prime Minister's script to downplay the powers and scope of the Voice. They started that way, but their naked greed for race based constitutional power has been on full display recently. What an embarrassment for the Prime Minister!

Megan Davis last week made it very clear that of course the Voice will have tremendous power. This was always the true intention. She's effectively admitted what constitutional experts have been saying for some time now: that the courts will play a significant role in determining the powers of the Voice. That's right: this woman, appointed by the Prime Minister to advise him on the Voice, anticipates challenges in the High Court over the Voice's powers. She has directly contradicted the Prime Minister, who has been telling us that only parliament will do it. The truth is that parliament will be repeatedly held hostage in a series of constitutional crises while the unelected High Court extends the Voice's powers. The Prime Minister and his mob of Voice cheerleaders also keep repeating the lie that the Voice is necessary in order to close the gaps.

The truth is that a voice filled with the same frauds who have failed Aboriginals in remote communities for decades will close nothing. The truth is that these frauds have a vested interest in keeping those gaps as wide as the Grand Canyon—otherwise, they won't have the excuses they need to keep demanding more and more power and money. And the truth is that Anthony Albanese will just roll over and let it all happen. Another truth is that every parliament to come will be paralysed for months while activists demand to expand the powers of the Voice and take each parliament to the High Court if those demands aren't met. So much for moving forward together. The truth is that the Voice a racist black nationalist vehicle for chaos, lies and an Australia constantly in conflict.

Australians must reject this racist Voice that will take us backwards more than 50 years. We must prioritise helping those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are in real disadvantage in neglected remote communities. The only way to really close the gaps is to close those communities down and help the poor people who live in them to go where they can take advantage of the economic and educational opportunities that the rest of us have. If you want some real truth-telling, let us have an audit on all the money stolen by the Aboriginal industry—where it's all gone and why it's failed to close the gap. Let's have some truth-telling about the sexually abused children in these communities that you don't do anything about. Let's give them a future.

nator DODSON () (): I rise to note the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the Commonwealth's Closing the Gap implementation plan 2023. The apology from the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, at the time was a momentous occasion for the nation, a huge step forward for reconciliation in Australia.

We should never forget our history—the good, the bad and the ugly—but we also need tangible action to address the poorer outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That is why the tabling of our government's first Closing the Gap implementation plan under the national agreement is important. It is a strong demonstration of our commitment to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

I was grateful to attend several events in honour of the anniversary of the apology and speak with survivors of the stolen generations from right around the country. It is both humbling and motivating to hear their stories, their optimism and their hope. In statements today we must not shy away, though, from the landscape that is before us. While there has been some progress, the efforts of previous governments have been ineffective. The data speaks plainly of a stagnation in addressing the needs of Indigenous communities. Progress across most socioeconomic outcome areas has stalled. Some have even gone backwards.

In the midst of all of this we must not lose sight of the very real human cost of inaction. Aboriginal lives must not be treated like some beads on a departmental abacus. Closing the gap demands a spirit of transformation, genuine partnership and focused attention on outcomes. The government, in partnership with the Coalition of Peaks, is committed to securing real and transformational change for First Nations peoples.

The new 2023 implementation plan is about exactly that. It gives purpose and direction to our efforts to transform government, in line with the national agreement's four priority reforms. We are investing $424 million in additional funding to Closing the Gap across water infrastructure, food security, family violence and health. This is a top-up of the $1.2 billion in practical initiatives already being implemented following the October budget.

These announcements are significant: real funding and real investment in Aboriginal communities on the issues that matter most. But the implementation plan is also about accountability and transparency, by bringing together the actions that each department is taking over the next 12 months. Perhaps the most significant is that the implementation plan exists in a context that is in need of broad structural reform.

What has been missing is the Voice. It's the missing piece. A key element of the government's commitment to improve outcomes in closing the gap is its pursuit of a referendum to establish a voice to the parliament. It is grounded in evidence. Outcomes for our people are simply better when we have a say, have choice and make decisions about our lives. The Voice will do exactly that. Consistent with the national agreement, the Voice will be transformational and will better enable First Peoples to be engaged in decision-making and priorities.

This prospect should attract bipartisan support, especially given that these priority reforms were agreed by the previous government. The 2023 implementation plan and up-and-coming referendum promises a truly transformational moment for First Nations and real, lasting change: recognition in the Constitution and ability to make representation, to the government, into the parliament on matters that affect First Nations peoples and a matter for which a voice is needed to improve the outcomes in this closing the gap space.

I would like to take this moment to recognise that it has been 15 years since the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. I would also like to acknowledge the current neglected generation who are being left to languish in dysfunctional circumstances because of their race, which, I believe, is an absolute crime. The rights of Indigenous children in this country are being left in dysfunctional circumstances because of their race. I also acknowledge the Indigenous voices in parliament. My colleague who spoke before me has had a long career as an Indigenous voice in parliament, and to parliament prior to that.

Fifteen years ago, in his apology, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called for a future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity. He called for a future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners with equal opportunities with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

Just 15 years later, the new Labor government seeks to divide us. The new Labor government doesn't want us to be equal. They don't want is to be equal partners. They don't want us to have equal opportunities. They don't want us united with an equal stake in shaping our future. They want us constitutionally divided by race. They want to give one group, based on nothing but their differences, special privileges to stall, to halt, to hinder the work of governments if they don't like what they're trying to do.

This is not how you close the gap. This is how you increase the gap. This is how you open up a new one. This is how you open up the gap between the Aboriginal industry, the professional activist class and the vulnerable Australians living in remote and rural communities across Australia, out of sight and out of mind to Canberra. This is how we open the gap between the middle class and elite Aboriginal Australians in the cities and the marginalised Aboriginal Australians in remote communities.

Two years ago, during my tenure as the Director of Indigenous Research for the Centre for Independent Studies, our research uncovered where the gap truly exists. The gap does not exist between Indigenous Australia and everybody else; it exists between those in remote communities whose first language is not English, who still live by their traditional culture, who are out of sight and out of mind to places like Canberra and everyone else, including urban Aboriginal Australians, who, in the major cities and towns, have access to services and have better educational outcomes and health outcomes. That is where the gap truly exists. That is where the focus should be, not suggesting all Aboriginal people are disadvantaged because of their race. I would consider that a racist concept.

In my report, I highlighted that the approach that has governed Indigenous affairs for a number of years, focusing on symbolic gestures and separatist thinking behind the Voice to Parliament, is not working. Now, what has changed? The separatist thinking behind the Voice has gotten stronger. The call to give the divisive politicians' Voice more teeth has gotten louder. The push for division has gotten stronger. If the Aboriginal industry, comprising of service providers, bureaucrats, academics and politicians, is truly serious about closing the gap, then it must be prepared to no longer exist and ween itself off the millions of taxpayer dollars it relies upon to exist. Only then will the gap truly have been closed. The Voice does not seek to do this. The Voice seeks to constitutionally enshrine the gap, because a voice suggests we will always be disadvantaged as a matter of our racial heritage. It's such a shame. If this government is serious about closing the gap, it will not widen it by continuing this push for a divisive, dangerous and costly politicians' Voice. It will move away from the ideological race-based thinking and it will look for real solutions to real problems and treat all Australians equally, regardless of racial heritage.

I also rise to speak to the failing Closing the Gap statement on the anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations. By now we are getting used to what this report contains year after year—the so-called gap between First Nations people and non-First Nations people in this country. The gap is not closing but actually widening in a number of areas.

One of these areas is the removal of our children, the stealing of our children. Another one is suicide. These are not separate from each other. You cannot take a child from its mother without causing trauma. You cannot remove a child from a family, from a community, from its culture, from country without causing lasting, deep and intergenerational trauma. My people are dealing with this trauma every day. This is why I have not stopped calling on the government to fully implement the recommendations of the Bringing them home report. My own mother was a commissioner on that report, and I will keep the pressure on day-by-day until we finally see action.

You don't need to go out looking for new solutions. The solutions have been there for 26 years. Just on the weekend, on Sunday, I was asked to support a young single mother with a disability who had just given birth, and shortly after, her baby was taken away—a baby that belongs with its mother. These first hours, days and weeks are essential to forming bonds between mother and baby to establish breastfeeding and so much more. You can't get that back.

The so-called child protection in this country is many times more likely to remove a black child than a white child when all other circumstances are the same. It is done with such good intentions! Well, those good intentions are destroying our families and communities. It is a continuation of the stolen generations and it is also an act of genocide—genocide, in this country. According to the UN, genocide is a crime 'committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part'. Taking our children is an intent to destroy us as the First Peoples of this country. It is an act of genocide.

What our families need when struggling from systemic oppression is support. This support should, wherever possible, be provided by First Nations community-controlled organisations in culturally safe ways. I cannot tell you enough about how amazing Grandmothers Against Removal are. No-one supports them. You don't hear their voice. Even government departments deny a meeting with the elders, the grandmothers who are fighting to get our children out of this system. They have safely and caringly supported and kept babies and mothers together with no support, with no funding. Real support cannot be provided by just another one of your colonial institutions, where blackfellas don't feel safe and at every moment feel like they are doing something wrong, in not fulfilling another one of your colonial criteria, and are risking being reported and having their child taken.

If Labor is serious about its former Prime Minister's apology, where it has a morning tea and celebrates 22,000 Aboriginal children in out-of-home care, then it should look deeply into the practices of the system that has been created to destroy First Nations people in this country. You're attacking our children and the mothers and the fathers of these children. When are you going to implement the recommendations from the Bringing them home report, which provides you with all of the self-determining solutions from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices that you so care about? What do you say about 22,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids in out-of-home care? Do you say sorry again?

Last month we marked 15 years since then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology for the cruel and unjust policies and practices that tore apart Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families across the nation, impacts of which are still evident today. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people sat with their family and friends, in the gallery and together on the lawns of parliament and watched on their screens in workplaces and schools right across the country. I chose to watch the apology with my community at the Aboriginal Advancement League, a proud and longstanding Aboriginal rights organisation in Melbourne's north. The hall was so full it was standing room only. It was a truly significant moment for our country, one seeped in optimism and hope for a better future for all Australians, for a country in which we can all live happy, healthy lives with equal access to employment and education opportunities.

Tragically, but not unexpectedly, there have been significant and damaging consequences from the neglect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over the last decade by the former government. The 2023 Closing the gap report sets out the truth of the matter: the gaps are widening.

As I have spoken about in this chamber, I remember sitting in a classroom when I was 15 or 16 years old and the teacher talking about the Closing the gap statistics. As one of the only Koori kids in the classroom, it felt like the teacher was painting a picture of my future as a First Nations person, with dire statistics on health and life expectancy for First Nations people, for my people. It's hard to articulate what it is like to read about and listen to someone tell you that you're going to die 10 years younger than your peers, that you are less likely to finish high school and go to university and that I was more likely to be unemployed and have a chronic health condition than my peers. But this was the reality 20 years ago. Not much has changed since, and it's an absolute shame that we must continue to speak the truth now.

While the opposition leader seems to think that public policy doesn't have any unique impact on the lives of Aboriginal people in this country, I certainly beg to differ. If you need more proof about why the Voice to Parliament is needed, this is it: it's 10 years later and the statistics are getting worse. The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children assessed as developmentally on track in all five domains of Australian Early Development Census has dropped from 55 per cent to 35.2 per cent. The target for healthy birth weights for babies has gone from being on track to not on track. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve better.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians need a seat at the table to work in partnership with government to come up with the solutions for our families. This is one of the only things that has proven that the evidence is there to suggest that positive outcomes are possible and can only happen when we have a seat at the table. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to closing the gap—and not just on an ad hoc way or when there's opportunity to cause division to win some political points, like the Peter Dutton opposition. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to doing things differently, and we're just getting started on this work.

In our first budget, back in October 2022, the Albanese Labor government committed over $900 million to closing the gap. Earlier this week the Minister for Social Services announced more than $50 million of funding to help address the overrepresentation of First Nations children in out-of-home care by five per cent by 2031. It's something I'm deeply passionate about as somebody who has worked in the sector. This includes a delivery of innovative, community-led ideas from First Nations communities to design service models that better support families and supports organisations and workers to be better able to deliver prevention and early intervention services that are culturally safe, trauma and healing informed. We're determined to close the gap.

We will continue to deliver on the Closing the Gap implementation plan in partnership with the Coalition of Peaks and state and territory governments. We will continue to target investment where it will make a real and tangible difference to the lives of Aboriginal people.

I want to acknowledge the Aboriginal organisations around the country, and particularly those from my home state of Victoria, who shoulder the burden of this work. I want to thank each of you for your tireless advocacy for our mob. Thank you. To really and meaningfully move forward as a country, we must accept the generous invitation set out in the Uluru Statement from the Heart to walk together for a better future for all Australians.

I acknowledge, on International Women's Day, the contribution of all women and, in the context of this contribution, the enduring, valuable contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and my fellow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander senators.

We of course all agree that it is right and just to focus on closing the gap in life expectancy. In our cities and in our regional and remote communities the statistics demonstrate the real divide and consequences of not being effective in closing the gap, but we know that the data is an issue, and so it is likely much worse. However, closing the gap must not be the work of a single entity or group. Closing the gap will only work when all of us are involved and understand how we benefit from that outcome. Non-Indigenous Australians must remain critical to be part of the solution. It is well and good to have a well-funded strategy, but if on the ground it is not happening, because the very people charged to help them fail to act, then the gap won't close; it won't matter what we do.

I speak again, and I feel like I'm going around and around in circles, about the family that I came across in Alice Springs about two weeks ago. It's a lived example where I heard of so many gestures of concern for those people living on the slab, and they've been there for two years. These 20 women, children, elderly and those with serious medical conditions remain on that slab today, with exposure to the elements and greater risk to their life experience and expectancy—not just from the last two years, but they remain on the slab today. Their life and life experience may have been diminished as a consequence of this but not their hope.

It is known that the social determinants of health are the non-medical factors that influence health outcomes. Without a roof and action, nothing will change for these people, and every day their life experience will remain on the wrong trajectory. These people haven't fallen through the crack; they have fallen through a cavern of apathy. People have driven past their plight. They have dropped off medical supplies, picked up people and dropped them back there, and nobody has seen it as their responsibility to take the greatest step of advocacy and get a roof over their heads so that they can control their own destiny and improve their own outcomes. These people have been invisible in plain sight. It's 40 degrees in summer and minus temperatures in winter. There is no shelter and no running water. There's an open fire to cook on. There's nothing to address their basic needs. It's unfathomable. Just imagine living like that for two years let alone overnight.

This is certainly not the way for any person in Australia to live, nor in the middle of a town whose economy, tragically and increasingly, is fast becoming more solely reliant on welfare. The economy in Alice Springs has been devastated by welfare. The tragedy and irony of this story is those service providers funded by the Northern Territory and Australian governments. They're engaging with this family. They know their circumstances. But they've failed to provide an integrated, effective response and a timely response to ameliorate this situation. It highlights the deficit in local service delivery, planning and coordination currently obvious among many funded agencies, and not just in Alice Springs or Central Australia; it's even in South Australia. If these issues and limitations are not addressed as a matter of urgency, then the potential to maximise effect from any financial investment or effort is significantly constrained.

Whatever the excuses or reasons, what resulted here was a family and their children enduring two years of the consequences of bad service provision, with the likely deteriorating health and wellbeing, and we know the link between environment and wellbeing. The Prime Minister, in reference to health, said he would leave no one behind, and I very much look forward to seeing that promise delivered by engaging with the Northern Territory government to get the right outcome for this family.

The lack of effort to ensure high-level accountability will continue to fail to deliver the right outcome and continue to leave families falling between the gaps in service coordination and far from the reach of anyone's ability to close the gap in life expectancy. Demanding good governance within these organisations is critical if you really want to close the gap. We saw the inability to get a faster response when the Stronger Futures legislation was— (Time expired)

I want to acknowledge the speakers who went before me and associate myself with the remarks of Senator Dodson and Senator Stewart. It's an absolute privilege to serve with you both in this place. And I want to acknowledge the remarks of all the speakers who went before me and, in doing so, note that I am standing here not as an Aboriginal person, but as someone who wanted to make a contribution to this debate as a representative of the state of South Australia. I think it's important that we all seek to be part of this debate not just in this chamber, but in our communities as well.

2023 marks 15 years since the first Closing the Gap report was delivered to our parliament. The past 15 years have been marked with plenty of good intentions but, on far too many indicators, these good intentions haven't been enough. The latest data update for this year shows us that the gap remains unacceptably wide. It's not closing fast enough. Indeed, in too many places we're going backwards. Of the new data we received this month, nine targets are not on track and just two are on track. Combined with the existing data, it shows there are 11 targets that are now not on track and four that are on track.

It was Nelson Mandela who said:

There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.

We should all be sitting pretty uncomfortably in this truth when we look at the data as it affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The target for healthy birth weights for babies has gone from being on track to being not on track. That means we have gone backwards. And we've seen that the target to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth who are in employment, education and training is also not on track. The AEDI data remains unacceptable as is the proportion of people attaining year 12 or equivalent qualification. It's not okay.

All children in this country deserve to grow up safe, healthy, happy, nourished and valued. Those are their fundamental rights as little people among us. But this isn't happening. Their rights aren't being met. I know there is no shortage of goodwill to close the gap, but what we have been doing in Australia just has not been working as fast or as effectively as it should have been, and it is our children who are paying the price.

I note today that the new Closing the Gap implementation plan, which was launched last month, sets a clear path forward for achieving the targets and priority reforms. The Albanese government is also making significant changes in the delivery of First Nations policy and providing additional support for communities to get ahead, and I acknowledge in particular the support provided for communities in my electorate, including the significant commitment to Aboriginal health infrastructure right across my state, including in places like Ceduna and Murray Bridge. Our policy work also includes over $400 million in additional funding to provide safe and reliable water for remote and regional Indigenous communities, to accelerate building of new remote housing in the Northern Territory and to bolster the national strategy for food security.

But, as Senator Dodson said in his remarks earlier today, we also need structural change. This year we have a chance to forge a different path. In the referendum that will be held towards the end of this year, I hope Australians join me—join us!—in voting yes because a voice enshrined in the Constitution will mean more consultation and new partnerships. It will mean Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people get a more genuine say in the matters that affect them, and a real hand in shaping the solutions. And that's important because we know that when they do policy works better.

Of course, the Voice is just one part of what is needed. That generous offer, given to us, was about more than voice. It's about treaty and it's about truth too. I want to reaffirm as a senator for my state my commitment to all three and my government's commitment to all three. We must continue to remain devoted to this challenge and double-down on our efforts, always, to make our country a fairer place for children, but especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, where there is no doubt in the statistics before us, in everything we know, that we are currently failing them.

I, too, acknowledge the comments that have already been put to the chamber regarding Closing the Gap. As Senator Smith said, it is more than 15 years since the Commonwealth and a coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled peak organisations, state and territory governments, and the Australian Local Government Association came together and agreed that more needed to be done and entered into the Closing The Gap partnership.

Much has been done over the years, and there have been very good intentions to work together to close the gap. But unfortunately the latest report shows that, while in some respects we are making progress, in others we are not and in others still we have actually gone backwards. For example, while 89.9 per cent of Indigenous babies are now born with a healthy birth weight and 96.7 per cent of Indigenous children are enrolled in preschool, only 34.4 per cent of those children in school are developmentally on track or school-ready. These are not good statistics, and the statistics show that there are still too many children in out-of-home care, too many suicides, too many adults in prison, too many poor results in the health statistics and too many unemployed or underemployed people.

But while everyone is focusing on what we're not doing and the areas we're missing, what I'd really like to do is focus on what is actually happening on the ground in small communities or being done by individuals and groups that are making a difference in their communities, because from that we can learn, and we can actually try to progress to close the gap. For example, there are so many Indigenous people at the moment who don't have their birth certificates. There is an organisation based out of Glen Innes in northern New South Wales called Pathfinders National Aboriginal Birth Certificate Program. The organisation gets no government funding, yet they work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to help them to access their birth certificates at no cost, because, without a birth certificate, you can't get social services, you can't enrol in school, and you can't vote and have your voice heard. So, this program is so vitally important.

Through the hard work that Pathfinders are doing to help progress this—and I acknowledge Rosemary Curtis OAM for her work with Pathfinders—they've noticed other gaps that they're trying to fill, such as converting a former villa in Armidale into independent living accommodation for young people who are in care and purchasing a disused hotel in Glen Innes to convert to a rural foyer and a centre for education and employment options. These sorts of things will help close the gap in those communities, and they're doing it with no government funding.

Another important program is Blackrock Industries. Steve Fordham, who was invited to this year's job summit, has managed to get employment for 111 Indigenous men who were incarcerated. Of those 111, Steve has seen only one put back into prison. It is a success story, but unfortunately his funding ceased on 1 July 2022, and he's been told that his program is not eligible for the new Indigenous Skills and Employment Program. But we will be looking to see if we can rectify that.

Another fantastic program, in Dubbo—RED.I—is changing lives. I spoke in this chamber about Tyron Cochrane and Jolie Orcher, whom RED.I helped to get to New Zealand to compete in Golden Shears. RED.I also purchased the Wilcannia store, and they've seen the purchase of clean fruit and vegetables go from 50 kilograms a week to 500 kilograms a week in this largely Indigenous community. They are employing their own people, they are providing career pathways for people, they are working with people to get them housing. These are programs that will help close the gap.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I serve all people of Australia. I want to celebrate especially the Aboriginal people of this country. There is a higher proportion of Aboriginals in the NRL's elite athletes, higher than across the community. There's also a higher proportion in the AFL. Scientists, lawyers, parliamentarians, government—Aboriginals are part of these groups and doing a fine job. They're doing well in business, people like Warren Mundine; in carers roles—people like police, nurses, doctors—and the previous speaker mentioned Steve Fordham from Blackrock Industries who's doing a phenomenal job, and now he has been gutted by the bureaucracy. I note Ash Dodd in Queensland who is sponsoring the Collinsville coal fired power station project. Senators like Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle are telling the truth, which is so important.

Senator Pauline Hanson is uneasy with praise but probably watching in her office. When I was first elected, I approached the office of our party in the suburb of Albion. I was met at the door in our car park by three Northern Territory Aboriginals who had come down specifically to meet with us because, they said, 'Pauline Hanson is the only one who understands the Aboriginal plight and the only one willing to stand up and say so and speak out for what they need.' I will say that, if the Howard government had adopted her policies, we would now have no gap or a little gap. The Caucasian and Aboriginal people I have met in travelling through every Cape York community and the people I have met in other Northern Territory communities are quietly getting on with it and doing a stellar job. They're closing the gap. I'll tell you about an Islander who was on a council in the Torres Strait. He told me that Closing the Gap perpetuates the gap because the consultants that feed off this program actually have to maintain the gap in order to keep their money. That is what perpetuates the gap.

There are many challenges our nation faces, and every problem I see around our country is due to government. I am ashamed of governments, state and federal, and churches who blindly assumed they knew what was best for the Aboriginals—good intentions maybe, but arrogantly and ignorantly paternalistic and patronising, cruel, damaging, stultifying. I am angry with the Aboriginal industry. Communities tell me of Noel Pearson interfering, land councils acting as effectively robber barons controlling land, water, resources and funds. Billions of dollars every year supposedly go to the people on the ground, but are interceded by these robber barons. The Aboriginal industry is perpetuating victimhood, but, worse, fomenting hate and separation because that's what their industry is based on and they want it to continue.

The current government is proposing the Voice to instil and make racism systemic, separating and dividing. It follows and perpetuates a disgraceful legacy of paternalism and victimhood which harms all members of our Australian community. Actions need to follow words. We need to unify, not separate. Solving problems requires listening to people to understand their needs. Giving people their freedom to get on with their lives builds responsibility and freedom. We need to give the Aboriginal people freedom, especially in the Aboriginal communities. Addressing all of Australia's problems begins with acknowledging government as the cause of the problems, and the solution is getting government out of people's lives, honouring and respecting our Commonwealth of Australia's Constitution.

I want and look forward to uniting Australia into one nation. Worst of all, the Voice will perpetuate the hollow, deceitful policies of Labor, the Greens and, to a lesser extent, the LNP. It's a dishonest distraction that will perpetuate the gap, perpetuate the cruel infliction of punishment and deprivation. We need policies for lifting all Australians. That requires policies for restoring sovereignty, implementing sound and honest governance based on data and facts—honesty policy—and, first of all, listening to understand people's needs. Then, instead of doing things to look good, actually do good.

I would like to contribute to the debate on the Closing the Gap statement and the Closing the Gap implementation plan that our government is implementing. Before I do that, I want to acknowledge the contributions to this debate from Senators Dodson and Stewart. I associate myself with those comments but extend my respect and thanks to them for being so generous with their contributions and assisting senators, on this side of the chamber, to uniquely understand their perspective and understand how deeply affected this Closing the Gap statement can be for communities, and to understand that this is a time to acknowledge some very difficult outcomes and to really reckon with the fact that we have not closed the gap and that we have a lot of work to do.

When it comes to housing, health, education and employment, the fact is that, year after year, when this statement is made we have to recognise that we are not closing the gap and that there is a lot of work to do and that no government has been able to wrestle with these issues in a way that puts First Nations people at the heart of decision-making. That is something that no government has been able to do and it's something that our government is seeking to do. At the last sitting of parliament, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians introduced our first Closing the Gap implementation plan. The plan provides details on the next steps the Commonwealth will take towards reaching the targets and priority reforms of the national agreement to closing the gap.

The implementation plan that many have spoken about today commits more than $400 million of additional targeted spending, including investment of $150 million over four years to support First Nations water infrastructure, ensuring that communities have safe and reliable water in remote and Indigenous communities. There's funding for the national strategy of food security, funding for family violence prevention and legal service providers, and extra support for those impacted by family violence. There's also a boost to the on-country education program for remote First Nations students. This includes increased access to Indigenous rangers.

This is a plan with a whole-of-government approach, and that's incredibly important for getting this right. It brings together all of the actions each department and agency is taking to achieve the Closing the Gap outcomes in one place. This plan is a significant step forward in the Albanese Labor government's first set of investments laid out in the 2022 budget, which committed over $1.2 billion over the next six years to these programs.

It's interesting, when we talk about closing the gap, that there are so many different areas of public policy that need investment, that need commitment and that need delivery, whether it's health care, health infrastructure and treatment, improving access to early education for Indigenous families, immediate boosting for housing and essential services or community-led justice reinvestment initiatives. These are all programs that deserve support across the parliament, funding that our government is committing and the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of First Nations people.

Finally, I'm incredibly proud and privileged to work with communities in North Queensland, particularly in Cape York and the Torres Strait. We're also delivering a new TAFE Health Hub, on Thursday Island, to make sure that we have skilled healthcare workers in the Torres Strait to deliver those outcomes.

What we know and what I'm being told on the ground by First Nations people in their communities is that, in terms of getting the delivery of these programs right, for too long governments, even those with the best intentions, have made decisions on behalf of First Nations people without asking communities what they need or how best to deliver it. This is why consultation must be at the centre of the approach of every Commonwealth government and it's why a voice for First Nations people matters, directly, in what affects them.

These are complicated and sometimes sensitive matters, and I'd like to acknowledge all the contributions that have been made—varying as they may be—across the chamber. When you look at Australia's success—and we have been a very successful country—Australia has not been a good country, in broad terms, for Indigenous people. That is a fact. In terms of the representation that I seek to offer the people of New South Wales in this chamber, in New South Wales we have the largest Indigenous community in Australia. It's a community that I try to engage with, and it is a community which is spread right across our community, ranging from remote western New South Wales to up and down the coast. There is also a heavily urbanised population in Central and Western Sydney.

I indicated in my first speech to this place that I would engage on these issues because I regarded them as very important to our country's soul. I don't think we have made the progress that it was imagined would be the case when the initial apology was issued some 15 years ago. Having said that, I think it was good that when the apology was issued there was some attempt to address those issues within an institutional framework. But, as has been well documented, that initial framework was driven by bureaucrats with insufficient input from the community.

What has happened in the past few years is that, under the coalition and the Labor Party, there's been a much greater effort to put the communities' requests at the vanguard of the Closing the Gap agenda. Only two years ago, there was a significant rewriting of the Closing the Gap framework, and we can see from the latest report issued by the Productivity Commission that there has been some progress in relation to babies being born at a healthy birth weight and children being enrolled in preschool. But of course there have also been some disappointing results in relation to imprisonment, and, as has been referred to by many of the speakers in this debate, there has been a very disappointing position when it comes to children being removed from their homes. That is a great shame, and that is something that we ought to work on with vigour.

It's been very clear to me that over these past 250 years paternalism has failed completely, and that is one of the reasons that I have been of the view that the Voice was a concept worthy of very detailed consideration. One of the reasons that has come into my mind recently as I've travelled around regional New South Wales is that the country needs new institutions. We need new institutions to help close the gap because, particularly in remote and regional parts of Australia, the communities have not been given the opportunity to participate in decision-making about service delivery on the ground. That is why I believe that, as part of the detail that has been sought from the government about the Voice plans, it is very important that we understand exactly how the local and regional voice structures will work, because I think they will be key to making improvements on the ground.

When you speak to people in communities about what they are looking for from government, it is very common to hear things like: 'Well, we want to participate in the judgements that are made about our community. We want to have a say in service delivery.' It might be Aboriginal medical services. It might be a bus timetable. I think these are the sorts of things that, if done properly, could make a real difference over the long run. So many Indigenous people in these communities say to me, 'There was a program that was about to work and it was abolished by a government,' or, 'It was doing good things and it disappeared.' There has not been enough considered decision-making, and the whole point of this exercise, of course, is to ensure that we move to a shared decision-making model which is community led, because we know that paternalism has failed.

So I always welcome an opportunity to make a contribution on these issues. I look forward to participating in the debate to be held later this year in relation to the Voice.

I would like to pay my respects to the traditional owners of the lands and the waters on which I speak today, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I would also like to acknowledge elders past, present and emerging in my home state of Western Australia. I appreciate deeply the wisdom and the perspective that they share with me as I undertake my role as Greens health spokesperson.

I look at the collective action and progress on the Closing the Gap targets with dismay and deep frustration. I will focus my contribution today on access to health services and access to disability support services, including the NDIS, and particularly the ability to access these essential services while in prison. We must increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility. That must be an absolute priority for government at every level. We must also do so much more to reduce the number of First Nations people confined within the prison system.

Australia has the most people in for-profit prisons in the world. When I talk to members of the community, they are surprised to learn that people in prison do not have access to Medicare. They are shocked that Australia's universal healthcare system is in fact not universal at all. Health care is essential to the enjoyment of the human rights of all people, including people in prison. On average, people in prison experience significantly poorer mental and physical health than those in the general community and have more complex, longer-term health needs.

Healthcare services in prisons are funded by the state and territory governments, which effectively means that people in custody do not have access to any federal health care, including the Medicare system and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Extending Medicare services to people in prison would be a first step towards achieving better physical and mental health outcomes for people in custody. Introducing Medicare into prisons has broad support from Medicare and legal organisations. We must get this done.

Additionally, those in prisons have extremely limited access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Disabled people are overrepresented in the prison system. As a starting point, I would love to get our disability service provisions in this country to a place where every disabled person can access the therapies they need if they find themselves in prison, and the moment people are released from prison they have disability supports and services in place to enable them to thrive.

Today I am calling on the government to include in their Closing the Gap statements in the future an implementation plan and pathway to allow prisoners to have access to Medicare, the PBS and the NDIS. In closing, I will simply say this: Voice. Treaty. Truth.

I, too, rise to speak on the Closing the gap report. I note the historic moment last month when our government stood with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Coalition of Peaks to table the second Closing the Gap implementation plan. This joint tabling shows our commitment to partnering with Aboriginal controlled organisations and our commitment to working with First Peoples for practical action. Closing the gap is as much about how we work together with communities as it is about how much we invest in communities and how those investments are made on the ground in partnership with self-determined Aboriginal organisations and communities.

Last month the Closing the gap joint tabling coincided with the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. Fifteen years ago, Prime Minister Rudd said, 'I am sorry,' on behalf of our nation. This was a significant page of truth-telling in our history as a nation, and it was acknowledged to be a historic moment in which the pain and the burden of members of the stolen generations could be told on the national stage. Of course, the apology was not the end but just a beginning towards a real voice for First Nations, towards treaty and towards truth. We are implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, and we are proud to be doing so.

We're committed to the partnership with the Coalition of Peaks to deliver the Closing the gap implementation plan. Our government's first Closing the gap implementation plan details the steps that we'll take. Closing the gap is not just about making statements. It needs real action, real funding and real links to people on the ground in community. That's why we're investing an additional $424 million in funding towards closing the gap.

It is wholly unacceptable that in Australia today many First Nations communities still don't have access to clean water, and so we will be investing $150 million over four years to support water infrastructure and provide reliable water for remote and regional Indigenous communities. We're also working with the Northern Territory government to build new remote housing, with an investment of over $100 million as a Commonwealth contribution, because, quite frankly, everybody deserves good housing, particularly in a country as rich as ours. Everyone deserves affordable and accessible food; it's an essential right. So for the next two years we're investing in the National Strategy for Food Security in Remote First Nations Communities. Tragically, we know that family and domestic violence disproportionately impacts First Nations women and children. So the plan seeks to prevent and respond to family violence in a trauma-aware and culturally responsive manner. The plan includes funding towards supporting families impacted by violence. Education is a pathway to more opportunities, and it should be accessible everywhere. So we'll be investing in boosting on-country education as well, increasing access and providing a choice for culturally appropriate distance learning. We will also invest more to support boarding education for rural and remote students. All of that, of course, is on top of the record $1.2 billion we committed in the October budget.

This plan is about partnership between governments and self-determined Aboriginal communities and organisations. The Uluru Statement from the Heart reflects this sentiment of partnership. It's an offer to bring us closer to reconciliation as a nation. It will lead to better decision-making and it will lead to better outcomes. I have faith in the Australian people to vote yes in the referendum and take our nation forward. All of this work is about enabling self-determination and full participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Closing the gap is a commitment that all of us need to make in this place to work together to respect the voices of First Nations people and to invest in their futures. It's our commitment that we'll do just that.

I conclude by saying that I feel huge pride in serving in the Senate with my friends Senator Jana Stewart from Victoria, who's sitting next to me; Malarndirri McCarthy; and the father of reconciliation, Senator Pat Dodson. We're richer for their contribution.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri elders and knowledge holders who have paved the way for those here now, those following proudly in their footsteps and those yet to come as custodians and owners of country. I acknowledge Whadjuk country as my home base where I live, care for and maintain continuing reciprocal relationships with all who share this land. Sovereignty has never been ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands.

I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that's committed to the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. More than 60,000 years of wisdom from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is all around us, if we care to listen. This year we mark the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to Stolen Generations when the words of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reverberated across Australia: 'I am sorry on behalf of our nation.' Truth can be hard, but it helps us to move forward together. There is a long way to go. As we saw in the last Closing the gap report a few months ago, the gap not only persists but is getting bigger. The Albanese Labor government's implementation plan reaffirms that Closing the Gap is a top priority and reflects our unwavering commitment to working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In May, it will be six years since the Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered after the First Nations National Constitutional Convention. Later this year, all Australians will have the opportunity to vote yes for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. The Voice is about recognising First Nations people in our Constitution. It's about consultation. Recognition is the what and the Voice is the how. This above politics. It's about people, and it will bring us all together. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve to be recognised as custodians of this country, recognising that truth will unify our nation and help us on the journey towards reconciliation.

The Voice will help achieve real practical outcomes and improvements for First Nations people working to close the gap. Since colonisation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been told what to do. The Voice will change that. It's about listening, because local solutions are always better for local issues. I'm optimistic about our future as a reconciled country that proudly recognises our more than 60,000 years of continuous culture. I'm optimistic that, by working together with First Nations people, we can close the gap. I acknowledge my fellow Labor senators, Senator Pat Dodson, Senator Jana Stewart and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, for all their contributions and work towards the Voice to Parliament.

First, I want to acknowledge my colleague Senator Cox's contribution to this debate and echo and reinforce all of the words in her contribution. It's clear that, after decades and decades of government failures to close the gap, governments are still not actually listening to First Nations families. When will that change? Despite royal commission after royal commission, report after report, government policies are still literally killing First Nations peoples. When will we collectively say that another report is not the answer and enough is enough?

It's a fact that governments across this country continue to steal First Nations children from their families and take them away from their culture and country. Those same governments show up in chambers like this and claim they care about closing the gap. Despite what has ended up being many empty promises from politicians, despite the candles arranged outside of Parliament House in 2008, which blazed the promise of sorry, the first step, governments still aren't listening. As the Grandmothers Against Removal movement will say, if sorry means anything, it means don't do it again.

First Nations communities and organisations don't want more empty promises. They actually want action, empowerment, resources and self-determination. Removing a child from their family is often the first step down a path of a lifetime of injustice, trauma and long-lasting harm that spans lifetimes and generations. The appalling rate of removal of First Nations children is nothing other than a continuing act of violence against those families, with the so-called child welfare institutions across this country that are not culturally safe for First Nations families.

The ombudsman in my home state of New South Wales recently released a scathing report on the extent of my home state's child protection department and its failure to achieve or even persist with its five-year strategy to reduce overrepresentation of First Nations children in out-of-home care. The report found that the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice failed to report transparently on what it did to implement its own strategy and in fact abandoned its own strategy halfway through. The ombudsman found:

It was apparent to us that at some point within its five-year timeframe, DCJ effectively abandoned the AOS. DCJ did not report on what had been achieved by the AOS in the time it was operating, and nor did it announce that the strategy was being abandoned or why.

They didn't even bother to implement their own strategy, and it shows, because between 2017 and 2022 the proportion of First Nations children in out-of-home care actually increased from 38.4 per cent in June of 2017 to 43.8 per cent in June of 22. I say again: if 'sorry' means anything, it means you don't do it again. You don't, as the New South Wales child protection system has done in the most recent five years, make the problem worse and take more First Nations kids proportionally than ever before.

As a state MP in the New South Wales parliament I introduced a Greens bill to prevent First Nations child removals or to at least radically reduce them. That was based on implementing the findings of the groundbreaking Family is culture report that looked at well over 1,000 First Nations child removal cases and came up with hundreds of recommendations. I only did so after a direct request from First Nations communities and organisations across the state who saw that there was no action happening from the state. We then worked together on the bill. Tragically, the Liberal-National government and Labor both refused to support the bill, which would have kept more families together and prevented at least a significant part of that trauma and tragedy of separation. The government could save lives today by implementing those reforms, by listening to communities and acting on them.

I want to turn now to another key failure across the country, which is the ongoing practice of locking up children. First Nations children as young as 10 years old, some still with their baby teeth, are still being locked up in brutal institutions where we know they are being tortured in territories and states across the country. When will we raise the age? When will we come together as a nation and commit to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody? When will we finally start listening to, empowering and resourcing genuine self-determination for First Nations communities? That's how we close the gap.

r McKENZIE (—) (): As the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I rise to add my contribution to this important issue of closing the gap and acknowledge the Prime Minister's statement on the anniversary of the National Apology. Australia has had a rich and complex history, a history marked with adversity and struggle for many Australians, including our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We are one of the most culturally diverse nations on earth, and I am pleased to see so many people recognising and embracing the connection to the land we live on and the culture of our First Nations people.

The anniversary of the National Apology gives us the opportunity to reflect on past injustices, to grieve with those we have left behind and to take account of where we are today. It has been 56 years since the 1967 referendum, 47 years since the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, 31 years since the Mabo decision and 15 years since the National Apology. These pages are marked in history as significant progress in closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I would also like to acknowledge that these achievements are made without a bureaucratic voice but through a growing number of Aboriginal voices in this place and increasing embedded engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our democratic institutions right across our country.

The Nationals welcome the release of the government's 2023 Closing the Gap Implementation Plan and we welcome the Prime Minister's promise of more than $68 million over two years for support to women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence, and more than $21 million over five years to support families impacted by violence. We note with great interest the $150 million over four years for the National Water Grid Fund to support First Nations water infrastructure and provide safe and reliable water for remote and regional Indigenous communities. The government's record on water policy and infrastructure leaves many in doubt about the effectiveness of this government's commitment.

We welcome the Commonwealth's contribution to a one-year partnership with the Northern Territory government to accelerate the building of new remote housing, but the Nationals know that a one-year commitment for important infrastructure like housing does not go far enough, nor does it recognise the life cycle of housing construction and asset maintenance. Anyone who lives in regional and remote communities across Australia understands that it is housing maintenance that is the most challenging issue in rural and remote Aboriginal communities.

We welcome the commitment to boost on-country education for remote First Nations students and support for boarding for rural and remote students. I again call on the government to support the Yipirinya School in Alice Springs and the funding commitment we made in the election to build a boarding facility for kids coming from town camps to access education in language at Alice Springs. As minister, I was able to broker the historic Barkly Regional Deal between the Barkly Regional Council, the then Gunner Territory government and the federal government, in the wake of the rape of a two-year-old in Tennant Creek. Sadly, whilst many of the infrastructure projects have been completed, the one measure of that regional deal, which was to map the provision of services into that community between all levels of government, find the gaps and then service the gaps so that we do this better, in partnership, is the one thing that hasn't been done. It was one of the cheapest things in that whole deal, so I really commend to the current federal government, the Northern Territory government and the Barkly Regional Council to complete that work for the benefit of the whole Barkly region.

The Nationals represent more Indigenous citizens than any other political party in this place. We understand the very real issues facing them and have a particular understanding of remoteness. We will continue to be a strong voice for Indigenous people, and we welcome the recognition of the apology today in the Senate.

I rise today to speak to the Closing the Gap ministerial statement and the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. I've been in this chamber long enough to know the history of how having this debate became a practice. When I first arrived in the chamber, it shocked me that the Closing the gap report was delivered in the House—senators didn't attend, and business just went on here. The whole point of giving an apology to the First Nations people was to think about how we speak about our history, how we respond to the reality of our time and how we make time to go on the journey of the heart, the mind, the soul and the finances to make sure that this is a just nation for all Australians, particularly First Nations people. Every time we do this, now that we all get to contribute to this debate, it is a mindful moment for us all here, as senators and as members in the other place, to think about the way in which we want our country to go forward. It's a vital time. It's a solemn time. In these moments, we reflect on the best and the worst of our history and the long pathway back to reconciliation with our First Nations Australians.

We still have so much work to do. It's clear we haven't closed the gap. Thank God we started paying attention to it at some point. The number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people dying by suicide is not on track; in fact, it's worsening. Improving birth weights, increasing year 12 and tertiary education completions, addressing rates of adult incarceration, children in out-of-home care and youth unemployment—these vital and fundamental things that are embedded in the life of our First Nations people are all off track. It gives us a sense of the scale of the task. But today we redouble our efforts. We do not turn away, we do not look away, despite our shame, despite our fear, despite our sadness and the grief that this is a reality of our nation in 2023.

I visited Wilcannia in 2022. I met with First Nations community representatives on the banks of the mighty Barcoo River to hear directly from them what their community needed. I heard terrible stories of youth suicides, of poverty, of deprivation. But I also was mindful of the blistering smiles of one young girl whose joy overflowed like the river. Sadly for that young woman growing up in Wilcannia, the average life expectancy for men in her town is 38, and for women it's a little bit better at 41 years. This is our Australia in 2023. We can do better. I heard that the spirits of the town ebbed and flowed along with the water level of the Barcoo River and that the drought and COVID had both ravaged the town. But hope remained, and there was pride in their achingly beautiful country. They needed change in the way that we walk alongside our First Nations brothers and sisters.

We desperately need reconciliation to ensure that our people, the Indigenous people of Australia, have the same opportunities and same go at life as non-Indigenous Australians. It's not just about money. I know the costs of the many programs that have been named are significant. These programs are important and valuable; they are investments. Labor has invested $1.6 billion in additional support for First Nations communities since coming to office. The $1.6 billion package is designed to drastically increase funding for clean water in remote communities, for food security, for housing and education, for health care for First Nations communities across the nation. It also includes two dialysis buses for the far west of New South Wales, the communities of Menindee, White Cliffs and Wilcannia who begged me to hear their pleas because they couldn't face the round trip to Broken Hill. They were travelling hundreds of kilometres each week to get the life-saving treatment they needed. We need a circuit breaker. We need a voice to parliament. It is not radical reform; it is just another important step in the right direction.

It was a great honour to be in this place 15 years ago as Kevin Rudd offered a formal apology to Australia's First Nations stolen generations on behalf our nation. The apology acknowledged that the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments had resulted in the forcible removal of First Nations children from their families and, as said at the time, inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on our fellow Australians. But the removal of First Nations children from their families was also part of an attempt in other moves through the history of our nation to wipe out the culture, economy, language and spirituality of Australia's First Nations people. But, as we know, First Nations Australians are resilient, and today we find ourselves in a place where, through Uluru Statement from the Heart, we have a generous invitation from First Nations people to make First Nations people part of our national Constitution so that we can show ourselves as a nation that didn't start at federation when the colonies came together but can look back 60,000 years to their laws, customs and culture, and create a national statement that invites all Australians to belong to that profound history.

I would love to say that in the 15 years since the apology we are further towards closing the gap, but as we know, the data shows we're not on track. Given our history, I don't find that to be at all surprising. We haven't as a nation fully and properly reset our institutional arrangements so that First Nations people have a voice and the capacity to negotiate with government and parliament on behalf of their own communities.

We know not only that governments at the state and national levels need to redouble their efforts to improve outcomes but that we need to do more. Our gap is not closing fast enough, and we will not let this stagnation stand. Our implementation plan for closing the gap invests $400 million in additional funding, but we also need to make sure that First Nations people are with us at the heart of that decision-making every step of the way. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already leading the way, transforming health and community services and policies and programs, and rebuilding them with the foundations of culture, community and connection to country. Community led solutions respond much more effectively to current and future needs. They do this in holistic and robust ways using cultural knowledge and practices to restore and build up the wellbeing of their communities.

It is high time that our nation acknowledged that it is Aboriginal people, our First Nations people, who are best placed to lead and create their own solutions. It is why constitutional recognition is so important at the vote this year. It is why acknowledgement and empowerment through our constitution is so important. It is high time for constitutional recognition. It is high time for voice, treaty and truth.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

I move:

That further consideration of the documents be listed as a general business order of the day.

Question agreed to.

In continuing my remarks, I acknowledge the origin of this bill, that being the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into the impact of transvaginal mesh on women in Australia. I offer once again my heartfelt acknowledgement and commitment to the community that gave evidence before that inquiry. It takes an incredible amount of strength and emotional energy to come before a Senate committee and share your experiences of such horrific medical harm from these devices. Yet people did that, families did that, mothers did that in the hope that it would result in legislative change that would ensure that no such travesty was ever again inflicted upon members of the Australian community, that nobody ever again went in for a medical device to deal with something as simple as incontinence and came out with something inside them that caused them a lifetime of pain. I want to thank all those who gave evidence to that inquiry and commit myself and the Greens movement to working with you until every single one of those recommendations is fully implemented.

In contributing to this legislation, I also want to foreshadow that there will be a couple of other second reading amendments that we will be moving. One will be moved by my colleague and dear friend Janet Rice, and that amendment will be in relation to blood donation. This motion will be moved by Janet on behalf of the Australian Greens as a second reading amendment to this TGA legislation. If it's successful, our amendment will see the TGA bring equality to blood donation laws. It will remove barriers to gay and bisexual men, transwomen and some non-binary people who have sex with men from donating blood. Specifically, the Greens are calling on the TGA to replace the current approach of population-based risk assessment and the three-month deferral period with an approach that is based on an individualised risk assessment. This is not a radical idea. This is something that has been done in the UK, and the evidence fully supports it.

This amendment is in solidarity with the Let Us Give campaign. It responds to the need for more plasma and more whole-of-blood across the entire country. I want to acknowledge, and I want to thank, the campaigners who are part of that campaign who are doing incredible work in this space to make sure that we get rid of the discriminatory practices that currently exist in this space and replace them with an individualised system based on equality.

We must stop discriminating against those who give blood. We must look at the evidence and go with the science. The reality is that there is no increased risk to allowing this group to donate blood following an individual risk assessment. It is time to ensure that all Australians are able to donate equally. It is also time to recognise the decades we have taken to make this change. The barriers, ultimately, weren't the science. The science was the excuse for the discrimination. This is something the community has always known. They've always known the reality of this. But we come to this space in 2023 with a government still dragging its heel, and that is proof positive that this is the case. We've got to end that discrimination and allow people to donate equally.

The second amendment, which will be moved by myself on behalf of the Australian Greens, relates to medicinal cannabis. We will be seeking to move the second reading amendment in recognition that, while medicinal cannabis is legal in this country, too many people cannot afford to access it. Particularly, this amendment relates to the TGA's role in ensuring that patients who require medicinal cannabis for therapeutic use are able to access it.

This amendment asks the Senate to recognise the findings of the Community Affairs Committee inquiry into the barriers to patient access for medicinal cannabis in Australia. This report was released in 2020, with many recommendations yet to be implemented. I'll quote directly from the report from former Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale, who worked on the inquiry:

During that inquiry the parliament heard from patients across the country who are unable to access the medicinal cannabis treatments they need due to regulatory barriers and enormous cost. Cost is a hugely prohibitive factor for patients needing access to medicinal cannabis; they just can't afford it. Although the government has said, 'Look, we accept that it has therapeutic benefits and we will allow it to be placed on the register,' the cost is still so high that the people who need it just can't get it. It is completely unacceptable that people can be out of pocket thousands of dollars when trying to access legal medicinal cannabis products through a regulated system when the black market is far cheaper.

Three years on from this report, nothing has changed. People still cannot access medicinal cannabis and they are still unfairly punished when they try to do so.

We have the experts, the majority of the public and the clear findings of the Senate committee itself saying, 'We need to take action.' The system at the moment is broken, and it is the patients who are paying the price. This is what this amendment seeks to address. The Greens encourage the Senate to work in line with the community need, the clear evidence provided to this place, and to support this amendment. In relation to the medicinal cannabis amendment, I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) in 2020 the Community Affairs References Committee, as part of its inquiry into current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, examined the difficulties for patients in accessing medicinal cannabis through current pathways and regulatory schemes, as well as the substantial barrier of cost to patients; and

(ii) the committee made various recommendations to the Government aimed at improving access to medicinal cannabis, but not all of these recommendations have been accepted or implemented; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) ensure that affordable medicinal cannabis products are available to all patients who require them for therapeutic use; and

(ii) consider and implement the outstanding recommendations from the Community Affairs References Committee inquiry".

It's terrific to be able to speak to this bill today. I want to start by saying that I support the comments made by my colleague and dear friend Senator Jordon Steele-John in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 overall. I thank him for his important advocacy in the health portfolio and the work that has been done on the issues in this bill.

I want to particularly speak to the issue raised in my second reading amendment, an issue I have worked on in this place for a long time. This is about the restrictions on gay and bisexual men, trans women and some non-binary people who have sex with men being able to give blood.

My amendment says the Senate calls on the government and the Therapeutic Goods Administration to urgently remove barriers to gay and bisexual men, trans women and some non-binary people who have sex with men from giving blood, including by replacing the current approach of a population based risk assessment and a three-month deferral period with an approach based on individual risk assessment.

This is an issue that I have been advocating for many years. I have raised this issue repeatedly in Senate estimates and I have had discussions about it with the Department of Health, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Lifeblood. It's an issue that doesn't seem to have made any progress in the time that I've been advocating on it as a senator. It seems that there's this merry-go-round. The health department is saying it's the responsibility of the TGA, the TGA is saying it's the responsibility of Lifeblood and Lifeblood is saying it's the responsibility of the TGA. When I asked questions at last estimates, there was another agency, blood—I can't even remember its name, 'Blood Donations Australia' or something. The TGA said, 'I think you need to talk to them about this.' We need to stop this merry-go-round because what's going on is discrimination against men who have sex with men.

It's an issue the LGBTIQA+ advocacy community have been concerned about for a very long time. It's an issue that's been addressed in other jurisdictions that have shifted from having that population based risk approach to an individual risk assessment. For the life of me, I do not know why it has taken so long for Australia to also be making this change. Other than that, you have to cynically and sadly feel that there is just an ongoing level of discrimination against same-sex attracted people that exists in some of the bureaucracy here within the Australian government. I'm no longer the Greens spokesperson for LGBTIQA+ advocacy. My colleague Mr Stephen Bates, in the other place, is continuing that excellent work but I'm very pleased to be here in the Senate raising this issue.

I want to let you know of some of the campaigning that's been going on in the community on this issue. Just.Equal have coordinated a campaign from doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, calling for an approach that isn't discriminatory. As an open letter by medical professionals says:

We are Australian health professionals who want the blood supply to be safe, more abundant and less discriminatory.

We support a policy that screens potential blood donors for their individual risk, not the gender of their sexual partner.

We believe the current ban on blood donation by sexually-active gay and bisexual men, and transgender people, reduces the amount of blood available without making the blood supply safer.

A better policy would be to focus on activity that actually creates risk and to screen potential donors for that risk, regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I could not agree more. This is the approach that we really need to see being taken, and that change must happen urgently.

Since we foreshadowed this second reading amendment, we have had some feedback from the health department and some fairly good news. We are now being told that Lifeblood has announced that they will undertake research to decide whether to replace the current population based risk model with an individual risk assessment approach for blood donation and that the TGA is working closely with Lifeblood to facilitate this research and review over the coming months, subject to review by independent advisory committees.

Just from putting this second reading amendment on the notice paper, it seems that we are finally seeing some action. I urge that that research happens very urgently, that we draw upon the extensive research of other jurisdictions around the world and that we stop the discriminatory processes that are currently being undertaken.

We have come a long way with ending discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people. The wonderful experience of Sydney WorldPride and Mardi Gras, which I attended the weekend before last, was an extraordinary celebration of the contribution that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender diverse, intersex and asexual people make to our community. We really need to continue taking every action we can to reduce discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people and to change how we screen blood. Going to an individual risk assessment approach is one very tangible, very important measure that we in this parliament can take to achieve equality for LGBTQIA+ people.

I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. One Nation will not support this legislation. This bill is so flawed. It needs to be reviewed by a committee, but Labor, of course, is following its new procedure and ramming through legislation without giving this Senate the opportunity to review and improve it. Mark Butler should hang his head in shame.

The most concerning provisions in this legislation are a direct attack on a foundational principle of Australian law and a fundamental human right: the presumption of innocence. It's sad to have to say this, but this government needs to be reminded that in Australia it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence. I also remind this government that it is simply not allowed to interfere with this human right in any way, most definitely not for the sake of Public Service bureaucrats.

I have to remind this government of this because it's not only this bill which threatens this principle but others on the Notice Paper for this week as well. Labor does not have a mandate to interfere with human rights. It does not have the permission of the Australian people. The committee report on the TGA bill makes it quite clear that the proposed section 45AC, creating an offence for failing to produce information and documents for the secretary, also creates new, strict liability offences that can attract a penalty of up to $27,000. Subsection 45AC(3) provides for a reasonable excuse, but places a burden on the defendant to prove they are innocent. This is, effectively, a presumption that the defendant is guilty of the offence.

Labor has no excuse for this. As a government elected by the people of Australia, one of the most important duties is to protect their rights, not attack them. However, the bill goes further. Proposed new subsection 61(13) explicitly states that the secretary does not need to observe procedural fairness or the natural justice hearing rule with regard to releasing information collected under the act. That's right: Labor doesn't support procedural fairness. Perhaps an even more concerning part of this bill relates to the importation of medicines. The proposed subsection 19A(2B) gives the secretary the power to grant approval to importation or supply of therapeutic goods, including mRNA vaccines, but it does not specify safety testing of these goods and doesn't provide for a sunset clause on the approval. I note there are a range of other conditions for approval, including the catch-all in the interest of public health.

As we saw to our horror during the COVID-19 pandemic, many fundamental human rights in Australia came under direct attack in the so-called interest of public health: freedom to travel, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom to choose and even freedom of speech. It wasn't just Labor governments doing this; coalition governments were equally guilty of trampling all over our rights. They were in it together. Some of us might be forgiven for thinking that, with the pandemic effectively over, that might be the end of the violation of our rights in the name of public health. However, it might have only been the beginning.

In May this year a meeting of the World Health Assembly will consider proposals for a World Health Organization pandemic treaty and changing the international health regulations. These proposals threaten not only our human rights but the sovereignty of Australia. They threaten to transform the hopelessly corrupt World Health Organization from an advisory body to a governing body able to make legally binding proclamations on the world's nations. They threaten to remove the requirement that these corrupt international bodies have respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons. They threaten to give the WHO control over national means of production, enabling it to force countries to manufacture medicines or vaccines. They threaten to give the WHO the power to force medical examinations and treatments on individuals and force people to carry certifications about tests and vaccinations. They threaten to give the WHO the power to disclose personal health information and to censor whatever it considers to be misinformation.

What's the bet that this Labor government will roll over and just allow this all to happen? No bet here; of course they will. They don't believe the rights of the individual take precedence over the interests of the state, but let me tell you: nothing is more dangerous to a free society. This government and every government which comes after should be required to take an oath that they will not subordinate the rights of human beings to the interests of the state, let alone unelected international bodies wanting a one-world communist government.

Obviously I rise here today to speak in regard to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. I support various aspects of this bill, including the introduction of a mandatory medical device adverse event reporting scheme for hospitals and other healthcare facilities. I acknowledge that the TGA has an important role to play in managing medicine shortages. They have an important responsibility to find suitable substitutes to ensure that Australians have access in a timely manner to the medications that we all require. The bill in part seeks to address critical shortages on life-saving medications—for example, I know that warfarin tablets are currently listed as being in critical short supply. This is, of course, a potentially life-saving drug for persons with cardiovascular conditions.

I'd also like to acknowledge Minister Butler's office for responding to several questions that I had in relation to portions of this bill. However, I must raise some concerns relating to what appear to be extraordinary powers to be granted to the secretary in this bill without, I believe, sufficient ministerial oversight.

The amendments in this schedule are intended to address the gap in the range of measures available under the act to alleviate the effects of shortages—which is fair enough—by amending section 19A of the act to introduce a mechanism to enable the secretary to approve the importation or supply of an unapproved medicine that is principally similar to a medicine that has been cancelled or suspended from the register. Let's just say, as an example—let's just throw one out there—that the secretary wants to substitute a certain medication with, I don't know, a novel technology. What would be the chances, for example, of indemnity being granted to said sponsor? Will there be any guarantees that to substitute is both safe and effective? What if there was to be a safety signal? What happens then? Would the data and rationale behind the decision be disclosed for the public to review? I think we all know where this could potentially go.

We know that there exists a presumption of commercial-in-confidence of information provided by pharmaceutical companies. We know that already. There must exist an obligation for transparency of data and agreements, because, as we all know, transparency builds trust. In our correspondence with the minister's office and the TGA around section 19A, the TGA advised that before a section 19A approval is given the secretary must be satisfied that an approval is necessary and in the interests of public health and that the registered medicines could act as a substitute if the overseas registered goods are unavailable or in short supply. Now, 'in the interests of public health'—we've all heard that before. I wonder what could happen there?

I can think of quite a few recent examples where measures were put in place in the interests of public health but arguably resulted in quite a bit of harm being done. Let's go through them: mask mandates, school closures, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, border closures, curfews and interference with the doctor-patient relationship. There are quite a few. Many failed dictates have been put in place in the interests of public health.

I know this bill is not specifically linked to pandemic measures. I know that. But the overreaches are symptomatic of absolute power leading to poor decision-making and significant unintended consequences. I aim not to stand in the way of large portions of this bill which are necessary. But section 19A is one that needs more attention. I've touched on just a small portion of this bill, and there are many reasons that we should, in the public interest, debate the bill at length. I'll be proposing amendments to this bill. One is proposing referral to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and another is requesting ministerial responsibility for the decisions made by the secretary as a legislative instrument.

It is unacceptable that we should award great power to a bureaucrat who has no direct accountability to the Australian people. The Australian people can't vote a secretary out at a general election. What I seek is greater transparency, accountability and disclosure of information so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Power must be decentralised, decision-making must be transparent and, above all else, the Australian people should be well informed. That is why this bill needs proper scrutiny. For that reason I foreshadow that I'll be moving a second reading amendment at the end of this debate.

As a servant to the many different people who make up the amazing Queensland community, I speak to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. It's significant that in my speech's opening I refer to myself as a servant of Queensland and Australian people. Whoever wrote this bill is not a servant to the people but in fact sees the people as their servants—no, slaves; serfs. The bill destroys fundamental human rights, smashes fundamental principles of law, removes the tried and true system for authorising new drugs and places the Australian public at the mercy and under the control of unelected bureaucrats. These same bureaucrats proved themselves unfit to exercise their current power during COVID.

First let me explain the provisions of the bill. The first one is 'introducing a framework for the mandatory reporting of adverse events involving medical devices, principally by hospitals'. This has its origin in the pelvic mesh scandal.

Debate interrupted.

I rise to share the success of the National Week of Action for the Voice. This historic week was held from 18 to 24 February. Across the country Australians from all walks of life came together in town halls, parks and workplaces to show their support for the Voice. Australians took time out from their busy schedules and their busy lives to learn about the Voice, to ask questions and to discuss their roles in the upcoming referendum. This is because the communities are ready for change. The Week of Action gave me a great amount of faith in the Australian people and their generosity and good will. There is much room in their hearts for this proposal.

Ultimately, the Australian people themselves will determine this referendum, not politicians. Leaders of the Uluru statement knew this. They did not equivocate in their message to the Australian people. The Voice referendum is an invitation, an opportunity for the Australian people to walk with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is a great country, and, after the week of action, I believe that the majority of Australians will accept this generous offer.

But change must start at home, within our own backyards. For me, the backyard happens to be the big state of Western Australia. The vastness and diversity of the state is not lost on me. As a Western Australian senator and special envoy, I'm committed to engaging with people from all corners of this country—urban, regional, and remote. I believe we need to reach out to all parts of our country in this referendum, and so I spent the Week of Action travelling down the remote west coast of Western Australia, talking to communities about the Voice and answering questions. I started at my traditional country home of Broome, alongside the Kimberley Land Council CEO and engagement group member, Mr Tyronne Garstone. We spoke to a packed hall at the Notre Dame campus at Broome.

The next day the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Deputy Prime Minister and I held a series of meetings in Port Hedland because the cabinet was meeting there. In a meeting organised by my colleague Senator Lines we heard from the Kariyarra people, the traditional owners and elders, on why the Voice is important to them. In their words they say it's the next step in a long history of advocacy by the Aboriginal people of the Pilbara. I made a promise to return later in the year to speak at the historic Yule River meeting on the Voice.

I then went on to Carnarvon, a small town 900 kays from Perth. Here I met the shire president, and I held a community forum for the Voice at the cultural centre. Carnarvon has been the subject of much speculation in the media, particularly on issues of youth and alcohol. Senior members of that community shared their views about the Voice, that it will be an important element in addressing many of these concerns because, in the words of a Yingkarta local elder, 'The Voice will empower community voices.' Too often regional and remote communities are spoken of and down to, but on each of my regional visits there was a strong support for the Voice because regional and remote communities know what it is like to be ignored by governments. The Voice makes sense to them.

I do want to acknowledge that at times, in these meetings, some elderly non-Aboriginal people disagreed with the Voice proposal and its proposition. I want to say to such senior persons that they are entitled to their view, and that they are appreciated and respected for the contributions they have made to the country. And I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the many non-Aboriginal people who have helped to improve the living conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. You are appreciated and respected. We thank you for your contributions over the years. Change is coming. Don't feel threatened by the change. The change will bring us together and not force us apart. We certainly need your support in the forthcoming referendum.

My final days of the Week of Action were spent in Perth. I held meetings with the Noongar Wudja traditional owners where we discussed the importance of the Voice and Western Australian support. This was followed by a meeting with local health organisations and service providers including the Wungening Aboriginal Corporation. Wungening has been operating in Perth since 1988, providing health and family services to those most in need. One staff member, who's been with the organisation for nearly 30 years, shared that she believed the Voice will improve practical outcomes by giving Aboriginal people more of a say. These are the real voices of the Voice and the real stories about the Voice.

Fair-minded Australians know that the Voice is a positive step for the nation and for the First Nations peoples as well. The Voice deserves to exist above the fear-mongering and political games. That is why I concluded the Week of Action with a cross-party panel which included me; Senator Cox; the member for Curtin, Ms Kate Chaney; along with the esteemed academic, Dr Hannah McGlade; and Marcus Stewart, the co-chair of the First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria. We came together to talk with, and to listen to, hundreds of people and members of the Perth community on the Voice and its importance to the nations. The Voice must exist above party politics, and I will always extend the hand of bipartisanship wherever I can. The Week of Action is just the start. Momentum is building for the Voice. The official 'yes' campaign recently launched in Adelaide, and I look forward to advocating alongside them as special envoy.

But if this week demonstrated anything, it is that the Voice is a movement of the people. It is the Australian people who will secure the success of this referendum. It will be won around the dinner tables and the sporting grounds and the local RSLs. Do not underestimate the power of a single conversation. As I said to the people in Perth during the Week of Action, what a moment of liberation this will be for all of us—a moment of a successful referendum. Once that's declared, the shackles of the past will fall from us. We will stand with clean hearts and clean consciences and we will know our country is on the path to a better future. We, the Australian people, will make that decision on that day when we cast our referendum vote. Our vote for the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, for them to be part of the Australian Constitution and for them to be able to make representations to the parliament and the executive on matters that affect them, finally having their say in the places where it amounts to very important matters. This will be transformative for our nation and an enhancement to the quality of our own citizenship. It'll bring us together, rather than divide us.

I am delighted to rise in this debate as the new shadow minister for education. In taking over from Alan Tudge, I have very big shoes to fill. I would like to start by acknowledging Alan's exceptional work as the former Minister for Education and Youth. He is certainly a great loss to our team. Alan drove many important initiatives now being supported by the Albanese government, including the coalition's $2.2 billion research commercialisation agenda for the Australian university sector, including the magnificent $1.6 billion Economic Accelerator program.

I am delighted that this passed the parliament yesterday—a key initiative, as I say, of the former coalition government. This is a program which will drive the translation and commercialisation of research to ensure that Australian universities can take more of their innovations and inventions to market. The initiative followed a review which found that, while Australian universities undertook world-leading research and published more than 100,000 academic papers, too often this did not result in tangible income.

The coalition is determined to support a new wave of commercial innovation in the same way that Australian research developed the electronic pacemaker, penicillin, the black box flight recorder, wi-fi, cochlear implants and, in more recent times, from Deakin University the lightweight carbon fibre wheel, which started as a competition between Deakin University students and has now resulted in the magnificent advanced manufacturer Carbon Revolution. This is a program which will help bridge the valley of death when early-stage research is often not progressed because of the risk and uncertainty of commercial returns. I particularly want to reference the Business Council of Australia's comments about our commercialisation package. It said it will:

… significantly improve Australia's ability to commercialise our best ideas and innovations, scaling them up to create exciting new industries, new exports and new highly skilled jobs for Australians.

As I said, this is a very important part of the coalition's legacy in education, which also includes record funding for early education and schools and a laserlike focus on the importance of lifting school standards, including through strengthened teacher training and a stronger curriculum.

As I mentioned at the Universities Australia annual conference, we do welcome the various reviews being undertaken by the Albanese government into early child care, into schools and into universities through the Universities Accord. But we are concerned there is a danger of being caught in a review vortex. We simply cannot slow the pace of reform which is required to provide greater access to early childhood education and care, to reverse declining standards in our schools and teacher workforce pressures, and to ensure that we deliver the right skilled graduates to fuel our future workforce through our university and higher education sector.

Over the past two decades, despite a 60 per cent increase in real per-student funding, our school performance has gone backwards in absolute terms and comparatively to other nations. This is a cause of great concern for all Australians. Since 2000 Australia's performance in the PISA test for 15-year-olds in reading has declined by 26 points, or the equivalent of nine months of schooling. In maths we have fallen 33 points and in science 24 points. To lift student performance we must absolutely focus on ensuring we have a strong curriculum, that we are teaching phonics in every classroom and that we are using explicit teaching models to support engaged classrooms.

I have to say I was delighted to meet with a group of primary school principals yesterday from the government, Catholic and independent schools sectors who share a common goal: to lift standards and to ensure that our students reach the very best of their potential. A crowded curriculum bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape which provides too little discretion for school principals and individual schools remains a very big issue in Australian primary schools, and it's certainly going to be a focus of my work as the shadow minister for education.

The former coalition government proposed a three-pillar plan for our recovery, addressing what students are taught, how they are taught and the environment in which they are taught. In relation to the National School Reform Agreement, it is imperative that that funding is linked to targeted outcomes, particularly student performance and attendance. But I have to say it should not take another review and another 12 months, which would delay the additional schools funding that Labor committed to deliver. I am very concerned that this delay in effect constitutes another broken promise by the Albanese government because even the Australian Education Union has accused Labor of betraying public schools by not delivering this funding in a timely manner.

I also want to reiterate the importance of returning to a one-year diploma of education, another issue I raised in my Universities Australia address. I am pleased that education ministers, at their meeting on 27 February, about four days after I raised this, resolved to consider how a two-year postgraduate teaching degree could be reduced to 12 months. With falling graduate numbers and teachers continuing to leave the profession in droves, it is critical that we explore all avenues to get more teachers into our schools. A one-year postgraduate teaching qualification will encourage more Australians, both graduates and professionals working in other careers, to switch to teaching.

Breaking down barriers to a career in teaching—let's face it, it is a wonderful career—whilst safeguarding the quality and standards of teacher training is vital. It's backed up by the research, which shows there is no significant change in qualifications and in outcomes for teachers who do a one-year postgraduate qualification compared with a two-year master's degree. I want to congratulate Premier Perrottet, who has taken such a strong lead by announcing that New South Wales will recognise a one-year postgraduate teaching qualification. New South Wales and the Liberals in New South Wales are absolutely leading the way. I ask why Labor's education minister, Mr Clare, is dragging the chain.

I also want to call on the Albanese government to take action on two other important issues in the time I have remaining. I have raised concerns about the Confucius Institutes in a range of Australian universities. I acknowledge the higher education sector plays a vital role in combating foreign interference and influence and safeguarding our values in the face of increasing threats from others who want to do us harm. While the government has said it will not approve any new agreements for a Confucius Institute at an Australian university, I am concerned that the foreign minister has not used her powers under the foreign relations act introduced by the coalition government to cancel any of the existing agreements. This deeply conflicting position is very difficult to reconcile, and it needs to be urgently addressed.

I also want to call on the Albanese government to ensure that all of the important work of the coalition on safeguarding academic freedom and freedom of speech on Australian university campuses is not undermined. I note that 41 Australian universities have agreed to the model code developed by the Hon. Robert French AC, a key recommendation of the coalition's review of freedom of speech in Australian higher education providers. It is of concern that a number of universities, including the University of Melbourne, have adopted a position on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament which could potentially undermine academic freedom. It's absolutely fundamental that academic freedom is preserved at all costs. It protects the rights of academics to engage in free, robust speech. As we know, it is incumbent upon all educational institutions to teach Australians how to think, not what to think, and academics who don't believe in free speech have no place at Australian universities.

Right now, as I speak today, there is a crisis unfolding in my home state of Western Australia and right around the country. Tonight, approximately 9,000 Western Australians will experience a form of homelessness. Nearly 13 per cent of them are under the age of 12. It is a hard figure to hear, but it is not hard to figure out how we got here. This place, this parliament, whether it be controlled by the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, has participated in and actively promoted the commodification and the capitalisation of what should be, of what is, a fundamental human right. Make no mistake about it: no matter how much the corporations and the developers might tell you differently, housing is a human right. Government after government has enacted policy after policy, driving up prices and driving down availability, and refused point blank to invest in what is so desperately needed: building new social housing to meet the demand that governments themselves have created. We're not talking about policy failure here; we're talking about policies working as they were designed—driving up costs, driving down affordability, driving people into a public housing system with massive waiting lists. The result of these policies is a broken housing system in Australia.

In Western Australia there are currently 18,000 people on the social housing waiting list, with an average waiting time of over two years, and that's if—and only if—they are able to find a home at all. In a state that has grown by nearly 200,000 people in the last four years, there are 400 fewer housing properties in the public housing system than there were in 2018. I'll say that again: 200,000 more people in four years and yet we currently have 400 fewer homes than we did in 2018. At the current rate of investment and construction, it would take nearly 1,300 years to accommodate everyone on the social housing waiting list. To put that into perspective, that would take us to the year 3323. It is the definition of a grossly inadequate system. Not only is the government committed to doing nothing for the tens of thousands of people from Western Australia who need a safe and stable place to live; it is in fact intent on making the problem worse by implementing policies that see housing prices skyrocketing and rental properties becoming impossible to find or, indeed, afford.

In Perth the rental availability rate fell to 0.6 per cent. This is the lowest level it has been at since 1980. In rural Western Australia and regional Western Australia, the situation is even worse. Albany has a vacancy rate of 0.3 per cent. Kalgoorlie has a vacancy rate of 0.5 per cent. This has made it unreasonably difficult for renters, especially first-time renters, to find a place. A video last month showed a queue of over 100 people at a housing inspection session in Bentley. Even if you are lucky enough to find a place you can afford, you'll still be exposed to rental bidding and price gouging, which is absolutely endemic in the system. In the town of Katanning, for example, we've seen rental prices increase by nearly 50 per cent in the last 12 months.

These are all very worrying statistics, and behind them sit very real human experiences. There are stories like Chloe's, a woman in her 30s who, after being told that her lease would not be renewed, tried everything to find a new rental but could not do so in time. Chloe has been living in her van since October with her daughter, her two dogs and her two cats. Chloe has been on the social housing waiting list for two years. There are stories like Jack's, who, while overseas, was given six days notice that their landlord would try and raise rent in order to 'complete long-overdue rental improvements on the property'. They were forced to move all their belongings into the basement of their workplace and stay with friends because they simply could not find another place to rent in this broken system.

This fear of eviction, and of the housing crisis more broadly, is deep within people. The fear is that they will be thrown, as tenants, into a situation which places them in a toxic power imbalance, an imbalance that has led some landlords to embody the very worst parts of humanity in how they make an effort to save a few dollars, landlords who refuse to carry out basic maintenance or work because they know that a renter is more likely to be willing to suffer through bad conditions than risk being evicted.

In February, for instance, in Perth we had two heatwaves, with temperatures reaching into the high 30s and going only as low as the low 20s at night, yet there is no minimum standard that requires a landlord to keep heating and cooling under control in their property or to provide any type of climate control. There is no requirement in Western Australia during the summer for air-conditioning. There is no requirement in the winter for heating, no requirement for climate-resistant housing at all in the middle of the climate crisis and no requirement for anything as simple as insulation.

These conditions are not only the cause of discomfort and inconvenience, they pose a serious health risk and safety risk to people. People have shared with me their experience of getting heatstroke, simply from making dinner in their house while it is unsafely hot. So many renters are afraid to even make a request for such a basic thing because they are afraid it will lead them to being evicted on a no-grounds eviction, which is, by the way, still legal in the state of Western Australia. Renters are putting their health at risk because they are afraid that their landlord would rather make an extra 30 bucks a week than do the bare minimum to make their property safe.

It is these types of outrageous situations, created by this broken system, which is why the Greens are fighting to actually get outcomes for renters and for people needing social housing. It is for people like Chloe and Jack that we are working to make sure that Labor's plan in this space actually delivers what people need—a $5 billion investment in social housing, a national plan for a rent freeze, an increase in Commonwealth rental assistance and a billion dollars worth of investment in remote Aboriginal housing. These are the policies which this place must enact to create a reality of a home for everyone.

I have spoken on a number of occasions about issues concerning Australian charities because I am a strong advocate for charities. Charities and not-for-profits deliver enormous social benefit for local, national and global communities. Without charities, a lot of the work done addressing poverty and social inequality, looking after animal welfare, caring for the natural environment and a range of other important causes simply would not happen.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, or ACNC, has around 60,000 charities on its register. Some of these are separately registered sub-branches of larger organisations such as the RSL or Surf Life Saving. However, many are small organisations in their own right. One-third of charities are classed as very small, with an annual revenue of less than $50,000. It's great to have that diversity in the size of our charities. There is a place for both small charities, which are closer to their local communities, and large charities, which have the scale needed to tackle some of the big global issues.

A great example of what can be achieved with the scale of these larger charities is that of Rotary International, which has been instrumental in the global effort to almost completely eradicate polio. Australian charities employ around 1.4 million workers, or over 10 per cent of our country's workforce. In 2020, they contributed $176 billion to Australia's gross domestic product, not to mention a great deal of additional social benefits that would not be reflected in the GDP figures.

Senator Smith and I recently established the Parliamentary Friends of the Charitable, Not-for-Profit and Philanthropic Community to promote discussion of some of the emerging challenges charities are facing. We're going through a time where charities are being squeezed from both ends, facing pressures on both demand and supply. The demand for their services is rising in the wake of more frequent and intense natural disasters, the result of human-induced climate change and increases in cost-of-living pressures for Australian households. At the same time, rates of volunteering are declining, fundraising has become stalled and the community connectedness that is the glue holding charities together has been steadily declining over decades. These pressures were all exacerbated by the COVID pandemic, where lockdowns and social distancing, while being necessary for the protection of public health, increased financial pressure and social isolation. Many volunteers, who were unable to contribute due to the public health restrictions, did not return after the restrictions were lifted.

The Parliamentary Friendship Group will have its first event in late March, a presentation and discussion with Philanthropy Australia about polling they commissioned on attitudes to philanthropy and what insights this polling can offer the Australian government's efforts to double giving by 2030. One of the ways in which we can help charities raise funds is by harmonising charity fundraising laws. This is a subject I've spoken on several times over the years in this place, but, for those unfamiliar with this issue, I will provide some brief background.

Before the event of digital technology—and those school students up in the gallery won't understand this—back in the days when going online meant catching a train, the states and territories developed laws to regulate charitable fundraising. As a legacy of these laws, to raise funds in any state or territory, you need to comply with the relevant law in that jurisdiction and, in most cases, submit a registration to the relevant authority. The problem arises when you have charities raising funds nationally, including those that now raise funds online. You see, funds raised online can be received from anywhere in Australia, so you have to comply with the law in all state and territory jurisdictions, with the exception of the Northern Territory, which doesn't have any charity fundraising laws. In other words, if you want to raise funds nationally, you have to follow seven different sets of laws. You may think it's difficult to comply with, but it's actually impossible to comply with, because some of these laws are contradictory. This is a red-tape nightmare that is costing Australian charities over $15 million a year.

To give you an idea of how outdated these laws are, a Senate inquiry into this issue heard that one state still had a law in its statute books that made it an offence to collect money with a tin attached to the end of a pole. This was apparently to prevent the gentry from being harassed by enthusiastic charity collectors tapping on the windows of their carriages. That's how old the law is. In 2018, the Productivity Commission recommended the introduction of a harmonised national charity fundraising law. This was followed up several months later by the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century, which I chaired, recommending that this important reform be completed within two years.

Sadly, the previous government dragged its feet and, over the course of four years, made very little progress on the harmonisation of fundraising law. But I'm pleased to say that the Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job. Our very capable assistant minister for charities, Dr Andrew Leigh, is a powerful advocate for charities, and his enthusiasm for this reform is producing results. By October last year, Assistant Minister Lee had consulted with the charity sector and made substantial progress on the development of a national framework for charity fundraising laws. In mid-February this year, a meeting of the Commonwealth, state and territory treasurers agreed to a set of nationally consistent fundraising principles, finally.

These principles have been developed by a working group comprising all the states and territories and informed by stakeholder consultation. The principles will give charities and donors a clear understanding of appropriate conduct while allowing for greater flexibility as to how charities achieve compliance. Each participating jurisdiction will release an implementation plan by July 2023, explaining how it will give effect to the principles through regulatory changes or legislation. So we're on track to get this reform done in a timely manner, and, for charities facing the red-tape nightmare that comes with the current arrangements, it cannot be done too soon.

Labor paved the way for this reform by establishing the ACNC, which was always intended to be a one-stop shop for charity registration and regulation. A couple of jurisdictions have since dropped the requirement for charities to obtain a licence if they are already registered with the ACNC, and several have streamlined their reporting requirements, removing the obligation for incorporated associations to report information that has already been reported to the ACNC.

While I'm on the subject of charity fundraising, it's worth reminding Australians that one of the purposes of charity fundraising regulation is to curtail criminal activities such as charity scams. Following various recent fire and flood disasters or the recent earthquake in Turkiye and Syria, many Australians feel motivated to help, and one of the best ways to help is by donating to charity. But, unfortunately, there are some very unscrupulous people who prey on our sympathy and our generosity for personal gain. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being lost every year to charity scams, and that money is being stolen not only from the donors but also from the important causes to which the donors try to donate. According to Scamwatch, from the 1 January to 25 September last year, $336,000 was lost to charity scams.

Following simple rules will help Australians to ensure that their donated funds are going to genuine charitable work:

This advice was issued recently to the public by the ACNC in the wake of the Turkiye and Syria earthquake. It's thanks to the establishment of the ACNC, a great Labor initiative of which I am very proud, that we have the Charity Register and regulations which hold charities accountable for being genuine in meeting their stated charitable aims and being responsible with donated funds. We need to promote more awareness of this great resource and the fact that the Charity Register is publicly available and easily searchable. It's an important weapon in the fight against charity scams and the damage they do to generous and well-meaning— (Time expired)

I want to speak about the cost-of-living crisis that all Australians are enduring under this Labor government. Yesterday, as the Reserve Bank raised interest rates for the 10th consecutive time, Labor was busy breaking promises and announcing new taxes. Instead of working with the Reserve Bank to bring down inflation, the government is putting all its energy into breaking election promises and taxing Australians more.

In my travels up and down the coast of Queensland over the last week, people wanted to know: what is Labor doing about the cost of living?

An honourable senator interjecting—

Well, nothing. I'll take the comment from my good friend from Victoria. A nice lady in Tully said to me, 'Sweet foxtrot alpha.' I would tend to agree with my good friend from Tully, as much as I agree with my good friend from the great state of Victoria, that Labor are doing nothing about addressing the cost of living. Energy bills are soaring. Mortgage payments are rising every month. Rents are increasing. Grocery costs are rising by the day. And Labor's promised real wage increase has not eventuated. Fuelled by Labor's reckless budget, inflation is running out of control in Australia. Power bills are skyrocketing, despite Prime Minister Albanese's promise to cut electricity bills by $275 each year, and this is happening as inflation has begun to decline in similar economies.

On the $275, Labor promised not once, not twice but 97 times before the last election that they would cut your power bills by $275. But, since the election, you cannot get a Labor minister, a Labor backbencher or even an unnamed Labor source to mention the figure 275. They won't even say 'two', 'seven' or 'five', because they know they have broken another election promise. This is the reality that Australians have to deal with. We're right to wonder what Labor is going to slug us with next, because Labor are making it up as they go along.

Inside the past three weeks we've had: a Prime Minister who's refused to rule out further changes to your super; a Treasurer who's refused to rule out changes to negative gearing; a Treasurer also refusing to rule out changes to capital gains tax, including on the family home; a Prime Minister who's then rushed out and said, 'No, we won't touch your house'; and a Treasurer who's then come out and stumbled over a few words and then run back into his office. This is a Treasurer of Australia who is the political love child of Paul Keating and Wayne Swan and who is going to give his heroes, his mentors, a run for their money for the title of Australia's worst Treasurer. At the moment it is a close 1 and 2 between Paul Keating and Wayne Swan. But I can tell you, Treasurer Jim Chalmers is coming up the inside straight at a rapid rate of knots at the moment. He's going to overtake them and he's going to get the gold medal for Australia's worst Treasurer in his first term as Treasurer.

It is clear that whatever the Prime Minister and Labor say cannot be trusted, whatever time of the day they make their comments. Just think, since Labor came into power, the average Australian family are paying more than $20,000 extra each year on their mortgage. The Prime Minister has no plan to help struggling families. Labor's left-wing policies only continue to worsen the pressure on inflation. Interest rates are now at a level that has not been seen since the nightmare Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Sadly, it is clear that Labor would prefer to play politics than to have the backs of Australians during these tough economic times.

The latest national accounts show that households are saving just 4.5 per cent of their incomes, down from 7.1 per cent in the September quarter. But instead of acting to ease pressure on inflation, Labor want to raise taxes. During the election campaign Anthony Albanese promised cost-of-living relief. Remember the figure $275 that he said 97 times? But the reality is that life is only getting harder for families under Labor.

And Queenslanders I speak and listen to our struggling. They know that this federal government doesn't have their back. Two weeks ago I did Politics in the Pub in a small community called Glass House on the Sunshine Coast. I was there with a member for Glass House, Andrew Powell, the member for Longman, Terry Young, and the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace. One of the stories I always want to tell everybody is that families are pulling their children out of sport—in this particular instance it was out of soccer—because they can't afford the registration fees for their kids to play soccer on the Sunshine Coast. This is no attack on the good people who run soccer in Queensland. This is the realisation that mums and dads across this country, across Queensland, are doing it tough and are cutting back on their children's sports because they've got to make a choice between their children's sport and putting food on the table. I say to the Labor government: shame on you. Shame on you.

But what do we also see in my home state of Queensland? Reckless spending on Christmas parties that cost taxpayers $64,000. That's $700 a minute. I'll repeat that for you: $64,000 on a Christmas party; $700 a minute. Who do we see? The Labor Premier of Queensland, who would spend $64,000 on a Christmas party. A Premier who enjoys the red carpet as much as she enjoys strangling business with red tape. A Premier who spends—I cannot fathom that you could actually spend $64,000 on a Christmas party. Maybe I come from the wrong side of the tracks. I was raised in a family of cheerios—that's frankfurters for you southerners. Christmas parties were maybe some prawns, some cheerios, a bit of rum and Coke, some warm white wine and things like that. I just don't understand. Was it caviar? Did they get sausages and put caviar on them at this Christmas party? This is something an Arabian prince would spend on a Christmas party. This is something that a billionaire from India would spend on a party, not the Premier of Queensland. The Premier of Queensland has her snout in the trough and is enjoying the good life while Queenslanders are suffering because of the cost of living and because of crime.

I want to talk about crime here in Queensland. In particular, I want to talk about the introduction of the breach of bail amendment, which is long overdue. There is more work to do there. The Palaszczuk government is lucky that, when it comes to certain levels of accountability, they're around there with a university assignment. If they submitted their breach of bail amendment to Turnitin—for you boomers out there, that's a plagiarism checking app, says the boomer here—it would have returned a 110 per cent plagiarism report. One hundred per cent would be because it was copied word for word from the amendment tabled by David Crisafulli, the next Premier of Queensland, in 2021; and 10 per cent more because of their negligence in not providing a bibliography with the LNP's leader in it.

But the issue of crime is not going to go away. A good friend of mine, at the end of last year, was woken up in his home in Ingham by torchlight from people in his house robbing him. They took his phone, took his wallet and then took his car and tried to run him over. Then his car was found torched a week later in Townsville. This is the reality of Queensland, where people are being robbed in their own homes as they sleep, and yet we have a Premier who spends $64,000 on a Christmas party. Marie Antoinette, if she had her head, would be blushing at the chutzpah of Labor's Premier in Queensland.

I rise to speak as a very concerned Australian who has been given the privilege and the opportunity to be a representative on the floor of parliament for the people of this nation, especially those voters in Queensland who gave me this opportunity.

Many Australians are struggling, as we heard from the previous speaker, Senator McGrath, talking about the cost of living. It comes down to governance. The people of Australia have had a gutful of their politicians and the over-representation. The fact is they keep saying, 'Meeting me in the streets,' 'As I walk around,' or, maybe, 'On my Facebook posts.' What is happening? Why can't we actually get our politicians to understand what is happening out here? Our lives and our standard of living are changing.

It all comes down to what happens in this place. I'm sick and tired of hearing the buck being passed from one side to the other—who's in government; who's not in government—and not working together for the people of this nation. It's all about your spending. You can't rein in your spending. It is ridiculous. If you look at the spending on our welfare and social security bill, it's $228.8 billion. We've got people on lifetime welfare. It's become a way of life—not a helping hand, a way of life. What are you doing about it? There are solutions. How about the solution that people get welfare two out of five years? Guess what? You have to work. It's your responsibility to put a roof over your head and food on the table.

Let's also look at the NDIS. The NDIS is costing us more for approximately 550,000 people than Medicare costs us for the whole of Australia. No-one is reining this in. You're allowing people to get payouts and get on to the NDIS. It's just been reported that 10 per cent of—one in 10—boys in Australia are on the NDIS after being reported as having ADHD. How ridiculous? People diagnosed with autism are on the NDIS. That was not what it was proposed for. It was proposed for people with disability, not people with PTSD. We've now got people with chronic illness on the NDIS. It has blown out of all proportion, and we cannot afford it. It needs to be reined in, but what are you doing about it? Nothing. People on the NDIS can go to sex workers. One client on the NDIS even went to a football match and hired a corporate box at $45,000, which was paid for by the taxpayer.

Education—what is happening with our children? They are coming out of our schools and they can't read or write. They're not prepared for the workforce, and yet we are not doing anything about it. It's not a priority for either side. Look at the teachers coming out of universities. A lot of them are not up to the standards. We're dropping in the worldwide standards for education, but no-one cares about it.

Defence—where is the budget for defence? We know that that there are problems just offshore, and we have to be aware of China and how its defence forces are growing. But we not taking defence seriously. There's talk all the time about what could happen here. In just a few years China may attack Taiwan, and what are we going to do? Are we going to sit back and do nothing? We can't even make enough ammunition in this country. We do absolutely nothing, but we're sitting waiting for a submarine. It could take many decades before we get any submarines in this country. We don't support our defence personnel and we are having trouble recruiting them.

And then there's manufacturing. You haven't done anything about that. You say you're going to set up another scheme. I've been on about manufacturing for years. We need to start manufacturing our own goods, instead of importing the cheap products that destroy our own jobs in Australia.

All Labor goes on about is the Voice. People are sick and tired of it. What's it going to do? Absolutely zilch. How is the Voice going to deal with the cost of living? With $33 billion a year poured into the Aboriginal industry, absolutely nothing is going to help. Why aren't you upfront with the people and tell them that you're looking to create an Aboriginal black state in this nation, a segregation of white Australians from black Australians? That's what it's about.

People out there want true representation. They want us to make decisions that will give them a better quality of life. They want assurances about the future of their kids. They don't want this nation to be divided. Until we get real representation and people with the guts to stand by their convictions and their integrity in this place, I feel sorry for the people of this nation.

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Australian International Airshow in Avalon in my home state of Victoria along with many of my colleagues on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It was an excellent showcase of both current and emerging technologies and capabilities in defence as well as a showcase of how the state of Victoria is leading our nation in defence capability. The big news of the week was the announcement from BAE Systems of a new unmanned drone with lethal capability. In addition to the impressive technology itself, what I think is particularly noteworthy and why I wanted to raise it in the Senate is that it was designed by Australian engineers and technicians. So playing more of a role in the production of our defence technologies is not some far-off dream. It's actually happening right now in our backyards, and I think we need to do everything that we can as a nation to encourage more of this Australian involvement and investment in this area of policy. And, to pick up on the comments from Senator Hanson, I think we do actually need to look at and see what is currently happening in this country. I think most people would be surprised to learn that there is a lot of investment that is currently occurring in defence procurement and in defence capability manufacturing.

Part of this exercise is about also supporting the many defence manufacturers, and the industry more broadly, in Australia. That's why the Minister for Defence Industry, Pat Conroy MP, is working on the defence industry development strategy to build Australia's defence at industry base. Unfortunately, this task has been made more difficult due to the decline in manufacturing presided over by the previous government. But, when manufacturers took the Liberals and the Nationals up on their dare to pack up shop—because we all remember when the car manufacturers were told to leave this country—the demand for advanced manufacturing skills actually dried up. So we are now in the process of trying to repair and reverse the damage that was done.

Australians who were also looking to start or to switch their career were being sent, sadly, a very clear message by the then government that there was no future in advanced manufacturing when it came to our defence capability. There may have been some at the time that were persuaded that Australia did not need these skills, because we could always purchase these products from overseas manufacturers—it is always cheaper to import rather than manufacture domestically. But it is important to look back now and think about the decisions that led to manufacturers departing our shores. Through the pandemic, it really did bring home for many of us in this place the need to look at investing in our supply chains, because the unforeseen events that can really rupture those supply chains, both domestically and internationally, were still and, I believe, are still very much scarred on many Australians.

Australia was scrapping in the international market for products that, in the years prior, we may well have been able to produce ourselves. The lack of investment in advanced manufacture and research also limited Australia's ability to contribute to the international effort to invent and manufacture vaccines. Of course, pandemics are not the only things that can disrupt supply chains, and, unfortunately, we do live in a world where states, who wish to cause damage to Australia, may deliberately reduce or cut off the trade of certain goods to our country. This, of course, is of particular concern when it comes to products that we use in defence. That's why the government, the Albanese government, has acted swiftly to send a very clear message to Australian businesses and workers that we are committed to supporting manufacturing in this country. We are working hard to deliver on our commitment to establish a National Reconstruction Fund where $15 billion will be invested across seven priority areas, including both medical science and defence capability. So, when I stand here in front of that new BAE drone, as I did last week, I thought what a fantastic thing that it was not just designed here but there are also a number of components that will be manufactured in Australia. We are a clever country and, with the right support and investment, we can and should see more defence assets being designed and made here in Australia.

Artificial intelligence, or AI, is a field of computer science that focuses on creating intelligent machines that can perform tasks typically requiring human intelligence such as problem-solving, speech recognition and decision-making. While the development of AI has the potential to revolutionise many industries and make our lives easier, there are also many dangers associated with this technology.

One of the main dangers of this AI is the potential for job loss. As machines become more intelligent and capable of performing complex tasks, they will begin to replace human workers in many industries, particularly in those industries that rely heavily on manual labour and repetitive tasks. This has the potential to lead to significant job losses and economic disruption, particularly for workers who lack the skills or education needed to adopt to this rapidly changing job market.

Another danger of AI is the potential for bias and discrimination. AI systems are only as unbiased as the data they are trained on. If the data is biased or discriminatory, the AI system may be as well. This can lead to discriminatory outcomes in areas such as hiring, lending and criminal justice, and it already exacerbates existing social inequalities.

AI also represents a risk to privacy and security. As AI systems become more prevalent, they will generate large amounts of data about individuals and their behaviour, which can be exploited for malicious purposes such as identity theft, blackmail or surveillance. Additionally, the security of AI systems themselves are a concern, as they can be hacked and are vulnerable to cyberattacks and the like.

Perhaps the greatest danger of AI is the potential for it to surpass human intelligence and become an existential threat to humanity. This scenario, named 'the singularity', is a theoretical point in the future where machines become more intelligent than humans and are able to improve their own capabilities at an exponential rate, leading to an unpredictable and potentially catastrophic outcome. While the singularity remains a hypothetical scenario, there are already examples of AI systems behaving in unexpected and potentially dangerous ways. For example, in 2016, Microsoft launched a chatbot named Tay on Twitter. That was designed to learn from its interactions with users; however, within just hours of its launch, Tay began tweeting racist and sexist messages, reflecting the biases of those who were interacting with it.

To mitigate these dangers, it is important that we develop AI in a responsible and ethical manner. This includes ensuring that AI systems are transparent and accountable so they can understand the decisions they make and hold them accountable for their actions. It also means ensuring AI systems are trained on diverse and unbiased data and that their outcomes are continually monitored and audited for fairness and accuracy. Ultimately, the development of AI is a complex and multifaceted issue. There is no one solution that can completely eliminate all the risks associated with the technology. However, by being aware of the potential dangers of AI and taking proactive steps to mitigate them, we can ensure that this technology is used to benefit society in a safe and responsible manner.

Up until that point, every single word of that speech was written by AI. I simply asked an AI system to write a 500-word speech on the dangers of AI. It was 514 words, but, apart from that, it did a pretty good job. I'm not saying that the team of my staff in suite SG 108 should be concerned for their future, but the real drama is, given the potential influence of input data and bias on outcomes—the 'rubbish in, rubbish out' principle—how do we start thinking about the jobs of tomorrow, what AI will do and how it will work? What are the areas we, as legislators, need to think about focusing our education and training on so that we don't train people in jobs that will be replaced? What are the infrastructure and capital investment decisions we need to start planning and working on now?

Any government's first job is to protect its people, always. The use of AI in all aspects of commerce will only increase at an exponential rate. We don't need to start a bunch of training camps to train young John Connors to prepare for a battle against terminators in the future, but we do need to be cognisant that it would be negligent to leave large numbers of Australians exposed to potential replacement by machines and unemployment. The future of this is both exciting and concerning. We need to remain vigilant, we need to plan and we need to be ready so we can protect our people.

The inquiry into concussion in sport is groundbreaking. There is a high calibre of witnesses, from brain banks and neurologists to former AFL and NRL players, speaking of the harrowing impacts of concussion and brain injury on people's lives. However, what has been specifically enlightening for me personally is the life-threatening consequences of repeated head trauma. This inquiry has raised a number of concerns and heard reliable, credible evidence about the damage to our brains from being concussed.

Concussion occurs regularly to women who are subjected to violence. I, myself, know what it's like to be hit in the head a number of times and to have my teeth broken as a result of family violence and being in violent relationships. A 2018 report by Brain Injury Australia revealed that 40 per cent of domestic and family violence survivors who attended Victorian hospitals over a 10-year period had sustained a brain injury. Experts are concerned that people who did not seek help for domestic violence over the last few years due to the COVID-19 pandemic may be living with unknown brain trauma, which can have devastating long-term health consequences if untreated.

What support do these women have? I became a politician and could afford to get my teeth fixed, but the amount of money it costs for women to repair themselves after violent relationships is not there. We have women walking around who've been concussed a number of times by violent partners, who still have no teeth. That brings shame and embarrassment. I don't know how many women I've spoken to who cover their mouth to smile, because their violent partner knocked their teeth out of their mouth. That is head trauma, and it's a head trauma that I don't think this country is looking into.

I understand that the response to concussion in sports is incredibly important to keep our athletes safe, but what this inquiry is highlighting is that women are also at risk of CTE and other kinds of brain injuries as a result of being a victim or survivor of family violence. There are a number of measures that would help to address this issue, from better screening in all states and territories, to clear referral pathways for victims-survivors to access safety and support. Importantly, organisations providing culturally safe support services need proper resourcing and funding. We must ensure that victims-survivors of domestic and family violence who suffer from head injuries receive the same ongoing care and supports as those who suffer a head injury as a result of a sporting accident. The better we understand brain injury and the relationship between family and domestic violence, including amongst First Nations people, the better we can care for our women who experience violence.

We need to do more for our women out there who are possibly walking around with an undiagnosed brain injury from violence that they've experienced. There is nothing in this country that looks at this issue. So, as a victim-survivor who's had repeated head trauma and who knows hundreds of other women—particularly black women—in this country who've also experienced head trauma from violent partners, I believe we have to do more because this is generational and it's a sickness that we can help to prevent.

I rise here today to speak on the dangers of the 15-minute city. The Victorian government has begun pitching the brand new but old idea, taken from the playbook of our best mates at the World Economic Forum, of the 15-minute city. It's also sometimes called the 20-minute city. You know what, it doesn't matter, because it's all the same garbage. Imagine the 15-minute city where you won't need a car, where you won't need to travel much at all and where everything you'll ever need will be provided for you and it's all within easy reach. So convenient. Sounds great. That's the charm of the new era of soft totalitarianism. It's always for your benefit, and so people willingly, even eagerly, agree to be caged. Sorry, I didn't mean to use the word 'caged'. It was a slip of the tongue, kind of like Klaus Schwab didn't mean to say that the elites are going to push us to a point where we will own nothing, zip, nada, and we will be happy because they will own everything, and they'll be even happier. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's called 'servitisation'—look it up. I'll give an example of servitisation. Once upon a time, we owned DVDs. We don't anymore. Now you have a streaming service; you don't own it. Once upon a time, people would easily buy homes. Not anymore, not today—now you're more likely to rent. You don't own it. What about a car? One day you won't own a car; it's all going to be rideshare. You won't own it; someone else will own it. You'll be happy, though.

The 15-minute city is not an original thought from the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, as if such a thing as an original though ever existed in the Premier's head. It's a plan parroted straight from the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and other globalist organisations that have been busy sowing this idea around the world, and now it is with governments. For example, in the UK they have already announced plans to divide cities into separately administered districts, which they claim will help meet the country's sustainability goals by reducing the need for citizens to travel. The government will ensure you and your family are well catered for—and, of course, well contained, which I suspect is rather more the point—in a tiny precinct that you'll probably never need to leave.

If the climate emergency, crisis, disaster, catastrophe or whatever it is they're calling it these days is as bad as the United Nations would have us believe, then perhaps we'll never be allowed to leave our 15-minute zone. I jest, of course. I'm only joking. People will be allowed to travel outside their allotted 15-minute zones. They'll just have to pay a modest toll or levy in order to be able to leave their district. But other than that—and, of course, the surveillance—they'll be completely free.

Some will go ahead and say that this is a conspiracy theory. But it's not. It's not even a theory. It's happening in plain sight for all to see. Just ask the residents of Oxford in the UK if they think it's a conspiracy theory. They're living it right now. I remember 2020, when the media accused everyone who said the government would use COVID as an excuse to abuse civil liberties of being a conspiracy theorist. We all know how that turned out, especially in my home state of Victoria. Overlay the 15-minute city with the coming social-credit system and the digital ID, just like in Communist China with the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, and you begin to get an understanding of what the future might hold if we continue to allow things to move ahead unabated and unchecked.

We Victorians know all too well what it's like to be constricted and locked down in a zone. The government's design to corral us all into zones—no matter how the supposed benefits are sold—is cynical and sinister, and it must be resisted. It must be discussed. It must be considered. To the people at home I say: Do not leave your fate in the hands of government, because power corrupts. Take an interest in what is happening in your community, in your state. Take an interest in who governs you. Don't just go to the ballot box, tick a box and forget about it. That's not the right way to do it.

In the few seconds available to me, I feel the obligation firstly to apologise, really, to the people who had to listen to the conspiracy theory, creeping extremism dangerous stuff that was brought into the Senate by Senator Babet.

But I want to take this opportunity on International Women's Day to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Marie Coleman AO, PSM. She is a person who has contributed much more than many other Australians. She has made a remarkable contribution as the first woman in Australia's history to head a statutory authority. As a long-term campaigner for equal pay and for equity for Australian women, she is very welcome in this place, and I'm absolutely delighted to see her. I should say, as a Twitter follower of Marie's, that she has been an activist for 60 years but is very active on Twitter as well. You don't often learn things on Twitter, but I learned something from Marie Coleman's social media stream. So welcome.

A crisis is unfolding in the East Kimberley right now as the region is left struggling and stranded because of surrounding floods. In January, the main trade route through to Fitzroy Crossing was inundated, and since then the road has been impassable. I'm calling on Minister King to urgently lodge a section 11 exemption from the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 to allow international carriers who are at the ready to bring in the supplies that this community is in desperate need of right now. Allowing international carriers into the region will halve the time it takes for supplies to get into the port of Wyndham and assist the communities of Wyndham, Halls Creek and Kununurra—in excess of 9,000 Australians who right now have empty supermarket shelves. We're getting the ADF to drop in supplies, and this government has been left asleep at the wheel. This is not some flash-flooding event that just arrived yesterday. The first flooding event was months ago, and now we've got the final route between the Northern Territory and WA cut off. And what have they done? They've sat on their hands. Anthony Albanese, when he was the infrastructure and transport minister, exercised this exemption. Barnaby Joyce, during a similar catastrophic event in 2022, exercised this exemption. Catherine King needs to wake up, recognise she can make a difference to these communities and sign the exemption so they can get in fresh food and supplies in a sustainable manner.

The National Week of Action for the Voice to Parliament was from 18 to 24 February. During this week, I attended open days at Edith Cowan University in Joondalup and at the University of Western Australia and spoke to students about the Voice. Many students wanted to hear and learn about the Voice or to express their support for the Voice and ask what they could do to help. I could say that I was surprised, but I wasn't. Young people in this country are progressive, caring and motivated to push for this simple change to our Constitution. They understand that this campaign goes beyond politics. It is about setting the foundation for Australia to walk on a path towards reconciliation with First Nations people together.

I told the students that over the coming months there will be a lot of debate and they will hear a lot of facts but also a lot of misleading statements. They can help by knowing the facts. The referendum is about only two things: the 'what'—to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution—and the 'how'—to consult them on matters which affect them. It is a simple change, and explaining this to our friends and family will go a long way to ensuring that, when Australians have their say on referendum day, whatever they write on the ballot will be a decision they're making with all the information they need. I support the Voice, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, and so do the young Western Australian students I hear from.

Today, 8 March, is the anniversary of the 1955 declaration of the Lake Pedder National Park. That richly deserved protection for a jewel in the heart of Tasmania's magnificent wilderness was wrongly revoked in 1967 to provide for the flooding of Lake Pedder, which occurred in 1972. Today is also International Women's Day, an opportunity for us all to reflect on and thank some of the powerful activist women who campaigned to save or restore Lake Pedder over 50 years, including Brenda Hean, Patsy Jones, Hilary Bennell, Patricia Giles, Elspeth Vaughan, Helen Gee, Melva Truchanas and so many more. Some of those fantastic women are no longer with us, but there are two who most certainly are, and, in fact, they're in the gallery today, including Tabatha Badger, the terrific Restore Lake Pedder campaign coordinator, and the awesome Christine Milne, former senator and leader of the Australian Greens. I acknowledge Tabatha, Christine and all of the Restore Lake Pedder crew who are here today.

Restoring rivers and lakes for climate resilience and biodiversity is gaining pace around the world. Over 1,900 dams have been pulled down in the US and more than 230 in Europe in 2021 alone. Now is the time to invest in decommissioning the high-risk dams which are impounding Lake Pedder. Now is the time for the Australian government to nominate the restoration of Lake Pedder as Australia's flagship project for the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoring Lake Pedder would make right a great wrong. That beautiful lake is there today, and now is the time to restore it.

They say that it takes a village to raise a child, and, sadly, my village lost one of its greats recently. After a lengthy battle with dementia, Richard Hoogewerf, surrounded by his loving family, peacefully passed away. During our teenage years, Richard left a profound impression on me and several of my friends. I seek to pay tribute to him today.

Richard and his wife, Margaret, are a terrific Australian migrant success story. Together with their two young boys, the Hoogewerf migrated to Australia from Durban, South Africa, in the early eighties. Seeing the ever-increasing violence and turmoil in their home country, they longed for a safer and more prosperous life for their family. While Australia gave them that opportunity, the Hoogewerf's paid back Australia's offerings in spades. At Richard's funeral last Thursday, we learnt about the many acts of service that encompassed Richard's life. In fact, the very church in Perth South where we gathered was not only supported by Richard, it started in their home, and the very footings of the building's walls were dug by Richard's own hands.

Dementia is a horrible disease, and it's gripping an increasing number of Australians. It was heartbreaking to see this disease afflicting Richard. But it did not stop Richard and Margaret's selfless service. Exemplifying this, Richard and Margaret signed up for a new WA police initiative called Safe and Found. This is a new service that helps people with cognitive impairments to be found more quickly if they go missing. To assist others, Richard and Margaret fronted an awareness campaign, including agreeing to feature in media stories about the new initiative. It would have been perfectly understandable for them to want to retreat and privately deal with Richard's dementia, but, true to form, Richard and his wife continued to put the interests of others ahead of their own.

Richard's passing is a great loss, not just for his family but for the community that he served so well. His life is a testament to the power of community and how individuals can make a profound impact on the lives of others. His memory will live on as an inspiration to all who knew him.

nator PRATT (—) (): Gather, dream, amplify—the WorldPride motto was certainly upheld last week at the Sydney WorldPride Human Rights Conference in Sydney. The conference upheld a wide variety of issues, but four key pillars were: community and culture, justice and freedom, health and wellbeing, and visibility and inclusion.

The keynote speaker, Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the United Nations independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, reminded us all that, while human beings are all born free and equal in dignity and rights, in many countries, LGBTQIA+ people continue to face persecution simply because of who they are. So, today, on International Women's Day, it's important to highlight the links between the drivers of gender based discrimination and violence and the drivers of this same discrimination against LGBTQIA+ communities.

We heard from many speakers, LGBTQIA+ leaders, ambassadors, parliamentarians, First Nations people, health experts, youth, researchers and rights activists from intersex and trans communities the world over. The trauma that communities have faced in oppressive nations is very real. It's a result of rejection, exclusion, violence and discrimination, worsened by opportunistic and deliberate scare campaigns.

While we were reminded of how much we still must do, we were heartened by the Australian government's groundbreaking announcements, including the new equality fund and the 10-year National Action Plan for the Health and Wellbeing of LGBTIQ+ People. I thank Equality Australia for their incredible vision and their success in hosting this conference.

I just want to raise that we have a huge problem with our medical institutions in this country. We cannot provide the services that Australians truly need through lack of funding, poor policy decisions and governments that are completely overrun with putting in place too many bureaucrats and administrators. The money is not getting to where it's needed in hospitals and services. What needs to be done?

We don't have enough GPs coming through the system. We're quite open to bringing in doctors from overseas that have trouble even speaking English. Why don't we look at getting more GPs through the system? As we have said, for someone to go through the system and become a GP, they have to get 99.5 per cent on the test. Well, why don't we drop it to 95 per cent? Let them go through. They'll be sorted out, the wheat from the chaff, if they're not up to doing the service. We need more Australians going through and doing the service of becoming doctors.

Private practices come to see me and talk about their concerns. Their funding has not increased over the last 10 years, and it has not been indexed, so therefore they're going backwards in their funding. GPs are not staying in the services. They want to get out. This is another big problem. You need to look at the funding going to these private practices as well, because, for 95 per cent of the consultations they do, they only receive seven per cent of the funding. That can be addressed.

You've also got doctors that were signed up on contracts to do three years service for their fees to be paid for, and they're given 18 years to do it. Only a few hundred have actually done it. You've got thousands that haven't made the commitment. Why don't we reduce it so that they need to actually do this in seven years?

We have to put the money into the hospital boards, not the administrators, and let the hospital boards fund themselves and run themselves—not state governments that are overburdened with administrators and the waste of money that's happening.

Over the last couple of days there have been a number of stories with regard to autism in the NDIS. I thought it was time we step forward to some of the stuff that's misleading and some of the stuff that could be rectified. Initially, we saw the removal of DSM-IV for DSM-5, which saw a number of diagnoses which used to be separate to autism bundled up under the autism umbrella. These were developmental delays like PDD-NOS or global developmental delay. These are not permanent and lifelong disabilities but they have been bundled up under the NDIS. We do know that children need some support, since the states have vacated the field, but they do not need to be on the NDIS for the rest of their lives. So it is important that we have some sort of objectivity when we look at children that still need to continue post the early childhood stream.

We do know that lots of these children are coming on with a diagnosis of level 2. How do we determine whether that's actually the case? We do actually have tests that are objective, but for some reason the NDIA does not look at implementing them. These are things that should be looked at and conducted by all diagnosticians. They should be using standardised tests to ensure that we are getting the right children into the scheme, supporting them when they need to be supported, but also that there is a transition out for children that do not need to remain on the scheme for the rest of their lives. We have the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule and we have the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales. Vineland will look at a child's social interactions and personal skills, in which they can be supported early, but they quite often will not need that support moving forward. We have the Mullen Scales of Early Learning and we also have the Preschool Language Scales. These are actually objective tests that will educate and inform parents as to where their child's level is. They will also ensure autism is funded in the right way for those people that actually need it for the rest of their lives because of the severity of the autism and the permanent impairment.

In the last nine months, with strong support from business, industry organisations, investor groups, unions, civil society and state and territory governments, we have increased the ambition to decarbonise our industry, to address climate change and to put Australia back in the place it needs to be in terms of working towards a better future: net zero. So many people have committed to net zero, not just us, not just this parliament, not just industry. It is widespread. We understand—the country understands—that this needs to be done.

The problem we face is that to get there we need the safeguard mechanism. The reforms to the safeguard mechanism that are about to be introduced need to occur so that we can get there. We can decarbonise our industry while building it for the future, so we can achieve those targets that have passed this parliament and that are now enshrined in our legislation.

Here we are, watching two extremes of ideological vandalism. On one side, we have those who say this is not enough: 'This is not enough; therefore we will do nothing.' On the other, we have those who say: 'This is too much; therefore we will do nothing.' Whether it is those opposite or those to my right, the outcome will be exactly the same: nothing. This is exactly what we've had for the last 10 years. If you don't want the same result, don't do the same thing again. This is really important reform. The world will not end. The sky will not fall in. We must make these changes if we are genuinely to make progress in addressing climate change.

Two weeks ago I visited the town of Narrabri, where the traditional owners, environmental groups and others are fighting the Narrabri Gas Project. I was honoured to spend two days with the traditional owners to learn firsthand about the impacts this project will have on their land. The traditional owners strongly oppose the gas project and, so far, their opposition has largely gone ignored by Santos.

Recently, the National Native Title Tribunal declared that this project would go ahead without traditional owner consent. How this is even impossible is beyond me. It flies in the face of the principles of free, prior and informed consent and is a devastating outcome for the traditional owners. But we know they will continue to fight this project. This project not only threatens the sacred Pilliga forest but also water supply in the area. Many communities rely on bore water, especially during the drought. Santos wants to go straight through the Great Artesian Basin to the Gunnedah Basin, beneath which there is no connection between those two basins.

The Great Artesian Basin is one of the largest freshwater basins in the world. It is, in fact, the largest in Australia and lies beneath Queensland, the Northern Territory, New Wales and South Australia. It is a vital resource for 180,000 people, 7,600 businesses and 120,000 towns. First Nations communities have relied on this basin for thousands of years and maintain cultural, social and spiritual connections with the springs and their associated ecological communities and landscapes. The Gunnedah Basin contains water that is older and more toxic, and if the water from this basin were to contaminate the Great Artesian Basin it would be catastrophic for that region.

This project simply cannot go ahead. The risk to the region's water supply and impacts to the Pilliga are too great, not to mention the fact that we cannot open any more new coal and gas projects.

Australia is an energy-rich nation. We are blessed with natural resources, such as an abundance of coal. This is what other countries can only dream of. As a result, we should always have reliable, abundant and very cheap power. If Mr Albanese wants to deliver on his promise of a $275 power bill cut, let's add some coal.

I recently inspected EnergyAustralia's coal-fired power station at Yallourn, Victoria. This site provides power to hundreds of thousands of people, but it will be closing in 2028. Instead of building a new power station, the green energy movement would rather replace this with costly and unpredictable wind and solar alternatives, and a battery which is estimated to hold enough juice to power homes at night for only several hours. Rubbish! There's obviously not going to be enough, and it is unlikely to meet our power needs into the future. We need sufficient electricity to keep homes and businesses running and powered up 24/7.

The movement towards wind, which is useless when the wind is not blowing, and solar, which is useless at night or when it's overcast, is going to result in more expensive and less reliable power. I have been speaking in this place, time and time again, about the importance of reliable and efficient futureproof technology. We need to move away from this fantasy of net zero. But, if the government is so hell bent on shutting down coal power, we should at least investigate modern nuclear technology, which can—and will—provide steady and reliable power, into the future, to keep our lights on and keep our manufacturing going.

I want to briefly speak about some amazing women, today, on International Women's Day. The first person I would like to acknowledge is Nicole Millis, who is the CEO of Rare Voices Australia. Nicole is somebody who advocates on behalf of many Australians with over 7,000 different types of diseases. She advocates on their behalf because we must ensure that we have not only a clinical response, when we're dealing with these rare diseases, but also a personal response. Nicole is the voice of so many Australians who haven't got the access or the ability to have voices of their own.

I also want to acknowledge Renee, who spoke today at an event. Renee lives with a rare disease, and I want to acknowledge her extraordinary bravery in standing front of a huge crowd and telling her personal story, something that cannot possibly have been easy.

I want to acknowledge all of the carers of Australia. So many of them are women. I had the privilege a couple of weeks ago of visiting the Yorke Peninsula. I met with the YP Leisure Options, which is a community group that looks after a number of young people who live either with age related health issues or are people with disability. I want to say thank you to Tanya, Jamie and Eleni for the amazing work they do. And I want to give a big shout-out to Jarrod who gave me a spin in his pushchair, to Kane who cooked steak for everyone for lunch, to Jess who has the most unforgettable smile, to Emily who's the queen of the woodshed, to super cheeky Clayton, to Wayne the snake charmer, to Georgie who does the most incredible crochet work, and to Robbie—I hope you eventually got that letter back from your sister Pat.

I want to acknowledge the amazing women who do so much for our country, the amazing women who often go unrecognised, and to say a huge thank you to them for what they do and the support they give so many people in our country that need their support. Thank you, to you all.

The Labor government says they have a commitment to Australian manufacturing and making things here. The former Liberal government said the same thing. I have to ask how that's going, after a recent decision from the Department of Defence to give a tender—to create ration packs for the Australian Defence Force—to a New Zealand company. It was a contract worth $259 million. We've sent that money across the ditch instead of investing it here.

The defence minister says that because of our economic relations treaty with New Zealand they have to treat New Zealand companies as Australian companies for tenders. I'm all for being friendly with our Kiwi neighbours but, to be honest, that doesn't really make any sense. Why would we send $259 million of your taxpayer money to New Zealand when it could be spent on Aussie companies? It could be invested here in Aussie jobs. It might have been fine back in the eighties but we saw what happened during the pandemic. We know that we need to shore up sovereign control of foreign supply chains. We have businesses in our own backyard that can do this. I know where I'd prefer my money to go.

A Tassie company was part of a group that put their hand up for the job. I visited Forager Food at their factory last year and talked with them about what this could mean for their company, the kinds of job opportunities that could create for Tasmanians. I'm completely gutted for them. I'm gutted for the Tassie farmers who have lost a market selling food to our soldiers. This contract would have invested $12 million to $15 million per year into Tasmania.

The 'Make things here in Australia' line is a great slogan for governments to bring out at election time but I'm not seeing it backed up by decisions made by bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble. For companies like Forager Food in Tasmania, this decision could have made a huge difference.

For International Women's Day, I'm going to talk about my great-grandmother, Nan Edna Brown, a beloved elder who gave dignity to others, a Gunditjmara elder born in Hamilton, Victoria, in 1916. Nan was raised by her parents, George Clark and Mary-Anne nee Lovett McClennan, on Framlingham Aboriginal Reserve, where they used to round us up. Our family, including Nan's four siblings, survived mainly on what the land could provide. Nan used to go and fetch water from the river and walk two miles to school. In 1932, at the height of the Great Depression, 15-year-old Nan Edna and her dad jumped on the back of a truck and left Framlingham's oppressive regime run by missionaries. The government policy of the day was to assimilate our people who had mixed heritage. If you had a little bit of white blood, it was like, 'Go and assimilate 'em.' My great-grandmother was subjected to that. We still see that happening in this country today. This, of course, was also part of the colonial plan to wipe us out.

My great-grandmother's legacy and love lives within her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She was a driving force in the 1960s and set up the Aboriginal Funeral Fund, our first Aboriginal funeral fund in Victoria because our people were being buried as paupers. Nan helped her daughter establish the first Aboriginal health service in Victoria. Nan also helped Aunty Iris Lovett-Gardiner establish the first Aboriginal Community Elders Service in Victoria. Nan Edna was also the 1986 NAIDOC Aboriginal person of the year. So I come from good stock. I come from a strong matriarchal line, and I'm here for a lot longer—so get used to it.

It's very important that our corporate regulator is respected and feared. I regret to say that in recent weeks the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has not performed particularly well. On 16 February this year, I asked ASIC a series of questions about an investigation into a commissioner, which ASIC initially sought to cover up, and then came clean on, in the same bizarre and shambolic estimates hearing. We then called ASIC back for a second attempt to try and get to the bottom of this situation. ASIC was able to provide some more information in the form of a letter from the Treasury Secretary, Steven Kennedy, to the Chair of ASIC setting out that there had been an investigation into a commissioner. The chair and the deputy chair of ASIC have different views about the contents of that particular investigation. The chair says the findings were mixed. The deputy chair says that they contain no adverse findings. Given that $200,000 of taxpayer funds have been spent to investigate this particular commissioner, it's very important that we understand what exactly happened here, because it's critical that the corporate regulator is beyond approach, that its own corporate governance be second to none.

I wanted to thank the Senate very much for supporting the motion yesterday that ASIC is required to supply that report by midday tomorrow. That report may come back with redactions to protect personal privacy, but it must contain the recommendations and findings that were made by the $200,000 report commissioned by the Treasury. So I wanted to thank the Senate very much for standing up for transparency and good governance in the case of our corporate regulator, which is very important.

As we mark International Women's Day, we also commemorate 50 years since a woman was first appointed to lead an Australian government agency and we celebrate her 90th birthday. I welcome Marie Coleman to the Senate. Marie's effectiveness as head of the Victorian Council of Social Service saw the Whitlam government appoint her to lead the newly created Social Welfare Commission. She was then Director of the Office of Childcare under the Fraser government, achieving major expansions in child care. Establishing the National Foundation for Australian Women, she campaigned unremittingly for paid parental leave. She deployed her experience navigating government to secure a Productivity Commission referral, shifting perceptions of paid parental leave as a social welfare issue to its correct framing as an economic reform. This strategy was decisive and the Labor government, of which I was a part, legislated paid parental leave in 2010. Senator Barbara Pocock, along with academic colleagues, also played a role. I am grateful she could join me here today in recognising Marie's contribution.

Those of us who've been the first of something must always be mindful of ensuring we are not the last. Marie Coleman lives by that. She has supported women to build on what she started. She is a generous mentor to many, including to me in my early years here. She is someone whose work has benefited all Australian women, someone of whom we can truly say 'because of her, we can'. Marie, thank you for a lifetime struggle for all of us. You deserve a much longer tribute, but for now I wish you joyous celebrations of your 90th birthday and many happy returns yet.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

It being two o'clock, we now move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, how many funds subject to Labor's doubling of the super tax are self-managed super funds?

I thank Senator Payne for the question. I'm not sure I have the exact number with me. I will come back to the Senate with it. But, as I've said a number of times this week, we expect the very modest change that we have announced in relation to lowering the concessional rate for tax concessions for balances over $3 million will affect around 80,000 individuals when it comes into effect, and, of that, there is certainly a proportion which are self-managed super funds. I'll see if I can find the exact number for Senator Payne during question time today.

Senator Payne, first supplementary.

Minister, can you categorically rule out any further changes by this government in this parliament to the taxation or regulation of self-managed super funds?

The government has made clear that this is the only change to superannuation taxation during this term. This change won't actually come into effect until after the next election, which is something those opposite, who are dying in a ditch on this issue, don't take into account. We have made a very modest change—

I have already answered the question, Senator Birmingham, if you were listening.

Order!

A point of order on relevance. I've been attempting to listen carefully to Senator Gallagher. Her response to what is a prospective question about the government ruling out any further changes appears to be hinging on the change they are currently making. I invite you to draw Senator Gallagher to the question about the government clearly ruling out any further changes affecting self-managed superannuation funds.

I have been listening, and I believe that the minister is being relevant. I'll invite her to continue.

If you had listened, I said very clearly that the government has made it clear that this is the only change to superannuation taxation arrangements that we are making this term. This one won't come into effect until after the next election. We have been clear about that. This is a very modest change to a very small number of people who are fortunate enough to have $3 million in their superannuation account.

Senator Payne, second supplementary.

Minister, having now broken Mr Albanese's election promise to not change taxes on superannuation and launched an assault targeted at self-managed superannuation funds, why should any Australian trust Labor not to further hike taxes or undermine choice in superannuation?

We are upfront about the challenges we've inherited. We have made a very modest change to a small number of people with superannuation balances in excess of $3 million. The average superannuation balance on International Women's Day in this country for women is $140,000. Women retire with less savings in their super, they have less assets, they earn less, and you are—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I'm waiting for quiet on my left. Minister, please continue.

I'm finished.

I was so carried away with saying happy birthday to Marie Coleman that I forgot to give the statement by leave concerning ministerial arrangements! I seek leave to make a statement concerning the ministerial arrangements.

Leave granted.

I inform the Senate that Senator Farrell, the Minister for Trade and Tourism, will be absent from question time today and tomorrow on account of ministerial business overseas. In his absence, ministers will represent portfolios in accordance with the letter that has been circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Mongolia, led by Mongolia's Minister of Education and Science, His Excellency Enkh-Amgalan and the Ambassador of Mongolia to Australia, His Excellency Davaasuren. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. On International Women's Day we look at how far we've come and where we're heading. Can the minister outline what's next on the Albanese government's agenda for women?

I thank Senator Walsh for the question and for her longstanding work in supporting women, particularly those on low incomes, in this country over many years. On International Women's Day, I would also like to associate myself with the comments and remarks made about Marie Coleman, who I acknowledge in the chamber today. Marie seems to have been a mentor and someone many of us have looked up to in this place, and it's a real privilege for me to be here as Minister for Women in a government that's pursuing many of the issues that Marie and her colleagues have campaigned for for many years. This is a government that puts women at the centre. I acknowledge all my women colleagues in this place and all the women parliamentarians who have come before us.

Over the years, Australia has made great progress advancing the status of women, but in a number of areas progress is slowing or has stalled. This government is working hard to put us on the path to achieving a better future for women in Australia. We're developing a National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, to help make Australia one of the best countries in the world for equality between men and women. This government is listening to women. We don't want to guess what life is like for women of all backgrounds; we want to listen to and hear from them. Today we launch public consultation on the strategy, including a survey and other materials to support individuals, communities and organisations to contribute to that strategy. We want to hear from Australians from all walks of life, especially women and girls, about what it's like in the areas of care, work, economic security, safety, health and beyond. We want this to be a national and respectful conversation. Today I've written to all my colleagues in this place to invite them to be part of this important national discussion in their electorates and in their communities.

Senator Walsh, first supplementary?

Can the minister outline what the government has already achieved for women since being elected last May?

I thank Senator Walsh for the question. We've been delivering on the commitments we took to the last election since coming to government in May 2022, through policies like investments in cheaper child care; 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave; boosting and expanding paid parental leave; gender-responsive budgeting, in the first budget in nearly a decade that cast a gendered lens over the budget; signing off, with states and territories, the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, with a record $1.7 billion to implement the plan; and supporting a wage increase for aged-care workers, of whom over 90 per cent are women. My colleague in the other place has established the National Women's Health Advisory Council to improve our health system and how it responds to women and girls. We've got funding and legislation to implement all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report, and we've introduced a bill to close the gender pay gap.

Senator Walsh, second supplementary?

We know that some women experience greater inequality. Can the minister update us on how the government is ensuring no women are left behind?

I thank Senator Walsh for the supplementary question. We know that some women face additional barriers that intersect with and compound their experience of gender inequality. The consultation launched today seeks feedback from all women. We're committed to shining a light on where we need to improve and where we need better data, and the report card, which has also been released today, is a step forward in that. We will be doing that every year, and we will be held to account and measuring our progress through that.

We're working in partnership with First Nations communities to develop an action plan as well as a standalone First Nations plan on family violence. This will build on the $424 million in additional funding for the Closing the Gap Implementation Plan, which was committed last month, and there were also additional investments in the October budget going directly to supporting First Nations people and First Nations women. Enshrining a voice to parliament will help ensure that First Nations women's voices are raised and heard on the policies that affect them and their communities.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. How should Australian companies pay franked dividends during periods when they are raising capital under the government's franking reforms?

This is another one that the opposition are opposed to. We inherited a budget with a $50 billion structural deficit, with pressures coming to us—a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt, debt that had doubled before the pandemic hit. This is the budget we inherited. All of the very modest changes that we're making, including closing some tax loopholes and protecting the integrity of the tax system through the changes we're making to franked dividends, the opposition is opposed to. It is something that raises a very modest $200 million when implemented. Again, they're the 'no-alition' with their head in the sand. They don't want to pay for anything. They don't want budget repair. They don't want to fix the energy crisis. They don't want to support energy power bill relief. They don't want to support housing for women. They don't want to support Aussie jobs.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Chandler?

President, the point of order is relevance. It was a very specific question. The minister has been responding for a minute and two seconds, and I would like her to be relevant to the question that I asked.

Thank you. The minister is being relevant. I'll listen to make sure the rest of the question is answered.

The changes to franking credits, through the off-market share buybacks arrangement, and the capital-raising measure, which those opposite announced and never implemented—another one: raise it, put it in there, never do it—are to ensure the integrity of the tax system and to close off loopholes. It's a reasonable, rational, measured response, very small, that assists with budget repair, and they are opposed to it. We will continue without them. It raises $200 million—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham?

President, this was quite a precise question, with a direct point made by Senator Chandler, asking about how Australian companies pay franking dividends during periods when they are raising capital. I would ask you to invite the minister, in the interests of direct relevance, to turn to the issue of companies raising capital under these reforms and how they are impacted.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong?

The minister is discussing the very policy reform that Senator Chandler asked about. I'd submit to you that is clearly directly relevant.

Thank you, Senator Wong.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I do believe that the minister is being relevant, so I invite her to continue.

Well, I've answered the question.

An opposition senator: No, you haven't.

I have! If the off-market share buyback arrangement—

Minister, please resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm asking for order, particularly on my left. Minister, please continue.

Thank you. The measure will align off-market share buybacks with on-market share buybacks, which I think is a sensible, rational tax integrity measure that raises a very modest amount of revenue and assists with budget repair. (Time expired)

Senator Chandler, a first supplementary question?

How does the minister explain the wording in the explanatory memorandum attached to the franking credit reforms that 'if an entity has never previously made a distribution then the entity will not have a practice of making distributions'?

I haven't got the explanatory memorandum before me, and I would want to see the context in which that was said. I mean, you're opposed to the reform. You're trying to blow it into something that it isn't. I'll have a look at the explanatory memorandum and see the context. I'm happy to look at the explanatory memorandum. I don't have it before me right now. But I do support closing off a tax loophole and ensuring the integrity of our taxation system—something that senators in this place used to have an interest in, but we don't expect any of that from the no-alition that are going to say no to absolutely everything, including sensible budget repair measures. You were budget vandals when you were in government and you're going to continue on with the vandalism from opposition.

Senator Chandler—

Senator Hume, I have a senator on her feet, and you are calling out.

I am not inviting you to answer and argue back. I'm simply calling you to order. Senator Chandler, a second supplementary question?

Just like with superannuation, Labor repeatedly promised not to make any changes to franking credits if they won government. The Prime Minister stated, 'Labor has heard the message clearly and we will not be taking any changes to franking credits to the next election.' Given that Mr Albanese promised no changes to franking credits prior to the election and is now doing the opposite in government, why should any Australian trust Labor not to make further tax grabs on their savings or investments?

Order!

Senator Hughes, I've called you to order.

And Senator McGrath. Minister, please answer the question.

Well, Senator Chandler's question is wrong. This change does not involve any change to franking credits or dividend imputations—and you know it, but it doesn't suit your narrative. So, now we know that you're opposed to everything. You're also opposed to tax integrity. You're opposed to closing off tax loopholes. We can add that to the list of things you don't agree with. So, no to housing for women and children escaping domestic violence, no to jobs in the manufacturing sector, no to power-bill belief, and now no to tax integrity and no to closing off tax loopholes. What do you stand for? Absolutely nothing.

Can I first acknowledge that it's International Women's Day. Happy International Women's Day to all, and to Marie Coleman, who's no longer in the chamber but whose presence is felt, and will be for many years.

So, today is International Women's Day, and we don't want cupcakes; we want equality. We want investment in women's safety, health and economic security. The government says it would love to do more, if it wasn't for a tight budget.

Senator Waters, you haven't addressed your question.

You are so right—maybe I needed to eat some of those cupcakes after all! My question is to the Minister representing herself, the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Happy International Women's Day. The government says it would love to do more if it wasn't for a tight budget, yet you've refused to scrap the stage 3 tax cuts that would give the balance sheet an extra $254 billion. The women's safety sector has said that $1 billion a year is what's needed to meet demand for frontline services so that no women or children have to be turned away when they seek help. Will the government commit to that level of funding to keep women safe?

I thank Senator Waters for the question and acknowledge her work and interests in the area of women's policy over a number of years. Specifically in response to the question she raises with me, we are very conscious of the need to continue to invest in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and the services and systems that support the implementation of that plan, including for First Nations women through their own action plan, which sits alongside that.

Since coming to government we have been, and are, putting our money where our mouth is on that. We made some investments in October. I'm working with the minister with the responsibility for women's safety and her assistant minister to look at further measures we can support in the upcoming budget. They are currently being considered by government. We are aware of the calls from the sector around the additional money that's required. These are some of the difficult decisions that I've been trying to school those opposite on, about how we make room for the services and supports we need in areas like ending violence against women and children. Meanwhile, they're arguing to maintain those high levels of concessionality for superannuation account holders with more than $3 million in their accounts.

These are the difficult choices before government. We're making those choices. I can guarantee that we are continuing to focus on making sure that we can make an actual difference in the lives of women in this country, particularly vulnerable women and women who experience violence as part of their family and how we can support children through that as well— (Time expired)

Senator Waters, your first supplementary question?

Paying superannuation on paid parental leave would cost around $200 million. Why won't the government prioritise closing the superannuation pay gap rather than turbocharging inequality by giving rich white men more in tax handouts?

Senator Waters raises a very important issue, which is the inequity that exists in the superannuation system for women. We know that women retire with considerably less money than men, and we know that the average super balance for women in this country is $140,000. I can see those who were so interested in super a second ago, all of a sudden aren't interested anymore!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Okay. Okay. There we are. Those opposite are awake now. They're awake now.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Order!

The average female super balance in this country is $140,000.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Wong!

We don't hear you shouting about that.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, on both sides of the chamber!

We've made it clear that we want to pay PPL.

Senator Wong and Senator Payne!

It's something we want to find room in the budget to do. When we can afford it we will do it.

Senator Waters, your second supplementary?

Homelessness and housing insecurity are at crisis levels, and the fastest growing cohort of people at risk of homelessness is women over the age of 45. It's not over 55 anymore. Post-COVID it's over 45. How many new affordable homes could be built with the $254 billion that you're intending to give in tax cuts to rich white men?

We agree that more accommodation and a greater supply of social and affordable housing and crisis housing is required to address the needs of women across the country. We are negotiating with the states and territories under a new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement that's being led by Julie Collins, from the other place, and we are also determined to get our Housing Australia Future Fund up. That fund, if established, would be an enduring and ongoing fund that allocates 30,000 social and affordable houses, of which a proportion would be dedicated to women, including women with children who are escaping violence.

I would urge people in this place, if they care about that—even if it's not exactly the model that they would choose—to support it, because this is what we will use to get more housing on the ground for women in those categories. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Noting that today Is International Women's Day, could the minister update the Senate on the situation facing women and girls in Iran and Afghanistan?

I thank Senator Green for her question and for her continued work for equality at home and beyond our shores.

The UN has described the status of women and girls in Iran as that of second-class citizens. Discrimination is entrenched in Iranian law and practice. But the women of Iran have not been cowed. Instead, these courageous women and girls and their allies have been at the forefront of protests, shouting, 'Women, life, freedom,' and the Australian government stands with them. We have called out Iran for its systematic discrimination against women and girls—most recently at the Human Rights Council last week. We have imposed sanctions on Iranians and Iranian entities involved in the violent crackdown on protesters.

We stand too with the women of Afghanistan, where women's rights have been going backwards under the Taliban. The UN has found that the Taliban's treatment of women and girls may even amount to a crime against humanity. Women have been banned from attending university and girls from secondary education. Their movements and access to employment have been restricted. Sexual and gender based violence has increased. So Australia is supporting the United Nations to provide health facilities and professionals to deliver reproductive health, counselling and protection services to vulnerable Afghan women and children, and last year we supported the World Food Program to provide food assistance to over 12 million women and girls. Australia and others have supported our partners to deliver life-saving health care, shelter, education, nutrition, protection and cash assistance.

There are many places in the world where we need to continue to work with the brave women and men who seek to improve the position of women and girls in societies where they are, regrettably and sadly, treated in these ways.

Senator Green, first supplementary?

Could the minister update the Senate on progress toward gender equality globally?

Unfortunately, it's not just Iran and Afghanistan. Women are facing setbacks around the world. The World Economic Forum has estimated that at the current rate of progress it will take—wait for it—132 years to reach full parity. It will take 132 years, on the current trajectory, for there to be full parity between men and women.

We also know that the crises of COVID-19, climate disruption and food shortages have hurt women and girls more. They have amplified existing inequalities, including gender inequality. According to the WEF, we saw a generational loss of gains in gender parity between 2020 and 2021, a documented step backwards in rates of livelihoods and poverty. Care Australia has estimated that 150 million more women than men are affected by food insecurity. We've seen documented declines in leadership and representation. (Time expired)

Senator Green, second supplementary?

Minister, what is the Albanese government doing to address global gender inequality and improve outcomes for women and girls?

The developments I have outlined are troubling, I think, to everyone in this chamber, and they remind us how much work there is to be done. But the Albanese government is acting. In our development program, we have reinstated a performance target requiring that 80 per cent of Australia's investments effectively address gender equality in implementation. We have also introduced a mandatory requirement that our ODA investments over $3 million have a gender equality objective. And, in 2022-23, we will provide $65 million through the Gender Equality Fund to respond to the needs, interests and rights of diverse women and girls, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. We have a steadfast commitment to advancing gender equality and the human rights of women and girls at home, in our region and globally. As I've said before, we take the world as it is, but we have to work to shape it for the better.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Does the Albanese government support the establishment of a sovereign, independent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nation in Australia, yes or no?

I think I understand the motivation behind Senator Hanson's question, and you will know of course that the issue of sovereignty is something that First Nations people, including in this place, have asserted very clearly. You would have heard Senator Stewart and others talk about the First Nations not having ceded their sovereignty. But if the question goes to two nations, we are the nation of Australia and what we seek to do, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, voice, treaty and truth is to deal with the reality of our past, to reconcile and to move forward together through those three processes, mechanisms, reforms—a voice first but also treaty and makarrata.

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

On that one, I don't feel I really got an answer, whether it was a yes or a no. I understand what you're saying about the Uluru statement. Does the Albanese government consider that all Australians, regardless of race, share sovereignty over Australia and its territories, yes or no?

With respect, Senator Hanson, I understand the motivation behind that question, and I would say to you that I think that the way that is phrased is a question that seeks to divide us. You and I both know we are all Australian citizens, but we do have unfinished business when it comes to our First Nations peoples. We as a country do have a road that we have to walk to bring us together, and I don't believe that road can be walked in good faith if we start to try and divide people in the way I think your question is seeking to do. You're entitled to your views, but what I would say to you is that we are all Australian citizens, some of us come—

Order, Senator Thorpe.

We are all Australian citizens, but there is work that needs to be done to recognise the place of our First Nations people in our Constitution and in our society. (Time expired)

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

Senator Wong, I have never tried to segregate or divide this nation. I've only ever called for equality—

Is there a question, Senator Hanson?

ever since I came into the parliament.

Senator Hanson, a question!

My question is: does the Albanese government support the principle that all Australians should be equally supported according to need, not race, yes or no?

Senator Hanson, I think that, in order to ensure equality, governments need to recognise that some people have not been and are not treated equally in great part because of their race. And you only need to look at the history of our First Nations people to recognise that; so, yes, sometimes equality does require that we recognise the way in which race has impacted upon the equality of some of our peoples. I do not think that is a bad thing. I think that is a principle of inclusion, not of separation and not of discrimination, but a principle of inclusion, acceptance and respect.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. National Transport Commission data shows our truckies would pay an additional $2.6 billion in taxes and charges over three years under the proposal being considered by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King. Everything Australians grow on farm, or they make in a factory, or they buy in a shop has to travel by truck. Will these extra taxes and charges add to inflation and make a difficult inflationary situation even worse?

I think Senator Davey is talking about the heavy vehicle road user charges. Is that correct? Yes. Any decision to increase heavy vehicle charges is a collective decision of all state and territory governments, and no decision has been taken yet. Those charges are intended to recover the heavy vehicle share of road expenditure by all governments, and the principle that heavy vehicle operators should continue their share towards the cost of roads is shared by government and industry. At the previous Infrastructure and Transport Ministers Meeting, ministers agreed in principle, across all governments, to a three-year charging cycle following calls from industry for longer-term certainty, but no final decision has been reached on these charges.

In response to the specifics of the question as it relates to the Treasury portfolio as opposed to the infrastructure and transport portfolio, the senator asked whether any increase in these charges—on which a decision hasn't been made—would have an effect on inflation. That is one of the reasons why we have an economic plan which is designed to ensure that government, through our revenue and expenditure, is not adding to inflation in the economy. But inflation is not determined by one charge in one part of the economy. It's the entire budget response that this government will be cautious and careful about, because we do not want to make the inflation challenge—which is real in this country and is hurting households—stay around for any longer than is necessary to bring it back into the target rate and into a more normalised setting. That is exactly why we want to concentrate on our economic plan to ensure that we're doing what we need to do. (Time expired).

Senator Davey, first supplementary?

I think I need to be a bit more specific. Has the government received any advice from the Department of Finance or from Treasury as to the inflationary impact of Labor's proposed truckie taxes and whether they could add further pressure for even higher increases on interest rates? If so, what is that advice?

As I said, this is not Labor's charge—if you want to call it that way. This is something that's negotiated across governments at the state and territory levels, where I think there still are some Liberal governments in power. So I think it's disingenuous, as is your entire question time attack, really, about—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, it is, because you can't actually argue on the merits, so you try and dress it up into something that it's not. No decision has been taken. As to what advice Treasury and Finance provide, I'm not going to go into advice. I can certainly say that I have not been provided—

An opposition senator interjecting—

Thank you. I am not aware of—

Senator McGrath! Senator Davey, second supplementary?

Minister, given the potential impact of increasing truckie taxes on transporters and, more importantly, consumers and their grocery bills and national inflation, will the government rule out increasing taxes on Australian truckies, or will this become another one of Mr Albanese's broken promises, of which the number is mounting?

I should see if Senator McGrath would like to answer this on my behalf.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Yes, exactly. Have a go; have a crack. You must be so proud of yourself on International Women's Day. Such a champion! Good on you. Well done. Opposition life is hard.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber!

Senator Wong, I have a senator on her feet. Senator Davey.

Point of order: relevance. My question had nothing to do with International Women's Day, and I'd like her to stick to the question.

Senator Davey, the minister has just started and she is being relevant. I am more interested at this point in there being order across the chamber so that I might hear the rest of her answer.

As the senator knows, this is a matter that's at the decision-making table of infrastructure and transport ministers, who have not made a decision. It is across state and territory governments, which are involved in discussions with the Commonwealth. So I think it's appropriately resolved at that level, and perhaps you could lobby your colleagues if you're so concerned about the position they might be taking.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. This week Senator Dodson, a former commissioner of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, has called out your government—his own government—over its inaction on implementing the recommendations put forward by the royal commission over 30 years ago. Can you tell me if the government is going to ensure full implementation of all 339 of the recommendations?

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your question. I agree—and I would like to think that everyone in this chamber would agree—with Senator Dodson that, 32 years after the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the rates of incarcerated First Nations adults and youth are unacceptable and the rates of deaths in custody among First Nations adults and youth are unacceptable. There are many members of our government, and those across the chamber, who have said before—and will I'm sure keep saying—that First Nations incarceration rates and deaths in custody are a national shame.

Coming into government, it was clear to us, unfortunately, that for the past nine years First Nations justice was just not a priority for the former government. That's why last year the Attorney-General worked closely with his colleague Ms Burney to form a First Nations justice task force with officials from the Attorney-General's Department and the National Indigenous Australians Agency.

Senator Thorpe, a point of order?

Yes, on relevance.

The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister, please continue.

A point of order on relevance: the question was: when are you going to implement the recommendations in full?

Senator Thorpe, I did, on your first point, say that the minister was being relevant, and I am going to say on your second point that the minister is being relevant. Senator Birmingham?

On the point of order and the handling of points of order, this is a seemingly new practice—to rule before a senator has even had a chance to put their case. On Senator Thorpe's first point of order, she had no more than got the word 'relevance' out of her mouth than you ruled against her, without hearing the basis upon which she was claiming relevance. I would, President, invite you to reflect upon that, in terms of your handling the points of order. I understand it where they are repetitious or take approaches that are disorderly in the chamber. But in this case, I think a first point of order from a senator on a question deserves the opportunity for that senator to have the chance to make their point.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong, I'm going to respond, and then I'll come to you. Senator Birmingham, as I have pointed out many times on points of order, I have senators stand and make statements and repeat questions and go to great lengths, which is unnecessary. In Senator Thorpe's case—and my apologies if she hadn't finished her point—I understood that she had finished, so I ruled. I'm going to go to Senator Wong.

Perhaps I could make a couple of points in relation to your ruling. The first is that it was in fact Senator Ryan who first started to truncate the submissions on points of order, because his view what that a number of us—and I may have been one of those!—made too many contributions on our feet on points of order. I was cut off on a number of occasions by Senator Ryan, as the President, being of the view that he had already come to a view about the substance of the point of order. I have to say, Senator, I thought you were saying the word and then sitting down. We have no objection, if the President wishes to call you, to you making your submission if you wish to do that.

Senator Thorpe, on your first point of order: if you hadn't finished, I invite you to make a short statement about your point of order.

Thank you for the indulgence, President. My point of order was on relevance. The question was relating to if the government is going to implement the 339 recommendations that will save black lives today.

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. You went to statements that Senator Dodson had made, and in general, about the royal commission and other matters. I do believe the minister was being relevant. I'm going to invite him to continue.

As I was saying: last year, in recognition that there is still more work to do in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission, the Attorney-General established a First Nations justice task force with the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ms Burney, and that contains officials from both of their agencies. That task force is leading the design, coordination, and implementation of this government's historic $99 million First Nations Justice package. That includes unprecedented Commonwealth investment in justice re-investment; unprecedented Commonwealth investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services to provide culturally appropriate legal assistance in coronial inquiries; and a commitment to real-time reporting of deaths in custody. The government is also working closely with states and territories on a proposal to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. We acknowledge there's more work to be done in this space. It needs to happen, and we're getting on with doing it.

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary.

Thank you, Minister, for your response. What will your government do to support your own special envoy, the father of reconciliation, taking urgent action on the implementation of the recommendations, and what time frame are you operating under, given it's been over 30 years already?

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for drawing attention to someone that I know we are all extremely proud to have within our ranks, Senator Dodson; not just the father of reconciliation but, of course, a commissioner in the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. In fact, on a personal level, I think that's probably where I first became aware of Senator Dodson's incredible advocacy on behalf of our First Peoples. Senator Dodson has been a lifelong advocate for and a leader amongst First Nations Australians. I know that he's making a very strong contribution as a member of the Albanese government to deliver on those recommendations and to improve the position of First Nations people in our country every single day. I've come to regard Senator Dodson as a friend. I've learnt a lot from him. I know that he is someone of incredible goodwill and puts the needs and rights of First Nations people at the centre of what he does every single day. We can all learn from him, and we can all take up his call to do more in this area.

Senator Thorpe, second supplementary.

THORPE () (): One of the key factors impacting deaths in custody is access to health care in prisons. By making Medicare in prisons available, First Nations people could access Aboriginal health checks and culturally safe health care. Years ago Labor made a policy commitment to Medicare in prisons. When are you going to make this a reality?

Of course, our government is doing everything it possibly can to rebuild Medicare after years of destruction, whether that be in the general community or in prisons. We have been on the record on many occasions saying that, after nearly 10 years of Liberal-National government, Medicare is broken. That applies whether we're talking about people seeking to go to a GP in their community or whether we're talking about prisons. These are important issues to make sure that all prisoners—and in particular First Nations prisoners, given the unacceptably high rates of both incarceration and deaths in custody—get the health treatment that they deserve. I have every confidence that, through the leadership of people like Senator Dodson, Senator McCarthy, Ms Burney, Ms Scrymgour and many others, this government will be doing more in this space than any government we've ever seen.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Watt. What is the Australian government doing to transform Australian industry, and why is it important to improve Australia's sovereign capability?

Thank you, Senator O'Neill, who I know is a very strong supporter of the manufacturing industry, particularly in her state of New South Wales. A key commitment that the Albanese government made at the election was to rebuild Australian manufacturing after 10 years of neglect and turning our back on manufacturing under the former government. The Albanese government committed to build a future made in Australia, and the National Reconstruction Fund is a key part of doing that. The National Reconstruction Fund will provide finance to co-invest with industry to drive investments to grow advanced manufacturing and support businesses to innovate and create more good blue-collar jobs right across our country. The National Reconstruction Fund will also leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths and shore up our supply chains.

We saw through the pandemic how our supply chains were under huge pressure. Products we expected were hard to get. Across a range of products our supermarkets and pharmacies couldn't get us what we needed.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber!

We couldn't get ventilators, we couldn't get PPE, and who could forget going to supermarkets with those empty shelves when we couldn't get the products that we needed? That was when some of us took note of the fact that our manufacturing industry had been run down, and some of us took note that we needed to be able to stand on our own two feet and make more things here. That's when the seed for the National Reconstruction Fund was planted. We know you hate manufacturing and we know you sent the car industry offshore. We know you don't like manufacturing jobs, but you finally have a chance to repent and get behind the National Reconstruction Fund.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to building resilient supply chains and national sovereign capability to reinforce the prosperity, security, and wellbeing of the nation. The National Reconstruction Fund will attract investment, it will help to grow the Australian economy, and, most importantly, it will deliver good quality manufacturing jobs across our country.

Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?

Minister, how will the National Reconstruction Fund support manufacturing businesses and create manufacturing jobs, particularly in regional Australia?

When we think about manufacturing, we think about regional Australia, places like Gladstone, the Hunter Valley, Whyalla, Geelong, Bell Bay and so much of Western Australia. Some of us get off the North Shore every now and then, Senator Hughes, and some of us get into regional Australia and see what's going on in the manufacturing industry. That's because regional Australia is a manufacturing powerhouse, and the National Reconstruction Fund will make our regions even stronger. A number of the National Reconstruction Fund priority areas are—we're back on the North Shore!

Order, Senator Watt.

You don't think about rural Australia; you don't know where it is.

Order, Senator Hughes, I haven't called you yet.

I would like to ask Senator Watt to withdraw the commentary that he's making in deriding the North Shore of Sydney, not that I live on the North Shore of Sydney—

Senator Hughes—

and I have got off the North Shore of Sydney many times. Unlike you I lived in—

Senator Hughes, resume your seat!

Thank you—

Senator Watt. I haven't called you either. I am going to remind you it's not appropriate to single out particular senators, and I'm going to ask you to direct your comments through the chair. Please continue.

I withdraw. As I was saying, the National Reconstruction Fund priorities have a very strong regional presence in sectors like resources, agriculture, defence and renewables. It's no wonder, therefore, that so many industry groups with a large regional presence are backing the National Reconstruction Fund—to begin with, an organisation I've heard of called the National Farmers Federation who, when Labor announced this commitment, talked about the opportunities for a renaissance in regional manufacturing. I would encourage all senators, particularly a little group over there to listen to groups like the NFF. (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?

Minister, are there any threats to delivering this support for Australian manufacturers?

Well, Senator O'Neill, it is my melancholy duty to say that there are threats to this proposal. While the resources and agriculture industry are saying yes, yes, yes to the National Reconstruction Fund, those opposite keep saying no, no, no. These are industries that the National Party of all groups are supposed to be champions for in this place.

I take the interjection from Senator McKenzie that it is a coalition, and perhaps that suggests that, maybe, there's not full agreement between the Liberals and the Nationals on this point. That would be very interesting to explore. I note that, in the past, Nationals Senator Matt Canavan has acknowledged that the past 20 years of federal governments, including his own, have dropped the ball on Australian manufacturing. He said that they dropped the ball, but there has been a real renaissance in manufacturing in Australia. Well, Senator Canavan and all the Nationals: I invite you to join with us with the National Farmers Federation and with the Australian Aluminium Council to get behind regional manufacturing. There's an opportunity to stand up to the north shore Liberals and back regional Australia. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Your government went to the election with a promise to prioritise Australians' access to health care and reduce the cost of medicines. Given that promise, why has the Albanese government decided to remove an innovative life-changing form of insulin, Fiasp, from the PBS, sending the price soaring to unaffordable levels for 15,000 Australians with diabetes who rely on it?

I thank Senator Liddle for the question. Senator Liddle is right in her question about our commitments to improving access to health care, improving Medicare and dealing with the crisis in primary care, which is another of those issues that were left to us after 10 years of neglect and dysfunction from those opposite, when it was harder to see a doctor and more expensive to access health care. We are doing everything we can to reduce the price of medicines. In fact, the change that came in on 1 January has reduced the price of most pharmaceuticals from $42 a script to $30 a script.

In relation to the insulin medication that Senator Liddle has raised, this was a decision of PBAC, which is an independent expert body which advises the Australian government about the listings of medicine and comprises experts in the fields of medicine, health, economics, social policy, health technology and pharmacology. The health minister was made aware on 22 February of the company's intention to delist this medication from the PBS from 1 April. We understand that this is causing concern for people who are using that medication. The minister has asked his department to work with the company to look at resolving the matter. The PBAC has advised that, due to the availability of other medicines, the removal of this particular medication from the PBS will not result in unmet clinical need. (Time expired)

Senator Liddle, a first supplementary?

So you're doing nothing.

Senator Ruston, you've got one of your own senators on her feet, ready to ask a question. Senator Liddle, please continue.

Minister, your government went to the election with a promise to prioritise Australians' access to health care and make it easier to see a doctor, which is particularly important for rural, regional and remote Australians. Given that promise, why has the Albanese Labor government ripped GPs out of rural, regional and remote Australia by changing the distribution priority areas for overseas trained doctors, making it harder for millions of Australians in those areas to see a doctor?

With respect, Senator Liddle's question is not correct in saying that Labor has ripped GPs out of areas. That is simply not true.

Honestly, to have the interjections from Senator Ruston, who was a member of the ERC that sat there and watched while Medicare fell into crisis and areas like workforce were not dealt with while there were delays through the immigration system for health professionals to come here—we are now fixing and cleaning that up—

The interjections are outrageous! Honestly! It's like she hopes that everyone has amnesia from nine years of failure. Well, we remember. We remember, Senator Ruston, what you did to the healthcare system in this country. Minister Butler and this government are fixing it. We're fixing it bit by bit, with a bigger workforce, with difficult decisions, with looking at where we can make investments and looking at how we can fix primary care and ensure that people in regional and rural Australia have access— (Time expired)

Senator Liddle, second supplementary?

Minister, another promise was to prioritise Australians access to health care and protect Medicare. Given that promise, why has the Albanese Labor government slashed Medicare subsidised mental health support in half, removing access to psychology sessions from the Australians who need the most support? Why are you breaking promises on medicines, country doctors, Medicare and mental health?

The question is wrong on all three issues.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It is! It's wrong!

Opposition senators interjecting—

We get what you're doing. You ask incorrect questions and then I get to answer them, which is what I'm doing now.

We are the party of Medicare. We are the party that built Medicare; we are the party that will save Medicare. We are the party that will make investments in health care. We will make medicines cheaper. We will have new models of care, like urgent care centres. Are you opposed to those as well? Is the 'no-alition' opposed to those as well?

We will make it easier to bring in a workforce that we so desperately need in this country. You had failed to do that and left millions of people with visas waiting to come into the country. We're fixing the backlog to try to ensure that the people Senator Liddle raises, people living in rural and regional Australia, actually get the health care they deserve because it declined so badly under your watch! That's exactly we're doing! (Time expired)

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), which requires that estimates questions on notice be answered within 30 days, I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care as to why answers to 13 questions have not been provided within the requisite time. Those 13 questions are SQ22 Nos 366, 368, 531, 593; and SQ23 question Nos 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 19.

I acknowledge the notice that Senator Ruston gave. On the issue at hand, the department has provided the advice that 358 questions in writing and on notice from the estimates hearing held in October 2022, for those questions that were provided on time, the Department of Health and Aged Care provided on-time responses to 94 per cent of questions received.

I can advise the Senate that although it's a different number to the one Senator Ruston just used, approximately 20 questions in writing arising from November estimates are outstanding, and the department advises it's expected that these will be tabled by the end of the week. The Department of Health and Aged Care has already received approximately 905 questions in writing from those hearings, of which 300 come from one senator alone. So, there are a lot of questions that the department of health are trying to answer in the relevant time frame. There are no questions awaiting clearance through the minister's office; they've all been cleared. We're just waiting to get those outstanding ones from the department of health.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's inability to provide an explanation as to why all of these questions have not been responded to within the statutory time frame.

It's interesting to note that the minister in response to this particular question came in and listed the number of questions that have been put on notice to the department. It is quite extraordinary, when you consider that a greater number of questions were put on notice by those opposite when they were in opposition. I would also put on the record that the reason these questions are put on notice is that time after time of asking for answers to questions there is a failure by the department in estimates, and often in this place, to provide answers to those particular questions.

It's also interesting that I did give notice to the department, the agencies and minister at estimates that I was seeking answers to these remaining questions, because they relate to a particular group or set of questions that I think the public has every right to have answers to. They're not particularly onerous questions to answer. As an example, one was simply about overseas travel up until November 2022—not a particularly long period of time during this government's term—by the five ministers within the Health and Aged Care portfolio. As to why the department would still have that question and it has not been answered, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care has said that none of the questions that have been unanswered are in the minister's office. I cannot understand why the department wouldn't be able to answer a question around travel arrangements. One would have thought the minister's office might have been able to do that.

One of the more concerning questions that remain is about an outstanding amount of $312.6 million that has been allocated within the agency for ICT changes. That's $312.6 million, of a budget line item, with no detail. We sought additional detail on the expenditure of that money. Now, some five months later, we still don't have any information about this, which was contained in the October budget. We're talking about transparency around the expenditure of quite a significant amount of money. The purpose of the estimates process is to get information around the expenditure of money. But $312.6 million, apparently, is not sufficient to warrant responding to.

We had a simple question about how many conferences the minister has sent departmental officials to, to attend on their behalf. It asked how many times the minister has been invited to attend conferences where departmental officials have been sent to represent the minister. It does not strike me as something terribly difficult for the department to answer—or, for that matter, the minister's office, because if the minister had been invited instead of the department they would have had copies of those invitations.

Just a minute ago, we saw Senator Liddle ask a very serious question about cuts to mental health that have occurred under this current government, the Medicare funded subsidised rebates to people with serious mental health conditions. We didn't get one word about mental health, but in these questions that we have not had answered one of the issues was about the consultations undertaken prior to the decision to cut mental health.

Another really serious question that was asked—we often hear those opposite talk about the great things they've done, since coming into government, in health. One of them was a copycat policy of ours, around providing continuous glucose monitoring devices to people with type 1 diabetes. It was received with great acclamation, and we have seen the minister and assistant ministers running around heralding the great achievements of this. We asked questions about the apparent severe shortage of the provision of these devices to Australians with diabetes. This question was put on notice and we still don't have an answer.

We do not know what the shortages are, we do not know how many Australians are waiting for this life-changing device to be made available to them. Yet we have this government running around telling Australia how fabulous they are because, apparently, they've fulfilled this promise—but they can't answer the question as to whether they have or not.

There were a number of questions on notice around a piece of legislation that was pushed through the parliament yesterday. I asked a number of questions of two representing ministers about details that sit behind changes to private hospitals and the use of implantable devices. I raised these questions in November and again, in more detail, in the February estimates. So for the government to arrive in here yesterday with the bills before the chamber and still not be able to answer questions—questions that have been on notice for some period of time—once again just points to the fact that we have a government that is absolutely prepared to push legislation through with no detail and refuse to answer the questions that are legitimately being asked by those on this side to make sure that we have transparency and that the sectors that need to know the answers to these questions have them.

They're just some examples of the kinds of questions that are on notice that haven't been answered. They are not questions that would have required an onerous amount of work by the department to provide the answers. They are reasonably simple question, and quite clearly, in the absence of answers to those questions, you'd have to suggest that the government either are hiding something or haven't done anything and are not prepared to admit to that. I would say that, for a government that had been elected on a platform of transparency, the opaqueness and refusal to provide details about things that are tremendously important would suggest that, once again, their guarantee of a transparent government was nothing more than every other promise that they made: a headline promise that they never had had any intention of ever delivering on.

I also rise to take note of the minister's answer or, rather, excuses. Senator Ruston has outlined why questions that have been placed on the Notice Paperand, as we know, senators are entitled to place questions on the Notice Paper and expect a response within the allocated time of 30 days—have not yet been answered.

The point that Senator Ruston makes is actually a point that the Senate needs to take note of. The platform that Mr Albanese went to the Australian people on was all about integrity and transparency. In fact, prior to the election he was very vocal when he made announcements to the Australian people that, if elected, both he, as the Prime Minister, and his ministers, as part of the Albanese government, would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in everything they would do. But, as we know, it was all talk before the election. Just as with so many of the promises that they made to the Australian people—and we can go through them shortly—what you now have are broken promises from a tricky government. This is a government that prior to the election talked big on integrity, accountability and transparency yet, once elected to office, fails to hold itself to the standards that it set for itself prior to the election.

Senator Ruston raised an issue with the minister today in relation to questions in the health portfolio that have not yet been answered. I myself, prior to question time today, raised with Senator Watt—as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Burke—that I too would be raising this in relation to my portfolio after question time. I had 155 questions that had been asked in January of this year to which the responses, which had been due to be tabled on 9 February 2023, were still outstanding. Lo and behold, just before question time was finalised today, Minister Burke tabled the answers to the questions. Interestingly, I thought that my office would be sent 155 answers. One might expect that, for 155 questions, there would be 155 answers. Imagine my surprise, colleagues, when I was given one piece of paper. So much for integrity, transparency and accountability! There was one piece of paper responding to questions Nos 1162 to 1317. There's quite a jump in between, let me assure you. The question date was 10 January 2023, and the Table Office due date was 9 February 2023. Just before question time today, after the minister has been notified that I, too, would be moving a motion to take note of a failure by the minister to uphold the standards that Mr Albanese told the Australian people that both he and his ministers would be implementing if and when they were elected to government—transparency, integrity and accountability—I suddenly get one page. It is a global answer to 155 questions, but it does inform me—and this is the good news, colleagues—that the office of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the department have undertaken a review of my questions on notice 1162 to 1317.

So at least it's a step in the right direction. Obviously they opened the file that was sent to them and they at least reviewed them. And then quite literally, as part of administering the workplace relations system, the minister, the minister's office and the department met with employee and employer representatives, for example, to consult on policy development. This is the beauty of the answer, though: 'Contact with some of the named representatives may have occurred in this context.' Well, 'may have'—what does 'may have' mean, in particular for a government that, again, prior to the election, espoused virtues of integrity, transparency and accountability?

What we have here is, quite frankly, contempt for the Australian Senate. And that is not just me talking. I reflect on comments made by those who are now in government when they were in opposition. In particular, I have to say, the now Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus, is somebody who is a great preacher; I wouldn't necessarily say that he is a practiser, but he does like preaching, as so many have stated, in relation to accountability and integrity. In fact, Mr Dreyfus proudly told the Office of the Information Commissioner, in a speech on International Right to Know Day last year—this is very interesting—that information held by government and public institutions is a public resource. I'm assuming he thought that was a complete, total and utter joke. He also said that a culture of transparency within government is everyone's responsibility. Perhaps what he should have done, though, was put in brackets 'except for the following ministers'—in this case Minister Burke: again, 155 questions on notice, 155 questions outstanding as at 8 March and then, prior to question time, a one-page answer in relation to all these questions.

But also Mr Dreyfus, clearly not worried about practising what he preaches, said this: 'Appropriate, prompt and proactive disclosure of government-held information informs community, increases participation and enhances decision-making, builds trust and confidence, is required and permitted by law and improves efficiency.' Again, I'm a little confused. What part of treating the Senate with contempt, by providing a one-page answer to 155 questions well after the 30-day time period has expired, actually fits within 'appropriate'? Absolutely not. 'Prompt'? Definitely not. 'Proactive disclosure'? Well, absolutely not there. 'Informs community'? Well, one page doesn't inform us of much. 'Increases participation and enhances decision-making, builds trust and confidence and is required and permitted by law and improves efficiency'? Well, the answers that I have been provided with—or, rather the one-page answer—clearly does not do any of that. But, then again, now that they are in government, those on the other side are clearly holding themselves to very, very different standards to what they preached prior to the election.

Look at what now Minister Watt said in June 2021, just over 20 months ago. This was in relation to a failure to provide answers to questions on notice in a timely fashion. Those on the other side were also entitled to raise this when we were in government. But the problem is that they've then got to actually look at the answers they gave when they were in opposition and judge themselves and hold themselves to the standards that they screamed that the other side were required to uphold when we were in government. This is what Minister Watt said: 'We deserve answers and transparency.' He went further and said, 'It is not negotiable, and it should not be negotiable, to comply with standing orders and properly answer those questions.' Well, perhaps Minister Watt, on behalf of senators in this place, may actually raise that with both the Prime Minister and Minister Burke in terms of the way they have responded to the questions that I had on notice and certainly in the way that Senator Ruston's questions have not been answered despite, again, the standards by which Mr Albanese said his government would be judged if, and in due course, they were elected.

As others on the other side have all said, sometimes you actually need to read what you preached when you were in opposition to ensure that you are practising it when in government. Senator Marielle Smith said, on 15 October 2019:

I am relatively new to this place, but it doesn't really seem like an unreasonable request to me that these questions are answered within 30 days.

It's not an unreasonable request, Senator Smith.

Senator Sheldon, on 15 October 2019, said: 'When you answer the questions it drives results, and it drives accountability. This is what this parliament is for.' And then I have to say, with all due respect to poor Senator Ciccone, I will have to remind you of what you stated on 3 December 2019, but I'm sure you impress upon your ministers this:

It is a fundamental responsibility of this place to hold any government of the day to account. The Australian community expect us as senators to ask these very questions. These questions need to be asked. For any minister of the Crown to simply ignore this place—to disrespect the Senate and, through it, the Australian community—is very much unacceptable.

I have to say, it was very well said, Senator Ciccone. It is just a shame that both the Prime Minister of Australia and, in my case, Minister Burke, have not listened to what are your very wise words.

As Senator Ruston has clearly articulated—as is evident from what those on the other side said when they were in opposition and certainly by the actions of the now Albanese government ministers but, in particular, the Prime Minister himself—they set themselves the standards of being a government that would have integrity, be transparent with the Senate and the other place and the Australian people, and certainly provide accountability. And yet, day after day after day—and we haven't even reached the first year anniversary of the election—all we, in this Senate and the Australia people, are seeing is a government that doesn't really care what it said prior to the election, a government that once elected turns its back on the promises that it made, a government that fails to hold itself to the standards it set and, quite frankly, is a government that is just full of broken promises.

I rise to take note of the failure to answer questions. I think it is a systemic problem across this government. There are basically three mechanisms where we can get transparency on key issues for the Australian people. We have the questions on notice processes, which, as Senator Cash has already detailed, has not being respected by the government. Then there are the orders for production of documents, which, I must say, have also been regularly ignored. Then there is, of course, the mechanism of freedom of information, which is available to any citizen. What you often see from this government is a tendency to merge a freedom of information request lodged by a citizen, who may also be a senator at the same time, with a question on notice or with an order for production of documents. Of course, these things are not supposed to merge. They are supposed to be treated separately. But we see a deliberate corruption of these processes across the board and, by using that term, I don't mean to say that people are corrupt but I mean to say that the process is often corrupted in the sense that it is not respected for what it should be.

I have lodged, for better or worse, many questions on notice through Senator Gallagher's office on behalf of Minister Jones. These things range from detailed questions on financial advice, policy, superannuation policy and matters to do with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The government is now sitting on a key test in relation to these matters because, after yesterday's motion on this report into the ASIC deputy chair, the government will have to decide whether it will release a report that the Senate voted overwhelmingly for the government to release. We haven't called on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to make the report public. We've called on the government through the Treasury and the Treasurer to deliver that report. It will be up to the Treasurer to comply with that order. I would say that it would be very risky territory for the Treasurer to hide behind some strange reasoning not to release a report which cost taxpayers $200,000.

Taxpayers forked out $200,000 for a secret investigation into an ASIC commissioner which was covered up by ASIC, or ASIC attempted to cover it up, at Senate estimates. Fancy that. The corporate regulator—the organisation which is required to hold Australian companies to account—is covering up an investigation into one of its own. Is there any wonder why corporate Australia regularly breaks the laws we set here in Canberra if corporate Australia doesn't take ASIC seriously, if ASIC's reputation is in the toilet and if people don't fear ASIC? We see a repeat of lawlessness, and then we see royal commissions make recommendations which are ignored.

One of the core problems here is that the law enforcement agencies are not doing their jobs and then the government of the day seeks to cover it up. This is going to be a key test, and almost all of the questions that have been asked in the Treasury portfolio since the election have not been answered properly. I refer here to question on notice No. 356, in which I asked how many meetings Minister Jones had had with stakeholders in his review of the best financial interests duty that the Treasury is conducting. I got no answer. Then, in question on notice No. 565, I asked the same minister, Minister Jones:

Is the Minister aware of the disclosures made by AustralianSuper on Wednesday 14 September 2022, in their 2022 annual members' meeting notice.

In that meeting notice, because of regulations that had been made by the government that super fund was able to cover up over $100 million in related party transactions and $1 million in payments to unions. I asked subsequent questions of the minister about whether he was aware of these huge cover-ups of key information. Again, there were no answers.

It is a very regrettable situation that the government is making policy judgements to do certain things. It is asked about them in the usual way, through the means that we have here in the chamber and through questions on notice, and the government is deciding not to provide that information. That is showing that the government holds the chamber in contempt, and it is a pattern of behaviour in which all the transparency measures are treated poorly by the government.

There was a long and twisted debate about the creation of an integrity commission, which I personally have favoured the establishment of for many years. A lot of people made the argument to have an integrity commission as if there were no other integrity measures or no other transparency measures as part of our system of government. One of the great things about our system of government is that we have the committee system and we have Senate estimates. We have these transparency measures, and if they're treated poorly they will be eroded over time. Therefore, the creation of an integrity commission will have less power or less capacity to improve our system in the long run if the other measures are watered down.

A government needs to respect the institutions that it inherits over time. The failure to address questions that are asked through proper means and methods is hugely regrettable. Always pointing the finger at past practices is not a very good answer. I'm sure that there have been cases in the past where governments have not answered questions properly, and I think that is hugely regrettable. Governments who want to preach to the electorate that they are going to be the paragon of virtue and the paragon of integrity should, of course, hold themselves to that standard. It's only reasonable that that's what an opposition would seek a government to do. If we are asking reasonable questions in accordance with the rules, they should be answered within a reasonable time frame. At least the substance of the answers should be given, rather than fobbed off.

It concerns me that answers aren't given. It also concerns me that, when answers are given, they're not actually given, but the greatest concern I have here is the meshing together of processes which aren't supposed to be meshed together. If I put a question on notice to the minister, I'm not supposed to get an answer back saying, 'We've got an FOI request from you.' They're supposed to be treated as if they are not intersecting with one another. Regularly, we're receiving correspondence back from ministers, saying, 'We have your FOI request, even though you've asked a question on notice.' Of course, I've asked the FOI as Citizen Bragg, not as Senator Bragg, so I wouldn't expect those things to overlap. We hope that the government can do better here. It's an important part of the institution, which we don't want to see eroded over time.

I will associate myself with colleagues of mine who have stood up and made a contribution on the very important issue of transparency. We heard about it throughout the election campaign. Indeed, I was elected in 2019, and almost every question time the topic of transparency and integrity was raised. It was something that the Albanese government—then the Albanese opposition—took to the Australian people, saying they were going to be the new measure of transparency, as Australians expect. However, over nearly 12 months now, a pattern of complete avoidance of transparency has developed, and when there is an opportunity to be up-front and transparent this government doesn't take it seriously.

I associate myself with everything Senator Ruston, Senator Cash and Senator Bragg have said. I thought it was quite interesting that Senator Cash, in the contribution that she made, reflected on some of the comments that my colleagues on the other side were making in the last term, when they were on this side. Senator Cash referenced a statement that my good friend Senator Sheldon made. He said that when questions are asked there should be progress—or words to that effect. He said that things should happen, and he was absolutely right. What we need to see is this government starting to take its responsibilities more seriously. At the very least, those opposite need to take this chamber and the processes Senator Bragg was speaking about more seriously and understand the importance of their role in ensuring good accountability and good government.

I was going through some of the questions that Senator Ruston is waiting on—questions that she's put to the Minister for Health and Aged Care in relation to various issues of the health portfolio. They're hardly 'gotcha' questions; they're not there just to trip the government up. Some of them relate to very serious issues that many Australians are facing. Just over 12 months ago, I had someone come into my office; it was the father of a child who has juvenile diabetes. This father—Geoff was his name—explained to me that, for a child who has a continuous glucose monitoring device, the worst day of their life is their 21st birthday because that's when they lose access to that device. It's not covered by Medicare for adults. Many of my colleagues would have heard similar stories in their electorate offices as people came forward. There was quite an active campaign to convince the government of the day that it was important to ensure that adults got access to those devices. I remember engaging with the minister for health. Through the election campaign, the health minister at the time, Greg Hunt, made a commitment on behalf of the Australian government that, should the coalition be elected, they would provide those devices to adults. Thankfully, the Labor party matched that commitment.

So here we have a question that goes to what you are doing. You said you would do it. It was part of your election commitment.

They jumped on the 'me too' bandwagon.

You jumped on the 'me too' bandwagon. That's right, Senator Hughes. They jumped straight on it, and that's good. We applauded the fact that there was unanimity on this issue, and Australians were very grateful for that. So here's a question—it's not a 'gotcha' question; it's just a very straightforward question—about the implementation of that change and that program: how many additional devices are estimated to be required to meet the demand? It is a pretty basic question. There is nothing there to trip the government up. How many patients are waiting to access the device? It is pretty straightforward. Is there a shortage of continuous glucose-monitoring devices for type 1 diabetic patients? Again, it is pretty straightforward. How is the department triaging which patients have access to a device?

The point is that not only is it important to ensure that we have transparency and that the integrity of the government is intact and that they're respecting the process, as Senator Bragg was talking about, so that we can ask these questions and have them responded to in a timely fashion; it actually goes to very serious issues. As Senator Sheldon was saying, if we want to see progress then we've got to see answers to these questions. So that's why we ask these questions. It's why these questions are there, and expecting a response is important. Having those responses come in a timely fashion is critical, because it actually impacts people's lives.

It's disappointing that families look to a 21st birthday as actually the biggest disappointment. Most people look to their 21st birthday as a big celebration, but, sadly, for too many people who are becoming adults and progressing through their lives, if they have type 1 diabetes and they're going to lose access to that device, it's obviously going to have a dramatic impact on their wellbeing and their health. So that's what this is about. It's more than just transparency and integrity; it's about people's lives. I urge this government to take its job seriously. You weren't just elected to hold a position; you were elected to lead and to actually deliver the services that Australians expect you to deliver. Good taxpayers are paying for the delivery of those services, so I implore you to take this job seriously. Don't treat us with contempt. Don't treat this place, the Senate, with contempt, because you're not just working against the institution; you're actually working against the Australian people, who expect more and expect you to stand up for them.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senators Payne, Chandler, Davey and Liddle today relating to taxation, the cost of living and health care.

We once again heard today from the government that they were going to make a modest change to superannuation. They didn't understand why everyone's knickers were getting in a twist, because it's a modest change. I thought, 'Well, we keep hearing this.' It's obviously being featured throughout the focus groups that they have been conducting on how to best sell these broken promises to the electorate, because before the election you didn't say 'modest change'. Mr Albanese said 'no change', very clearly.

So I had a look at what the word 'modest' means in the dictionary, because I thought it might be helpful for those opposite to understand that 'modest' means 'relatively small, moderate or limited'. Then, if you look up what 'no' means when you talk about 'no change to superannuation' or 'no change to franking credits', 'no' means 'not at all', 'not any' or 'to no extent'. So what we have from those opposite is a litany of broken promises, one after the other. The one on superannuation is attacking the retirement savings and investments of people who have made long-term strategies, and we now know it's going to impact not 0.5 per cent of Australians but 10 per cent of Australians, because the broken promises continue. They're also going to stop allowing companies from offering franking credits. We all remember the election when Chris Bowen said, 'If you don't like the policy, don't vote for us.'

Senator Hughes, I remind you to refer to others in the other place by their correct title.

I really should have written down what seat he is the member for. Mr Bowen said, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us.' The Australian electorate very kindly took his advice and chose not to vote for those opposite and ended Bill Shorten's long-held ambition to be Prime Minister.

Senator Hughes, once again I remind you to refer to people—

The member for Maribyrnong's long-held ambition to become Prime Minister, which I understand has not faded. However, he may have to deal with the member for Sydney, who apparently has the support of all her colleagues.

Minister Bowen, said back then as the member: 'Don't like the policy? Don't vote for us.' The lesson that was learnt by the Labor Party was: Don't tell the electorate. Don't tell them the policies to let them make a decision on whether or not they vote for you. Their decision was not to tell them the policies. As Senator O'Sullivan was saying, they jumped on the me-too movement. Every time they saw a policy from the coalition they said, 'That's us too. Don't worry, we're a safe pair of hands.' Dr Chalmers, did the work on his PhD, saying he absolutely looks up to Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister, and his and Prime Minister Hawke's attempt to make sure the Australian economy modernised. But as soon as Dr Chalmers has got in he has been unwinding those economic gains, taking the Labor Party back to the good old days of left-wing socialism and the redistribution of wealth. But they knew that if they told the Australian electorate that, they weren't going to like it. They weren't going to back your superannuation changes, they weren't going to support you on changes to franking credits

As Senator O'Sullivan said, some of the questions being asked are really quite serious questions that are just about the policy detail: how are everyday Australians going to be affected by this? There is a really reasonable question about how unrealised gains are going to be taxed. If you have a farm worth $2 million in your self-managed super fund and you get a couple of land value increases, all of a sudden your farm is valued at over $3 million one year. It's not a realised asset. It's not sold. It's still part of the family farm. We cannot get an answer about what sort of modelling was done or how many families are going to be impacted. We asked where else in the world this had ever been implemented, been successfully implemented and had a positive impact. The only place we can find is one African country which had its economy collapse. That is a really great model for those opposite to be trying to copy. These are simple questions and it shows that you are continuing to lie to the Australian people, you are breaking promises or you simply just not don't know the answers. (Time expired)

President, thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. Can I remind those listening and those on the opposition benches that those opposite were in government for almost a decade. One has to ask why they were booted out of government. The Australian people lost confidence in them. Why? Because of the rorting, the dysfunction of the government and the mismanagement. Senator Liddle asked a question today in relation to health and access to GPs, One has to remember that the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, had such little faith in his health minister that he actually took control of the health portfolio as well as being Prime Minister and four other ministries. That is how dysfunctional that government was.

The Australian people understand that those opposite cannot accept that a new government has come in. I think we are a very good government, but even we can't fix the mess that was left behind by those opposite after the last decade. We all know, and my home state of Tasmania knows, only too well of the crisis in health. There's a lack of access to GPs and hospitals under enormous stress. The good senator from Tasmania here understands the issues that the Royal Hobart Hospital, the Launceston General Hospital, the North West Regional Hospital in Burnie and other hospitals face with ambulance ramping. The issues facing our health system are chronic.

It's been a Labor government that has built the nation when it comes to skills. We've built the nation around Medicare and ensuring people have access to their GPs. We invest in mental health. We invest in housing. We are very aware of the homeless crisis in this country. Then we have the opposition that now wants us to rewrite history and forget about the trillion dollars of debt that they left the Australian community. We're the government that now has to manage that debt. We have to begin to start paying that down.

We've introduced a very, very modest change to superannuation. All this week we've had people come into every question time, taking note, bleating about the impact that it's going to have on people who have $3 million plus in their superannuation fund—that they're still going to get a concession but not as great a concession as the rest of the people. Let's face it, most Australians have a balance of $120,000 in their superannuation fund. So we have a trillion dollars of debt on the one hand, and the Australian taxpayer is going to have to pay for that, and there's 0.5 per cent of people who have $3 million plus in their superannuation, and that is very modest. It seems to be another attempt by those opposite, the 'no-alition', where it doesn't matter what this government puts forward, they're not going to support it. They talk about homelessness and health, but when it comes to addressing those issues, like providing a housing Future Fund so that we can assist people in getting into affordable housing, particularly when it comes to women and children, what do we get from the Liberal coalition? No! They won't support it.

So don't come into the chamber rewriting history and bleating about your concerns. When you were in government, if we look at skills and training and manufacturing, you let all those companies go offshore. The only way that you're going to provide manufacturing in this country is to support the TAFE system, which is why we've introduced 180,000 fee-free TAFE places. (Time expired)

Labor is really all talk and no action. Labor said they would strengthen Medicare, but so far they have only weakened our health system. They've slashed Medicare mental health support in half. They've cut 70 telehealth items. They've cut hospital funding in the budget. And bulk billing is plummeting. This is particularly concerning for rural and regional Australia, and in South Australia, where we know workforce shortages are hitting the hardest, and this government has only made it worse. They ripped doctors out of country towns through their distribution priority areas for overseas trained doctors. I hear it in South Australia. Now they're relegating international doctors and nurses working in regional Australia to the bottom of the visa pile by failing to prioritise 887 regional skilled visas.

On the eve of the election, the finance minister, Katy Gallagher, promised Australians that an elected Labor government would have 50 urgent care clinics up and running within the first 12 months. But it's clear they have broken this promise too as they cannot even confirm whether one clinic will be up and running by July, along with 50 promised across the country. Labor went to the election with a promise to reduce the cost of medicines. But now the Albanese Labor government has decided to remove from the PBS an innovative, life-changing form of insulin, Fiasp, seeing the price soaring to unaffordable levels for 15,000 Australians with diabetes who rely on it.

Now let's talk about mental health access. As part of our response to support Australians in tough times, the former coalition government doubled the number of Medicare subsidised psychology sessions available through the Better Access initiative from 10 to 20. Given the significant pressures that Australians are facing right now with the cost of living and energy bills skyrocketing, mental health support could not be more important. But despite these pressures still impacting our communities, the Labor government has decided that now is the right time to slash access to psychology sessions in half. Serious mental health issues are often at their highest two or three years after a crisis, pandemic or natural disaster, which is why it is absolutely vital that vulnerable Australians have continued access to the psychology sessions they need. The independent evaluation of the Better Access initiative even recommended that the additional 10 sessions should continue to be made available and should be targeted towards those with complex mental health needs.

This government needs to stop its irresponsible attacks on the mental health services Australians are relying on and explain why it has gone against recommendation 12 of the review and the needs of vulnerable Australians by cutting this support. That is why the coalition has organised a petition calling on the government to urgently reinstate these critical Medicare subsidised psychology sessions until such time as they put in place an alternative to ensure adequate access to mental health support for all Australians who need it.

Talking about the broken promises, before the election the Prime Minister and Treasurer made many promises. Remember the promise to cut your electricity bill by $275? Broken. Remember the promises of cheaper mortgages? Broken. Remember the promise of no changes to super? Also broken. Remember the promise of lower inflation? Well, that's definitely broken. Remember the promise that we are not touching franking credits? Broken. Remember the promise that industrywide bargaining is not part of our policy? Definitely broken. Remember the promise that we will be doing our bit to assist real wage increases? Broken. Remember the promise that we are not about raising taxes? Broken, too. Remember the promise to cut the cost of consultants and contractors? Broken—and we look forward to seeing just how broken that one is. These are all broken promises from what is a tricky government, and they just go to prove that on promises you just can't trust the Albanese government.

I can tell you that, unfortunately, what is broken is that the coalition continue in their persistence of undermining the working people of this country. They are a broken record. That is what is broken—those opposite—and the reason that they don't want to talk about the benefits of the superannuation scheme is that those opposite are embarrassed about the $1 trillion that they racked up in debt when they were last in government, not too long ago. They racked up $1 trillion in debt and did not put forward any solutions about how this government will fix the structural deficit that we have inherited and we are now trying to fix. But yet they come into this place and, instead of defending the workers of the country, are defending the 0.5 per cent of people who are very well off and who can afford to pay a bit more tax in order for us to fix the budget's structural deficit that we have inherited. Before you come in here and accuse us of trying to break any promises, I think you should look at yourselves and think about the mess that they have left us, and us cleaning up that mess, which the majority of Australians have actually said yes to. Two-thirds of Australians, in the latest news poll, agreed with the government's position of fixing the budget bottom line. In fact, the majority of coalition voters have agreed with the policy that the Labor Party has recently announced.

So it is extraordinary to see the coalition continue to attack the government's steps to repair the budget. The government is making modest changes. But as for allowing the very wealthy to still receive a tax concession, the only difference is that instead of paying 15 per cent they'll pay 30 per cent, and these are people who would be paying around 45 per cent tax on their income, so they are still much better off. But unfortunately governments have to make these tough decisions to fix the budget bottom line.

It was Labor that built this system of superannuation, back in the 1980s, under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. And we'll always continue to make sure we protect it so that it is stronger and it is sustainable into the future for working people so that when they retire the workers and the families of these workers can have a retirement that is comfortable and they are not reliant on government in the future. That was the whole point of setting up the superannuation scheme as part of the accord with the industry, with business, with government and with the unions.

But it's also important to remember that it was those opposite, in the last government—many backbenchers, some of them in this place today—who were opposed to the super guarantee increasing from 9½ per cent. There was further opposition around those 0.5 per cent incremental increases.

That'll be me!

Yes, hello, Senator Rennick. I do know about your opposition to that. But it was a number of Liberal and Nationals senators and members in the other place who were opposed to super guarantee increases and today remain opposed to superannuation even existing.

Since coming to government, we have been upfront about the challenges in the economy and the budget. We've inherited $1 trillion in debt and the $50 billion structural deficit that we are now trying to fix. This is about responsible budget management, and the government has to make these choices so that we can continue to invest in defence, in health and aged care and in the NDIS. But something about the coalition's priorities has really got me today, and I want to place on the record, in the last minute I have, a speech that former Assistant Treasurer, Senator Rod Kemp gave in Brisbane on 28 May 1999, titled 'The government's approach to super'. In his speech he said:

On coming to Government, it was clear that the existing tax concessions for superannuation were unfairly skewed to high income earners. To address this inequity, the Government—

that is, the Howard government—

introduced the superannuation surcharge.

While this measure has been criticised by some people, there is no question that it meets its equity objective. Nor have I heard any justification of why high income earners should have continued to receive the disproportionately large tax advantages that were available before the introduction of the surcharge.

(Time expired)

I'm glad Senator Ciccone quoted former Assistant Treasurer Rod Kemp. He didn't really have to go back that far, because I've said that all along, ever since I got into this chamber—that superannuation is a rort and that it was only a matter of time before Labor would try to get their hands on the money. But also, given that it is International Women's Day, we should talk about how inequitable superannuation really is for women. If we look at the mean balance of superannuation for women aged 60 to 64, it is $280,000, whereas for men it is $360,000. So, there's about a 30 per cent higher mean balance for men when they retire than there is for women. What could be better, on International Women's Day, than to decide to abolish super and let women keep their superannuation so they can own a house? At the end of the day, if there's a man and a woman in a house, they share it 50 per cent. What better way could there be of sharing the debt than that?

I would also like to follow up on Senator Liddle's questions, which I thought were very relevant. I commented earlier this week on the Labor Party abolishing the PBS subsidy for the 15,000 people with diabetes. I find it incredible that you would make it harder for these people by abolishing a drug that actually does work.

I note that the Labor Party continues to push a fifth shot of a vaccine that hasn't stopped transmission or infection. Maybe they should stop spending money on vaccines that don't work and put it back into measures for mental health and diabetes, which, mind you, is up by 10 per cent since the rollout of the COVID vaccine. This isn't surprising, because diabetes is an autoimmune disease and, as we know, the vaccine induces an autoimmune response. Surprise, surprise. Are we surprised that we get an increase in diabetes? No, we aren't—if I can answer my own rhetorical question.

I'd also like to pick up on Senator Ciccone's claim that we have $1 trillion in debt. We don't have $1 trillion in debt. I looked it up just then through the Australian Office of Financial Management, and we are currently at $900 billion. Can I say: a lot of that debt was incurred throughout COVID, in response to the hysteria driven by Labor premiers who got up there every day, day after day—one at nine o'clock; one at 10 o'clock; one at 11 o'clock—giving us the numbers of COVID cases. When there weren't COVID cases they'd tell us that there was COVID in the sewage. Then we'd go for three months without COVID, we'd get one case and we'd shut down the entire state over one case.

Finally, when COVID did break out last year, we were told not to go to the hospital. Rather, if you had a case of COVID, you were told to stay at home and take Panadol. After all the hoo-ha and being told how we had to shut down and lock down and how the federal government was basically blackmailed into throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at the state governments, which were just generating fear—that was the real pandemic: fear—we found out in the end that the hospitals still weren't ready.

They're still not ready today, mind you. Our ambulance waiting times are through the roof. The ambulance ramping is out of control. We have record waitlists across all the states. We overinvested in hysteria and didn't actually invest in good, solid, long-term health infrastructure like beds, like more doctors and like nurses. We didn't put more money on the front line for services, instead of fearmongering. Of course, that is what we get with this side of the government.

To get back to some of this original super stuff, personally, I've always been on the record as saying superannuation is a tax rort and it does favour the wealthy. But, can I say: this proposed rule that we're going to tax unrealised gains is totally unworkable. I'm not saying that as a politician. I'm saying that as a person who spent 30 years in finance, reconciling balance sheets.

I can assure you that, if you think you're going to be able to calculate unrealised gains in any equitable manner, you are kidding yourself. What's going to happen is that you're going to add compliance costs, so you're going to have to pay for an auditor or a valuer to value these assets. Then you're going to have liquidity problems because you're going to have to sell an asset to actually pay the tax. Then, the third problem is that you're going to generate uncertainty, because people aren't going to know what the value of an asset will be deemed to be before June 30. I would ask that you at least reconsider that unrealised gains proposition, because it's unworkable. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Aboriginal deaths in custody.

As you know, our people have never stopped calling on the government to fully implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I do thank Senator Dodson for echoing our calls for action in this space. We will keep the pressure on, day by day, until we finally see action.

You don't need to go out looking for new solutions. The solutions have been there for over 30 years. They've been sitting on the government's shelf, collecting dust, whilst our people still continue to die at the hands of the system.

Today I asked a simple question requiring a yes or no answer—will the government implement the recommendations in full?—and Senator Watt failed to answer. He also failed to answer how the government are going to respond to their own special envoy's request for action. I appreciate that some steps are being taken on deaths in custody by this government, but in many other areas we have seen the federal government continually palm off responsibility for deaths in custody to the states and territories.

The federal government needs to finally lead the way in this space to make sure all recommendations are implemented in full. We need urgent action today. Every death in custody is one too many. Deaths in custody are preventable. Families and communities are always in a state of mourning from this ongoing torture against First Nations people in the Australian prison system.

One simple action for this government to take is to get Medicare and the PBS into the prison systems in this country. You wonder why people are dying in custody. They don't get medical attention in the way that they need. They don't have Medicare in prisons. This will benefit everybody. This will allow better healthcare services and make medications more widely available to those incarcerated. This will also allow for early detection of diseases and allow their prevention. For imprisoned First Nations people it would mean access to culturally safe community health services and Aboriginal health checks. It would also mean that a continuation of care is possible after the release from prison, which would prevent a lot of health challenges that our people will have experienced during that time. It would also mean access to much needed mental health services. Medicare in prisons is theoretically a Labor policy, but we have never seen any effort to actually make it happen. Well, it's time to do so.

Another obvious step to take is to review the implementation of the 339 recommendations that are all dusty from sitting on someone's shelf for 32 years. The last review was handed down in 2018 by Deloitte and has been widely dismissed by experts due to the dodgy desktop analysis that they did. They didn't even talk to the people! They sat at their computer and did an analysis. They said: 'Oh, yes, this recommendation looks like it's okay. We'll just say that one has been implemented.' It was a dodgy desktop review. We need our people to be part of this solution.

This government needs to conduct a real, independent review of where the implementation of the recommendations is at and take urgent action to save black lives in this country. You once again have blood on your hands, Labor. You had the opportunity, the last time you were in government, to implement these recommendations. Now, 10 years later, you're back, but we're sick of the rhetoric, we're sick of 'all talk and no action'. Even your own special envoy, your voice in your party, is asking you to implement the recommendations—because he was one of the commissioners at the time! So at least listen to your own voice if you want us to listen to this other one. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move:

That there be laid on the table, by the Minister for Agriculture, by no later than 5 pm on 6 April 2023, the following documents:

(a) the final report of the national environmental biosecurity stocktake of activities in 2016-17, referred to on page 17 of the Inspector General of Biosecurity's 2019 report, Environmental biosecurity risk management in Australia;

(b) the final reports of the national stocktakes of biosecurity investment for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 (referred to on page 107 of the 2017 intergovernmental agreement on biosecurity review final report. Prioritiesfor Australia's biosecurity system: An independent review of the capacity of the national biosecurity system and its underpinning intergovernmental agreement); and

(c) any other national stocktakes of biosecurity investment undertaken in relation to years after 2015-16 or any other national environmental biosecurity stocktake in relation to years after 2016-17.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than 5 pm on 6 April 2023, the following documents:

(a) the agreement between the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and The Metals Company (TMC) in relation to the development of an environmental monitoring and management plan (EMMP) for its proposed deep-sea polymetallic nodule collection operations in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone of the Pacific Ocean;

(b) details of the $1.5 million payment by TMC made to CSIRO in respect of the EMMP or any associated work, including any terms or conditions applied;

(c) communication between CSIRO and TMC (including its owners) in respect of the EMMP;

(d) communication between CSIRO and organisations included in the CSIRO-led consortium involved in the development of the EMMP;

(e) any environmental baseline data being used by CSIRO in the development of the EMMP, including any provided by TMC;

(f) any draft of the EMMP or framework used in its development; and

(g) any communication with any Commonwealth Government department in relation to the EMMP and the formation of the CSIRO-led consortium.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 123 was agreed by the Senate on 7 February 2023, requiring the Minister for Finance to table documents relating to the current Budget Process Operational Rules (BPORs),

(ii) the Minister for Finance provided a letter of response on 8 February 2023, raising a claim of public interest immunity and stating that the Government would consider further requests for the rules once the Budget is delivered,

(iii) the claim of public interest immunity was rejected by the Senate on 8 February 2023;

(iv) the Minister for Finance provided evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee that the BPORs she previously provided in response to order for production of documents no. 87 were functioning as the relevant BPORs at the time they were tabled, and

(v) it has only taken one budget cycle for the Minister for Finance to fail to live up to the standard of transparency that she herself set just last year;

(b) requires the Minister for Finance to attend the chamber at 12.15 pm on Thursday, 9 March 2023, to provide an explanation, of no more than 10 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and to provide the documents sought under order for production of documents no. 123;

(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and

(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move:

(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 5 pm on 6 April 2023, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) final inspection report for the petroleum environmental inspection sof the Schlumberger Otway Basin 2DMC Marine Seismic Survey, and associated documents, including:

(a) details of the proposed scope for this inspection and areas of focus;

(b) details of other issues that arose during the course of the inspection;

(c) the overview of the observations and findings from the inspection;

(d) the conclusions and recommendations of that report;

(e) the Schlumberger response to these recommendations; and

(f) the documentation collected by NOPSEMA in the course of the inspection.

(2) That the Senate:

(a) notes the freedom of information disclosure F184 by NOPSEMA on 22 February 2023; and

(b) refers the Minister representing the Minister for Resources to Senate resolution no. 51 relating to the application of Freedom of Information Act 1982 provisions to the Senate's inquiry powers.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 164 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Brockman and Cadell, move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 27 March 2023, the following documents in relation to the January 2023 visit by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Mr Andrew Metcalfe AO) to the Middle East:

(a) briefing notes, file notes, emails and written correspondence provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as advice to Secretary Metcalfe and/or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry;

(b) briefing notes, file notes, emails and written correspondence provided by HE Melissa Kelly (Ambassador to Kuwait) as advice to Secretary Metcalfe and/or accompanying staff; and

(c) briefing notes, file notes, emails and written correspondence provided by HE Mark Donovan (Ambassador to Saudi Arabia) as advice to Secretary Metcalfe and/or accompanying staff.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 166 standing in the names of Brockman and Cadell be agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Brockman, seek to withdraw general business notice of motion No. 167.

At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move general business notices of motion No. 169 and No. 170:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 169

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 16 March 2023, any advice or modelling provided by Treasury showing that 80,000 or 0.5% of Australians will be affected by the Government's proposed superannuation changes, referred to in the Prime Minister's press conference on 28 February 2023.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 170

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 16 March 2023, any advice or modelling provided by Treasury showing that 1 in 10 Australians will be affected by the Government's proposed superannuation changes over 30 years, referred to by the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer during question time on 6 March 2023.

The question is that general business notices Nos 169 and 170, standing in the name of Senator Birmingham and moved by Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 126 agreed by the Senate on 7 February 2023, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to table all reports by Moody's Corporation, Fitch Ratings, Inc., and S&P Global on the Commonwealth's credit rating since 22 May 2022 and associated documents, has not been complied with,

(ii) on 9 February 2023 the Minister representing the Treasurer, in her response to the order, tabled a letter from the Treasurer to her that stated 'Treasury officials are actively progressing the request, but additional time is required to consider the request', and

(iii) an additional month of time has elapsed and no documents have been provided; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 9 March 2023.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 172, standing in the name of Senator Hume, be agreed to.

I proudly move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee into the Provision and Access of Dental Services in Australia, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the experience of children and adults in accessing and affording dental and related services;

(b) the adequacy and availability of public dental services in Australia, including in outer-metropolitan, rural, regional and remote areas;

(c) the interaction between Commonwealth, state and territory government legislation, strategies and programs in meeting community need for dental services;

(d) the provision of dental services under Medicare, including the Child Dental Benefits Schedule;

(e) the social and economic impact of improved dental healthcare;

(f) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and cost-of-living crisis on access to dental and related services;

(g) pathways to improve oral health outcomes in Australia, including a path to universal access to dental services;

(h) the adequacy of data collection, including access to dental care and oral health outcomes;

(i) workforce and training matters relevant to the provision of dental services;

(j) international best practice for, and consideration of the economic benefit of, access to dental services;

(k) any related matters.

(2) That the committee present an interim report by Tuesday, 20 June 2023.

(3) That the committee present its final report by Tuesday, 28 November 2023.

(4) That the committee consist of five senators, as follows:

(a) two senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c) one senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.

(5) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(7) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(10) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(12) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(13) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(14) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Question agreed to.

The President has received the following letter from Senator McKim:

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

That women in Australia deserve genuine progress on women's safety, health and economic security, including:

the country

all of which could be funded with $254 billion in savings from scrapping the Stage 3 tax cuts, which mostly benefit rich men".

Is the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements made by whips. I call Senator Waters.

Thank you so very much, Acting Deputy President Cox. It's great to see a woman of colour in the chair on International Women's Day. I move:

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

That women in Australia deserve genuine progress on women's safety, health and economic security, including:

the country

all of which could be funded with $254 billion in savings from scrapping the Stage 3 tax cuts, which mostly benefit rich men.

It is International Women's Day today. Women deserve genuine progress on safety, health and economic security, including fully funded frontline women's safety services, superannuation on a decent amount of paid parental leave and investment in affordable housing to tackle the growing risk of homelessness, which is rising amongst older women. Women deserve a raise in the rate of income support and the rate of the minimum wage, which is disproportionately earnt by women. Women deserve a full range of reproductive health care to be made accessible through the public health system so that people can actually afford to access the reproductive health care they deserve. Women deserve the universal, high-quality early childhood education to be made free and accessible no matter where you are in this country.

All of those amazing things that would improve the daily material lives of women could be funded. They could be funded if this government chose to ditch the stage 3 tax cuts initially proposed by Scott Morrison and now backed in by this Labor government. They could save $254 billion of public money and, instead of giving it to the 40 per cent of rich white men, they could spend it on women and deliver these policy outcomes, which will actually help people or pull people out of poverty and will help us achieve safety and equality.

Every day this government could choose to improve the lives of women, but today, being International Women's Day, you'd think the Albanese government would commit to something real, a real, tangible action on improving women's safety, economic security or inequality. Instead we've got a report card telling us what we already know. It's a good distillation of the data, but unfortunately there was no announcement today from the government saying what they would do to fix any of those hideous metrics about women being killed, about women being in poverty, about women being paid less than blokes. The list goes on, and it's very sobering reading. If this government still doesn't know what needs to be done to actually achieve gender equality, then it's time to start listening to the women of the country who have been very vocal about this, and there's even an obvious way to pay for it.

It beggars belief that Labor refuses to walk away from the stage 3 tax cuts. As I mentioned before, 40 per cent of those would go to men already in the top 10 per cent of earners, a group that certainly doesn't need any more help from the government; they're doing very nicely. The Status of women report card says that women approaching retirement have 23.1 per cent less super than men of the same age. We know that paying superannuation on paid parental leave would go a long way towards closing that gap. But we haven't heard a commitment from this government on that yet.

We also know that the fastest growing cohort of people at risk of homelessness is women. It's not just women over the age of 55, as it was before COVID; it's now women over the age of 45. Yet this government's proposal to fix the housing crisis falls so far short of what's needed that it actually makes things worse, by not keeping pace with people who need a roof over their head. Women make up more than 60 per cent of those relying on income support payments: JobSeeker, student and parenting payments. They are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living rises, but the government still will not raise the rate.

The Status of women report card notes that it takes an average of five years to receive a diagnosis of endometriosis, despite the fact that one in nine women suffer from it. This inequality in access to women's reproductive health care will persist without federal intervention. What's missing from the Status of women report card is a real-time toll of women killed by violence, to keep that issue at the front of decision-makers' minds. What's also missing is data about unmet need: how many women are turned away from frontline services because those services simply don't have the resources that keep up with demand?

The women's safety sector have said time and time again that they need $1 billion to help everyone who seeks their help. They are turning women and children away because they do not have the resources to help them. The last budget fell short on that pledge. I asked the minister earlier today in question time whether or not any movement could be seen on that, and I was given a promising response. We will hold you to account on that. The women of Australia are grateful for this completion of data showing how unequal we are, but what we actually want is policy action to redress that inequality. Those stage 3 tax cuts are the best way to fund women's safety, equality and economic security.

USTON (—) (): I stand today very proudly as a member of the coalition team that, when in government, was absolutely committed to improving safety, economic security and health outcomes for Australian women. We know that family, domestic and sexual violence is a complete scourge on Australian society. We in the coalition believe that this is a matter that needs to be tackled without partisanship, because, unless we do so, we can never hope to achieve that goal that is striving towards a zero-violence target, which I think is something that every person in this chamber, in this government and hopefully in this country wants to strive for.

Improving safety for women and their children is obviously something that comes with a price tag. That's why, when in government, we were very pleased to allocate in the 2022-23 budget $1.3 billion to improve outcomes through initiatives in relation to women's safety. This brought the coalition government's commitment to women's safety over the period of the final two years and the first year of the next action plans to $2.5 billion to support the transition towards and implementation of the next action plan. Having been the minister for women's safety, I am really proud to have been part of the development of the next action plan, which we saw as a blueprint towards providing the kinds of commitments that all levels of government, all levels of society, would put towards driving that goal of towards zero.

The reality is that our commitments have to span the life cycle of violence, but also our commitments have to span every person in Australia. It is no use for governments to spend money and it is no use for us to stand here and make commitments unless we can convince every Australian that violence against women and children—in fact, any violence—is absolutely wrong.

To end gendered violence we have to stop it from happening in the first place. That's why measures that go towards organisations such as Our Watch are important. These organisations intrinsically are designed and established to make sure we have campaigns so that we can teach younger Australians about issues such as respect, stopping violence, calling violence out, making sure their behaviours are respectful and making sure we and they are investing in community led initiatives to deal with violence at the front line.

But we also have to realise that in the process of doing this we still have to respond at the other end to those women who are facing violence, and their children, daily. That's why we were pleased to establish the escaping-violence payment, to provide women with up to $5,000 so that when they were escaping violence they had the financial assistance to set up a home and start to establish a life free from violence. So we are very pleased to have been able to stand with Australian women in making sure that we were the first ones to put the largest ever commitment against any violence against women and their children and acknowledge that the new government has continued that investment and that commitment towards zero for Australian women to live a life free of violence.

I'm also pleased to say that we made a very significant commitment in women's health because we believe that the overall wellbeing of women can be underpinned only if women have access to affordable health care to meet their healthcare needs. That's why we put significant funding towards maternal sexual and reproductive health. Most particularly, one area that we were very pleased to have worked in a bipartisan way with the then opposition on was in relation to funding for women affected by endometriosis. I want to give a shout-out to Nicolle Flint, a former Liberal Party member in this place, and Gai Brodtmann, a former Labor Party member in this place. Together, they worked very hard to establish a platform and a plan to respond to endometriosis. When in government, we were pleased to put a $58 million commitment towards that plan, ensuring earlier diagnosis, providing women with access to the right resources to make informed decisions about their health and providing doctors with guidance as to the best treatment to help women living with endometriosis. I want to acknowledge that, when we made the announcement of $58 million, the then opposition and now government said they would honour that commitment. We were delighted.

I was also delighted, earlier this year, to stand next to the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care when two of the initiatives that were contained in that $58 million were announced as being activated and ongoing. We want to make sure that the remainder of the initiatives in that announcement are delivered by this government, but I hope we can continue in a bipartisan way for the sake of Australia's women.

I'm really happy to be contributing to this debate today. It's a really important debate and a really important topic, particularly today, on International Women's Day. I'm particularly happy to be able to contribute to this debate from the government benches, as part of the Albanese Labor government. We agree that women in Australia of course deserve genuine progress on safety, health and economic security, but do you know how that happens? It happens only through the long-term, systemic, structural changes that can be made from government.

If we need any evidence of this, we only need look at the past decade, where no amount of protest or opposition was enough to stop Tony Abbott when he appointed himself as the Minister for Women, in a cabinet with only one other woman. It wasn't enough to stop the Liberals trying to force those experiencing domestic violence to raid their superannuation accounts. It wasn't enough to stop the then government, now opposition, leaving the Respect@Work report to gather dust on a shelf, and it wasn't enough to stop the plummet in staff numbers at the Office for Women. No. Opposition, as loud as it may have been, wasn't enough. It wasn't enough to stop us going from 23rd to 50th for overall gender equality, in the Gender Gap Index. That's what happened under the previous government. Do you know how you change it? Do you know how you turn that around? You do it from within government, by forming government, not from opposition, not from the noisy stuff on the sidelines.

Being in government requires adult decision-making processes, decisions which require you to pay for things—cost them, prioritise them and deliver them—and the Labor Party does deliver. When we're in government, we deliver. Indeed, I would say we are the only party in this place that could stand here with any meaningful credibility and say that we have delivered real, long-term, systemic changes which have made a significant difference to gender equity and equality in Australia. We've done this because we believe in gender equality. We fight for it, but we are also the embodiment of it. This is the first government in our nation's history which is majority female, and it shows. It shows in what we're doing. It shows in how we're acting. It shows in what we're prioritising.

This Labor government is not the first reforming Labor government on the question of gender equality. Every time we've held government, we've made significant strides to make this place, this country, a better, fairer, safer and more equal place for women, whether it was the Whitlam government introducing no-fault divorce and supporting equal pay, the Hawke and Keating governments introducing the Sex Discrimination Act, or the Rudd and Gillard governments introducing Commonwealth paid parental leave and the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Every time Labor is in government, we deliver for women—not from the sidelines but from these benches—by making the tough decisions, the difficult decisions, that prioritise women's equality and equity.

Our government, the Albanese government, will be no exception. We're one year in, and already we're embedding women's economic equality as a core economic imperative, making significant investments in early childhood education to boost productivity and women's ability to participate in the workforce, knowing that their children are well cared for and that they can afford to make the decision to go back to work. We're extending paid parental leave, progressively, up to six months. Importantly, we're also making it fairer so that more families can access paid parental leave, including single-parent families. We're establishing the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to provide advice to government and to commence work on a national strategy to achieve gender equality. We've supported a pay increase for aged-care and low-paid workers, who overwhelmingly are women.

We've led negotiations with the states and territories to finalise a National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and we've backed this up with funding of $1.7 billion to implement the plan, including $83 million for consent and respectful relationship education and $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence. We've legislated paid family and domestic violence leave, which was a huge and proud moment in this parliament. And we're funding and legislating to fully implement all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report.

In addition to this, when it comes to women's health we've established a National Women's Advisory Council to tackle medical misogyny. You don't have to dig too deep into our healthcare system to see how it disadvantages women. But the truth is that if you want to make these big structural changes you have to do it as a party of government. There's only one party in this place that's delivered for women on these big structural issues and made meaningful strides towards gender equality. It's Labor, Labor, Labor.

You may not know this, but five years ago Tasmanian women needed to travel to Melbourne to access a surgical abortion. The last private surgical clinic in the state had shut down, and women had nowhere else to go. Women were generally spending more than $1,500 to travel to another state to get access to the health care they needed, and some had to pay more. Access to safe termination services was bad. In practice, it was really available only to the people who could afford it. Now women in Tasmania can access surgical abortion through the public hospital system, and I think that's a really great thing. We've come a long way in the last five years, but access to a surgical termination is just one obstacle that's been removed for women who want an abortion in Tasmania. There's still a whole field of hurdles to go.

I've been speaking to some Tassie women's health organisations and listening to the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry into universal access to reproductive health care. I've heard that in Tassie it's cheaper and easier to access surgical termination than to access chemical termination. You need a spare $350 or so to get a chemical termination, and you can get a rebate on that. In the end, you're out of pocket by about $150. But what if you don't have a spare $150 just lying around, let alone the $350 you need to pay upfront before the rebate? Well, you go to the hospital, because that's free. It's free for you, but it costs the taxpayer around $3,000. You get a bed in a hospital, but that's a bed that someone else can't get access to.

Our system shouldn't be pushing people to access surgical terminations if there are less-invasive, quicker and cheaper ways of doing things. We need better, cheaper access to chemical abortions. We need clinics in place that are serviced by public transport. They all need to be open at least five days a week. I'd like to hear from Tassie women and families about their experiences with access to termination services. I want to know what you need and what we can do to help you.

I'm proud to stand here today on International Women's Day as a member of the Albanese Labor government, the first-ever government in Australia's history with a majority of women. The Australian Greens believe that women in Australia deserve genuine progress on women's safety, health and economic security, and I couldn't agree more, and the Albanese Labor government could not agree more. That's why we've passed 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, appointed Ms Cronin as the first Domestic Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, delivered $1.3 billion in the October 2022 budget towards implementation of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children from 2022 to 2032, and allocated $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for older women at risk of homelessness and for women and children leaving family and domestic violence situations. We have invested in early childhood education and paid parental leave and supported a pay rise for our lowest-paid workers and for aged-care workers, in particular, which I have been fighting for for so long. We have supported those sectors of the workforce that have a predominance of women workers. We have established the National Women's Advisory Council to improve health outcomes for women and to tackle medical bias. We've committed to implementing all 55 recommendations from the Respect@Work report to ensure that our workplaces are environments that are free from harassment, assault and abuse.

Australia is by no means perfect. Our global standing on women's rights has dropped significantly, especially over the last 10 years of inaction and disregard by the previous government. But the work of the Albanese Labor government is righting these wrong. We are working hard every day to ensure that women are safe and respected in their workplaces, in their homes and in our communities. I want to add that International Women's Day is a day to reflect on inspiring women within every community, and none more so than in my home state of Tasmania. We can also reflect on accomplishments of women in our lives and where we are achieving change. We can remember the journey we have taken personally. I remember campaigning at my high school for a girls' right to wear trousers instead of the uniform of skirts during winter because it was so cold. I also campaigned for girls' rights to study woodwork and metalwork in my high school.

The campaign for gender equality continues as we try to end the gender pay gap and ensure women and girls are afforded opportunities to succeed in whatever fields or endeavours they choose to pursue in work and in life. This week we have spent a lot of time, particularly in question time, talking about the superannuation changes that will be made for people that have $3 million or more in their superannuation funds. I remember being a young woman working in Melbourne in the finance sector of a short-term money market. At that time you had to work for that company for 10 years before you might—might—be invited to join the superannuation scheme. I thank Paul Keating and his Labor government—again, a Labor government—for introducing superannuation, which gave women like me the opportunity to start earning some superannuation. As we all know, women are at a disadvantage when they return to the workforce after leaving to have their children. Women of my generation just don't have the superannuation savings that, thankfully, my daughters will have going forward.

There is still so much to be done. At times people come into this chamber and try to make political points, and, instead of that, I know Senator Waters and others believe women should be working together, irrespective of where our political views are. The only way we're going to advance women and give our daughters and granddaughters the future that they deserve is if we work together and keep raising these issues to make people aware that women still don't have the same rights when it comes to earning what our male counterparts do.

One of the things that stands out to me each International Women's Day is how corporatised, white-collar and lacking in class politics it has become. It's certainly a long way from its socialist origins. As BBC News was reporting today, the seeds of International Women's Day were planted in 1908 when 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter working hours, better pay and the right to vote. The following year the Socialist Party of America declared the first National Woman's Day. The idea to make the day international came from Clara Zetkin, a communist activist and activist for women's rights. Ms Zetkin suggested the idea in 1910 at an international conference of working women in Copenhagen. There were 100 women from 17 countries at the conference, and they agreed to her suggestion unanimously.

Whilst many things have changed for women since 1910, there is still much to be done. The fact of the matter is that women's economic security has a long way to go, and it's worse for women of colour, First Nations women, migrant women, transwomen and those of us who live in regional Australia. The gender pay gap still exists, including with many feminised professions such as midwifery and teaching. Despite women making up 99 per cent of the midwifery workforce, the gender pay gap in that profession still sits at 19 per cent.

The government is forcing women to wait to have 26 weeks of paid parental leave. Just last week the government said they would like to add super to paid parental leave, but the budget can't accommodate it. In my community of Gladstone, women are still driving over 100 kilometres to Rockhampton to give birth, with the maternity unit still on bypass after 243 days. I reckon if men gave birth, this problem would have been sorted yesterday. Now women over 45 are the fastest-growing group who are experiencing homelessness.

It's the same story all over the country. There's always money for stage 3 tax cuts which will overwhelmingly benefit rich blokes, but there is never enough for woman's health, women's super, women's parental leave or women's salaries in feminised industries. We are sick to death of it. This morning on the radio the Treasurer said that Labor's stage 3 tax cuts would go ahead, but the cost-of-living relief for people who are a pay cheque away from homelessness or a meal away from starving would only be possible when inflation is tamed. Go down and tell a homeless woman that. Come up to Gladstone and tell the women they will have to drive over an hour on a potholed highway to give birth. Tell every woman in this country who is paid less than men that they will have to wait. Meanwhile, you will hand out your stage 3 tax cuts to rich blokes. It makes me sick. Happy International Women's Day, everyone.

I support helping women, but, no doubt, I will be the only woman today speaking for the most oppressed and neglected minority in Australia: men. It's ironic that the women who bring men into the world are so ready to dismiss and abandon them to boost their orthodox feminist credentials. In Australia men are severely overrepresented in suicides, prison, homelessness and unemployment. What is being done to close these enormous gaps? Nothing.

In particular, Australian men are severely disadvantaged in the family law system, and Labor has made it worse by removing shared parenting. Men deserve as much access to their children as women do. Men deserve acknowledgement as representing a quarter of domestic violence victims. Men deserve help with their health issues. Men deserve much more recognition by this government and this parliament. How about we start with a minister for men?

Happy International Women's Day to all of my sisters here and beyond the chamber. Today the government has given us what women have always craved on International Women's Day, a report card. We don't need another report card. I have a library of them, like every other gender equality advocate in the country. We could paper the walls of this place with the report cards we have on gender equity. I am sure that many people across this chamber could contribute reports. We have seen so many. If report cards won the day on gender equity, we'd be in a paradise.

We don't need report cards; we need action. We are told we have to wait. I am waiting for the day when we hear that defence has to wait for some things they really, really want. They want $170 billion to buy some submarines. We could do with a bit of that going to women. Instead of a report card, I want to suggest a few things the government could do that are action.

First of all, put super into paid parental leave. It won't close the gender super gap; it would narrow it by about 10 percentage points, by my calculation, but it's an insult to not be doing it already. It will cost about 2.5 per cent of a Virginia class submarine—probably the periscope. Secondly, 26 weeks of paid parental leave now, not in 2026. That's still only half the international standard, so, while you're at it, we should get map going for 52 weeks as soon as possible. That costs much less than a submarine would cost. Make child care free—not just cheaper but free. Give an immediate wage supplement to working carers who are leaving the jobs they love in droves across the aged-care system, child care and disability.

We women want more than a report card. We deserve better.

We know our pay is 84 per cent of men's. We know we do more unpaid work than men. It's time to give us action and share out the public dollars that are there to support what we really need now.

The question is that the matter of urgency on women's safety, health and economic security moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Acting Deputy President, we'll withdraw the division

Question agreed to.

by leave—I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the Senate notes the Albanese government's broken promises to deliver power prices, cheaper mortgages, to not make any changes to super as well as broken promises on medicines, country doctors, Medicare and mental health.

A proposal has been received from Senator Hughes:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Government's failure to provide certainty about who and what will be taxed under Labor's broken promises for new super taxes and new franking credit taxes, including our hard working farmers who are at risk of paying thousands more in tax simply because of paper fluctuations in commercial property prices.

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 the clock accordingly.

HUGHES () (): It's all going well for everyone today. It's all running very, very smoothly. What's not going so smoothly, though, is the superannuation plans of so many Australians. It is just extraordinary. Day after day we see broken promise after broken promise, pants on fire, as those opposite once again deceive the Australian electorate about what they said they would do before the election compared with what they are doing now. This government seems to think that it can somehow just push through lovely sounding ideas with no substance and no detail about how much they will cost, how they will work and who they will impact and that everyday Australians are not going to notice. But the Australian people are smarter than that, and they see through this plan.

What we know about those opposite is that when they don't have a plan they can't stop spending, and when they run out of money they will come after yours. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have been missing in action in addressing the cost-of-living that is impacting every single Australian, and every decision they do make just makes a bad situation worse. They do enjoy appearing in front of the cameras with a sombre look on their faces, as if to say they feel the pain of Australians who are doing it tough out there. But is there a solution? No, there's not. Let's just pray to God that the RBA governor's 10th consecutive rate increase does the trick. On a wing and a prayer, this Labor government is hopeful that the RBA will stop raising interest rates on its watch. Let's blame the war in Ukraine. Let's blame the previous government for what is occurring. There is no responsibility taken, no transparency and no maintenance of their promises.

As most Australians would know, those who have a typical mortgage of around $750,000 are now paying $1,700 more a month. That's an extra $20,000 per year. That is an awful lot of money for a lot of families who are now struggling to make ends meet. What we also know is that not only is this impact causing great financial stress, but people's stress levels also are increasing to such a level that the requirement for Lifeline's services has increased significantly. There is actually data from Suicide Prevention Australia that shows 46 per cent of Australians have reported feeling increased pressure as the cost of living continues to rise. This is up five per cent from last year. The decisions of this government have real impacts on real families and real people's lives.

They're not doing enough to make the Reserve Bank's job easier. They're doing nothing to look after inflation. And what we do know is that now, with increased taxes on truckies, they're going to put further pressure on inflation as the cost of absolutely everything in our country that's produced on a farm, everything single thing that's manufactured in this country that utilises trucking services to get to the consumer—all of those prices are set to increase, adding inflationary pressure.

Perhaps a few of those opposite should have attended the parliamentary friends of trucking event that was held earlier this week, particularly around coal chain supply. Senator Sterle, their great colleague—he has a long history in the trucking industry—spoke of the heroes that exist in the trucking industry, yet his colleagues cannot help but to make those truckies lives more difficult more quickly with increased taxes. They're looking to make their road user charges increase. All of this they did not say before the last election.

For those in the bush it's not just the logistical issue, it's not just the trucking issues, it's not just the impacts that these broken promises will have on those farming families. One of the greatest concerns about the change to superannuation, the $3 million threshold that they claimed was 0.5 per cent that we now know is 10 per cent, is the unrealised asset of the family farm. Never before have we seen an Australian government try to implement a tax on an unrealised asset and yet, when asked directly how many Australian families, how many self-managed super funds are going to be impacted, they're embarrassingly silent. The prevarication of 'a modest change'. I can tell you it's not a modest change if you get a paper value increase on the family farm as part of your self-managed super funds and then, all of a sudden, you've got a tax bill and you have to sell the lifeblood and the history of your family to pay for this government's failure.

Just on a quick procedural matter. There was some confusion at the end of the urgency motion. I didn't hear, because of what I describe as a change-of-shift issue—the urgency motion that we just dealt with.

The Greens urgency?

Yes. Acting Deputy President, I did not hear you rule on whether it was for the ayes or for the noes. I'd like, at the very least, for it to be recorded that Labor senators voted against the proposition. As for the question of whether we need to divide, I'd propose not to interrupt the matter that's being dealt with at the moment, but the division may need to be dealt with at the conclusion of the current debate.

Yes, that's right.

There is that question, but that may lead to a subsequent decision by my friends in the Greens party that they would then seek for it to go to a division, which is fine. But I'd ask that that be dealt with at the conclusion of this debate. And my apologies for the confusion.

Thank you for clearing that up, Senator Ayres. Senator O'Sullivan?

It might be better to deal with it at the conclusion of this debate. But in case we don't, I'll just state that the opposition also voted no.

Thank you for clarifying that, Senator Ayres.

The Liberals used to pretend they were standing up for working people. Now we know they're only standing up for the 0.5 per cent, and not the fact that 0.5 per cent are paying an appropriate amount of tax for the fact that they should be turning around in superannuation and paying an amount of tax which is appropriate to the amount of money they have. We all know, the country knows it—the people opposite me don't know it—that superannuation was built on the fact that its purpose was to make sure that we have money set aside for every Australian to be able to retire in a good and faithful way.

The Liberals have abandoned Howard's battlers. They're now just about Dutton's billionaires. We've initiated a response to the fact that $1 trillion worth of debt has been placed onto this country because of the excessive and inappropriate nature of how these people recklessly spent without investing to improve productivity in this country. Not only did we see wages go down but we saw productivity go down, because they flopped it, they failed. We as a country are paying the consequences.

What we're saying to those many billionaires is that, yes, there's still a tax benefit but the tax benefit has changed. Someone will have to turn around and look at this minor change to make sure that we have the opportunity to start paying down their debt. The people most capable of paying that down are the ones who are still getting a tax benefit—but not the tax benefit they were receiving for a scheme that they've been rorting, against the intent of the scheme. The scheme was always for making sure there was a fair and reasonable retirement scheme.

What we've been saying is that those people in the 0.5 per cent who have turned around and minimised their tax—not illegally but against the spirit of what that legislation was and because of the nature of what those opposite have done with a $1 trillion debt—should turn around and make a contribution. They still have an opportunity between now and the election to work out how they deal with those changes in circumstances.

I want to point out one of the billionaires these people across the way are supporting. Billionaire property magnate John Gandel has slammed the federal government's proposed change. I'm reading from an article by Ms Sambul on 2 March, in the Sydney Morning Herald. Sambul says:

Gandel made the criticism on Wednesday at the launch of a $70 million entertainment precinct at the huge Chadstone shopping centre in Melbourne's south-east that he co-owns with the Vicinity Centres property group.

The mall magnate was frustrated by the government's decision to double the tax on earnings on superannuation balances over $3 million and said it would inevitably affect more than just the country's top earners.

Gandel said:

A tax hike on the top earners of the country who've worked hard in this country will always come down on the middle class.

This is John Gandel, right?

For those who don't recall some of the history with super, those opposite stopped the lowest paid people in this country—people who were getting the minimum superannuation, on International Women's Day, particularly women who are disadvantaged under superannuation—from getting the superannuation guarantee increase. In fact, from 2014 to 2020, from the Per Capita inquiry into the super consequences of their delay, it cost the average worker on $50-odd thousand a year $4,300. Nine per cent of their entire income for a year was stolen by these people across here. And they're worrying about Mr Gandel!

Of course Gandel is worried about the middle class. No, on second thoughts, I've looked and I've looked and he's never spoken about the fact that the minimum increase for the superannuation guarantee had to be fixed for the middle class. He's conflating his own self-interest. That $4,300 that would have been going to the dozens and hundreds and thousands of people who work in companies that he directly employs or employs through his developments would have got that money. So he pocketed that money. And guess where he put it? I guess he put it into his superannuation scheme. He took it out of theirs and put it into his. That's what he did. Dutton's billionaires won out. (Time expired)

Well, here we go again—the third day of the three sitting days this week where we're getting a slightly different version of the 'pity the multimillionaires' routine that the Liberal-National party loves so much to run. It's really interesting that they would include farmers in their wording on this motion. I talk to a lot of farmers, and the No. 1 thing, almost universally—the very first thing—farmers bring up with me is climate change. What do we hear from the Liberals on climate change? How to oppose real climate action. That's what we hear from the Liberals.

We've just had 10 successive rate rises by the RBA, absolutely smashing anyone, including farmers, who is carrying debt. And what do we hear from Mr Dutton about that? Absolutely nothing. Yet here we go, when the only people who are going to be affected by the government's very modest fiddling-at-the-margins proposal on superannuation tax concessions are the multimillionaires: suddenly, 'What about the hardworking farmers?' Well, undoubtedly many farmers do work hard, but I want to make the point that just because somebody is a hardworking farmer doesn't mean they're not rich, and it doesn't mean that if they are rich they shouldn't be paying their fair share of tax. If farmers are going to be impacted by the changes that Labor is proposing to the superannuation tax concessions then, by definition, they are at the wealthy and of the spectrum.

This is just another example of the LNP using farmers to run their 'pity the multimillionaires' argument. But of course this is more than just a 'pity the multimillionaires' argument we're hearing today. Calling on Labor not to break election promises is of course the way the Liberals are defending their much-loved stage 3 tax cuts for the top end—defending a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts that the top 20 per cent of earners get 80 per cent of the benefit of—and, on International Women's Day, defending a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts where men get twice the benefit of women. Happy International Women's Day, everyone on the LNP side of the chamber! The are coming in here and defending the stage 3 tax cuts, where women will get only half the benefit that men do. Shame on you all.

We've just heard it: the Labor-Greens alliance never met a tax they didn't like. We've just heard it from Senator McKim, claiming to know the views of farmers. Well, I do talk to farmers, Senator McKim. I talk to farmers every day, and I have talked to a number of farmers on this superannuation issue, and I can tell you right now that they are concerned about these issues.

Senator Ayres interjecting—

You laugh, Senator Ayres, but farmers are concerned about these issues, and I'll explain to you why, because I don't think you understand, and I don't think this government understands. I certainly know the Greens don't understand. Farmers are not necessarily cash rich. They have significant assets at various times, but they are not cash rich. One of the legitimate ways they prepare for their retirement is to put farming property into super funds. And this is not just true of farmers; this is true of small-business owners, particularly in regional areas, where they will put their premises into their super fund. It is true of professionals, not just in—

You're laughing at the farmers again, Senator Ayres. These are professionals, not just in regional Australia but also in our capital cities, where professionals put their offices into their super funds, and then the farmer will retire. Their super fund may not be generating large amounts of cash. In fact, it may be generating only enough cash to pay a pension. So, what happens then, when they get this tax bill from the government? What happens when they get this tax bill? I want all Australians out there to understand that a $3 million landholding in a super fund is not a massive amount. A property that was purchased, say, in the 1980s and placed into a super fund could easily have appreciated. So you've got a super fund—

which has got a large physical asset in it, Senator McKim, but it's not generating that much cash. It's only generating enough cash for the person involved to take out their pension. So what do they do when they get the tax bill from the government? Either they have to pay the tax out of their own pocket or they have to sell assets. That is the reality of what the government is proposing here today. This doesn't just affect farmers; this affects small-business owners who have their property assets and possibly their business in their super fund. Again, these are people who don't necessarily take an income directly. They don't necessarily have a lot of cash to put in super. They have a physical asset in super. This is the first time that the appreciation in the value of that physical asset is being taxed before the asset is realised. Before the sale of an asset is turned into cash, it is being taxed. That is grossly unfair. We're seeing this from the government, in alliance with the Greens, and we can see the Greens trying to push them into even more taxes, and the Labor government will pretend they're resisting, but they'll go along with it in the end, because they've never seen a tax they don't like.

Farmers are worried about this. I've spoken to farmers. I've said to farmers, 'You're in this position, but how many of your fellow farmers would have property in self-managed superannuation?' The words that were said back to me were, 'Definitely the majority.' This is not an unusual practice. This is not a big-end-of-town practice. This is not something that only highly wealthy farming families do. This is a legitimate way of planning for their retirements in a way that is completely legal and completely allowed. They plan for their retirements by putting this property, whether it's farming property, residential property, real estate property, business premises or professional offices, into their super funds to plan for their retirement. They don't necessarily have a lot of cash. That's the reality of a lot of small-business owners. They're not cash rich; they may have assets. They may have assets that, in those opposite's view, put them in the big end of the town, but they're cash poor. If you're taxing an unrealised asset, then the only way to find the cash to pay that tax is either to take it out of your own pocket or to sell the asset, which is a disgrace.

I'm really glad to be here again to respond to the ridiculous claims being made by the opposition. I'm happy to explain, in detail, exactly the modest proposal we have made. Apparently some of you still don't get it. First, I want to ask where this passion and concern was when you were in government. You have left us with a trillion dollars of debt and nothing to show for it. So why now is there hysteria as we propose these modest changes to repair the budget? The hypocrisy from those on the other side is astounding, and Australians can see right through it.

Our Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has always been honest and open with Australians, and we're happy to continue having this conversation. We're making modest adjustments to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances above $3 million. This change won't come into effect until after the next election. Ninety-nine point five per cent of Australians with super accounts will keep receiving the same generous tax breaks and 0.5 per cent of people with balances above $3 million will still receive tax breaks, just slightly less generous. There will continue to be no limit on the amount of money that people can put into super in the accumulation phase, and it applies to future earnings. It's not retrospective.

Since coming to government, we've been upfront about the challenges facing the economy and the budget. We inherited a trillion dollars of debt as well as growing spending pressures in defence, health, aged care and the NDIS. This is about responsible economic management, something I think those on the other side have yet to wrap their heads around. Right now, Australians are making hard choices around the kitchen table about their priorities, and it's important that the government does the same thing around the cabinet table.

Today, on International Women's Day, I also want to acknowledge that gender inequality exists within super. Women retire with less than men, and the average super balance of a woman is in the order of $140,000. The Labor Party is serious about doing more to address inequality while also repairing the budget. Part of addressing that is dealing with wage rises for feminised industries in which women are typically underpaid, such as aged care, which we have delivered already.

Our highest priority is targeted cost-of-living relief in the budget, while the Liberals' highest priority is bigger tax breaks for people who already have tens of millions of dollars in super. I think it's about time the opposition had a look in the mirror and got serious about helping Australians who need it. You could have chosen to rise to the moment and get serious about working for all Australians, but, instead, you've jumped straight into stoking fear and division.

The Liberals know, as well as we do, that they've left us with a trillion dollars of debt, and so it really astounds me that they now want us to borrow more money to subsidise people with millions of dollars already in their superannuation accounts. Is this really the hill you want to die on? Is this really more important than energy bill relief for pensioners, than more affordable housing for women fleeing domestic violence, than supporting manufacturing jobs? What about cheaper child care for families? I certainly don't see it that way. And, after hearing the contributions from senators opposite, I am even more thankful that the adults are back in charge.

We have to address the challenges in the budget. There's no getting around that, no beating around the bush and no burying our heads in the sand. We could make tax concessions for people with millions of dollars more sustainable, making the system fairer for everyone, or we could go after the most vulnerable like the Liberals did with robodebt and attacking Medicare.

I'm proud of our choices and I'm proud that our Treasurer and Prime Minister have been upfront with the Australian people. Don't forget that it was the Australian people who voted for us to clean your mess, the decade of delay, denial and destruction that you left them in.

(—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (): Thank you, Senator Payman, for opening the way for me to remind people what they voted for. They voted for a government who said that they would cut electricity bills by $275—broken promise; that people would have cheaper mortgages—broken promise; that there would be no changes to superannuation—broken promise; there would be lower inflation—broken promise; and that they would not touch franking credits—broken promise. They said there would not be industry-wide bargaining as 'It's not part of our policy,'—broken promise. We will be doing our bit to assist real wage rises—broken promise. I could go on and on and on about broken promises. In fact, the only promise they won't break is the promise to go out and buy water from innocent farmers. But, I digress, on the real issue today.

The real issue today is that, while Senator Payman is talking about people with tens of millions of dollars in super and over in the other place the assistant treasurer is talking about people with hundreds of millions of dollars in super, the reality is what Labor want to do is tax people at a threshold of just $3 million. Why won't you talk about the $3 million, Senator Payman? Why won't the Assistant Treasurer in the other place talk about the $3 million? Because, as we learned this week, it's not 0.5 per cent of the population that these super taxes will hit; it's a minimum of 10 per cent of the population. In 30 years' time, someone who is 37 today, will be hit by these taxes when they're ready to retire.

Now we are learning that, when asked in question time today, the Assistant Treasurer basically admitted that, yes, farmers or family businesses who have their assets in self-managed super should have just put more money aside for liquidity fluctuations. He said, 'Super is about providing a retirement income stream,' but in the same breath said that the very people who've put assets in their super for their retirement income stream should have put more cash aside to pay their taxes. The Assistant Treasurer basically said that farmers holding farmland or family businesses holding their assets in self-managed super funds could be forced to pay tens of thousands more in taxes under Labor's superannuation changes due to nothing more than fluctuations in volatile commercial property prices.

We are not talking about the few people with mainstream super who have balances over $3 million. We are talking about the very same hardworking people who have planned for their retirement. As the Assistant Treasurer said today, 'Superannuation is about providing adequate retirement savings,' and that's exactly what these people we're talking about have been doing. Now they're being told, 'If your paper valuation of your assets goes up, you need enough liquid cash to be able to pay your tax.'

The National Farmers Federation have warned that these superannuation changes could cool investment in agriculture. I, for one, have been talking ad infinitum about the need for Australians to invest in Australian agriculture. We need Australian super firms to invest in Australian agriculture. Indeed, overseas super firms think Australian agriculture is a great investment. Look at the Canadian superannuation funds. They invest over here. They won't be hit by these taxes. But we will cool our own investment in Australian agriculture through these changes.

For many farmers, their farm is their superannuation, and it's not uncommon to hold land assets in superannuation. What we've learnt today is that Labor will tax unrealised paper gains. If that's a 'yes' for property, it's also a 'yes' for shares. If it's a 'yes' for shares, it must also then apply to defined benefit funds, which means it must also apply to the hundreds of Commonwealth public servants who have high superannuation pension funds. They will also be quaking in fear at what we are learning, drip by drip, just like water torture, every time we hear more about this Labor super tax.

Thank you, Senator Davey. The time for this discussion has expired.

I understand that we need to vote on Senator McKim's urgency motion and that that needs to occur for reasons that precede my presence in the chair. I will now put the question that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

I will do a couple and get them out of the way. On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's 206th report. On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee on its review of the 2022 relisting of four organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.

I present Scrutiny digest 2 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills—I note that Senator Dean Smith, who is actually the chair, wasn't able to be here today, so I'm the deputy chair but acting as chair—I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest 2 of 2023.

The digest contains the committee's assessment of all bills recently introduced into the parliament. Each bill is assessed against the committee's technical scrutiny principles, set out in standing order 24. These principles focus on the effect of proposed legislation on parliamentary scrutiny and individual rights, liberties and obligations.

Importantly, the committee has a strong and longstanding commitment to non-partisanship and, accordingly, the digest does not consider the policy merits of bills.

Scrutiny digest 2 of 2023 reports on the committee's consideration of 18 bills which were introduced into the parliament during recent sitting weeks. It also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to 11 bills.

In this Digest, the committee has welcomed several undertakings made in response to the committee's recommendations. For instance, the Minister for Health and Aged Care has accepted the committee's recommendation to amend the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022. The bill seeks to provide the minister with a discretionary power to delist certain kinds of medical devices or human tissue products where a person who is liable to pay a relevant cost-recovery fee or levy has failed to do so. Delisting would remove a private health insurer's mandatory obligation to pay a set benefit in relation to the relevant medical device or human tissue product.

Similarly, the bill would provide the minister with a discretionary power to direct that certain activities not be carried out where a person has failed to pay a cost-recovery fee or a levy. For example, the bill would allow the minister to refuse to carry out services in relation to a request to list a new product if the applicant has not paid the application fee.

Following the committee's recommendation, the Minister for Health and Aged Care has undertaken to introduce an amendment which would require the minister to first have regard to certain matters prior to making a decision. Namely, the minister would be required to consider whether the exercise of the discretionary powers would adversely affect the interests of patients or significantly and adversely limit the professional freedom of medical practitioners. I thank the minister, on behalf of the committee, for his constructive engagement with the committee.

I would also like to highlight the committee's comments in relation to two bills which introduce new powers to allow for automated decision-making.

The use of computer processes to assist government decision-making has significant administrative benefits including increased consistency, efficiency and accuracy. However, if used inappropriately, these processes have the potential to impact on the rights of individuals and may lead to legal error. The committee therefore closely scrutinises any proposed automated decision-making process to determine whether its use is adequately justified and is subject to appropriate safeguards. The committee generally expects these safeguards to be set out on the face of a bill, rather than within delegated legislation.

Administrative law typically requires decision-makers to engage in an active intellectual process in respect of the decisions they are required or empowered to make. A failure to engage in such a process—for example, where decisions are made by computer rather than by a person—may lead to legal error. In addition, there are risks that the use of an automated decision-making process may operate as a fetter on discretionary power, by inflexibly applying predetermined criteria to decisions that should be made on the merits of the individual case. These matters are particularly relevant to more complex or discretionary decisions.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001to alter the process by which ASIC deals with applications for the Financial Advisers Register. The bill would allow ASIC to arrange for the use of computer processes to assist decision-making for any purposes for which ASIC may make decisions in relation to registration.

There are several safeguards set out within the bill in relation to the use of automated decision-making, including that ASIC may change a decision made by a computerised process if it is satisfied that the decision is wrong. The committee welcomes these safeguards. However, the committee is concerned about the breadth of the power to arrange for the use of computer processes to assist in decision-making. It is unclear to the committee why this power could not be narrowed to particular decisions, for example, by providing that such processes would only be allowed for binary, non-discretionary decisions.

The committee has therefore requested the Treasurer's advice in relation to: whether all of the relevant decisions will be non-discretionary; what processes ASIC has in place to identify potentially incorrect decisions made by a computer; and what policies are in place to ensure the integrity and transparency of the decision-making process.

The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 would establish a new framework for a visa pre application process. The intention is that the new framework would allow for computer processes to be used to randomly select eligible persons from a pool of applicants, who may then apply for a relevant visa upon selection.

In this case, automated decision-making will only be used in relation to non-discretionary decisions, given that the process is intended to be random and that eligibility requirements for the registration of a person must be objective. The non-discretionary nature of these decisions significantly reduces the committee's concerns.

However, the committee is nonetheless concerned that the majority of the detail as to how the automated decision-making process is intended to operate is being left to delegated legislation. Indeed, while the bill has been introduced in anticipation of the creation of the Pacific engagement visa, the framework nature of the bill would provide for the power to undertake visa preapplication processes in relation to anyvisa. The committee has therefore expressed the view that further safeguards in relation to the use of computer processes should be set out in the bill. For example, the committee has recommended that it may be appropriate to allow a departmental officer to review data inputted into the system to ensure any mistakes made by an individual do not preclude them from eligibility. The committee has also recommended that the bill set out clear arrangements for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the computer system.

The committee has requested the Minister for Home Affairs' advice in relation to these matters.

I encourage all senators and members of the other place to carefully consider the committee's analysis contained in the digest. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 2 of 2023 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

I present Delegated legislation monitorNo. 3 of 2023, together with ministerial correspondence relating to the report. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 54 legislative instruments registered between 1 February 2023 and 20 February 2023, as well as the committee's ongoing consideration of instruments registered in previous periods.

I would first like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's scrutiny of two instruments in the Treasury portfolio.

The Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2022 provide litigation funding schemes with explicit exemptions from the Corporations Act, including the product disclosure regime and anti-hawking provisions. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Rationalising ASIC Instruments) Regulations 2022 similarly inserts ongoing exemptions to requirements in the Corporations Act and the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

It is the committee's longstanding view that modifications to or exemptions from primary law should be set out in the primary law itself. When these measures are in delegated legislation, the committee expects they will be time limited to ensure frequent parliamentary oversight. This also provides the executive with the ability to assess whether the measures remain appropriate and necessary.

Not only do these instruments insert a number of exemptions to primary legislation, but they are in place on an ongoing basis, as the measures are not subject to the usual 10-year sunsetting period.

It is of particular concern that the Rationalising ASIC Instruments Regulations have the effect of shifting exemptions previously contained in individual legislative instruments, usually time limited to a period of three to five years, or at a minimum, subject to sunsetting period, into the Principal Regulations which are exempt from sunsetting. This means that these exemptions from primary law are being placed in delegated legislation indefinitely, which is a significant scrutiny concern for the committee.

For this reason, the committee sought the Assistant Treasurer's advice as to why it was necessary and appropriate to introduce these exemptions in delegated rather than primary legislation. Further, the committee asked whether there is any intention to move the exemptions into primary legislation and if not, whether the instrument can be time limited.

The Assistant Treasurer advised that there is no intention to introduce the exemptions in primary law or to time limit them. He advised that delegated legislation is the most appropriate place for the exemptions. He also advised that including the exemptions in the instrument would ensure they are co-located with existing exemptions, and time-limiting them would only introduce uncertainty and confusion.

Unfortunately, this response did not address the committee's scrutiny concerns about this matter. For this reason, the committee is now seeking the Assistant Treasurer's further advice, including whether the primary legislation could be amended to include these exemptions.

The other instrument I would like to draw the chamber's attention to is the Telecommunications Amendment (Disclosure of Information for the Purpose of Cyber Security) Regulations 2022. This instrument has the effect of permitting carriers and carriage service providers to disclose government identifiers to financial services entities and government agencies. It also enables the minister to expandand specify by notifiable instrument the class of information that can be disclosed. The minister has since confirmed this involves the disclosure of personal information.

The committee considered the use of notifiable instruments in its inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. It formed the view that classifying instruments as notifiable, rather than legislative instruments significantly limits parliament's scrutiny function. This is because notifiable instruments are not subject to the usual tabling, disallowance or sunsetting processes. This concern is heightened when the subject matter of the notifiable instrument is significant.

For this reason, the committee sought the Minister for Communications' advice about why it was necessary and appropriate to use notifiable rather than legislative instruments to expand the classes of personal information that can be disclosed.

The minister advised that the instrument aims to provide a degree of flexibility so that they can quickly respond to emerging data breaches. Further, she advised that notifiable instruments are inherently more 'certain' than legislative instruments because they do not face the prospect of disallowance. The minister also noted that while parliamentary scrutiny is 'normally desirable', it can create delay and uncertainty when swift and decisive action is needed.

While the committee appreciates the need to swiftly respond to data breaches as they emerge, the committee reiterates that a potential for disallowance does not prevent the government from acting quickly and decisively. The disallowance process does not inhibit the immediate commencement and enforceability of instruments, nor does it invalidate any actions taken under the instrument prior to disallowance. Further, the committee has not previously accepted justifications such as the need for certainty, flexibility and the need to act urgently on their own to be an adequate justification for an exemption from parliamentary oversight. Further, the committee considers the disclosure of personal information to be a serious matter, and expanding the types of information that can be disclosed is not a mere matter of detail.

For this reason, the committee reiterates its scrutiny concerns about the use of notifiable instruments in this instance and is seeking the minister's advice as to whether the instrument can be amended to enable the use of legislative rather than notifiable instruments to expand the class of disclosable information.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor No. 3 of 2023 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

I rise to take note of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report Review of the 2022 relisting of four organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly to acknowledge this bipartisan report and its recommendations here in the Senate this evening. This report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security supports the relisting of two affiliates of al-Qaeda and two affiliates of the Islamic State.

The report by the committee makes clear that these are groups involved and engaging in terrorism. It is absolutely appropriate that they are therefore relisted as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act. I think it's relevant to note here, while we are talking about al-Qaeda, the confirmation by the United Nations and the United States Department of State that the current leader of al-Qaeda is based in Iran. As a US Department of State spokesperson said in February, 'Offering safe haven to al-Qaeda is another example of Iran's wide-ranging support for terrorism.' We know that the group which Iran uses to fund and support terrorism is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. That is why the IRGC is designated as a foreign terrorist organisation by the United States.

The recent Senate committee inquiry, which I chaired, found that Australia too should take the necessary steps to list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. There is no question that the IRGC is engaged in terrorist activity. No serious authority is disputing this. That is why the Iranian-Australian community keeps asking when steps will be taken to ensure that the IRGC is listed as a terrorist organisation. We need leadership and we need action from the government here, but all we are getting is their hands up in the air and them saying that it can't be done. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the government's response to the Samuel review, budget funding for the Environmental Defenders Office and Environmental Justice Australia, the potential for World Heritage listing of the Burrup Peninsula, and the Bunbury Outer Ring Road project.

I 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 have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today I introduce the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022.

This Bill will advance the Prime Minister's commitment to hold a referendum to enshrine a First Nations Voice in the Australian Constitution. A Voice that will speak to the Parliament and the Executive about matters that affect First Nations people.

The Prime Minister has said the Referendum will be held in the next financial year. This Bill will modernise the legislation that will govern how this Referendum will be conducted.

Alignment of machinery provisions

Referendums are an integral part of our democracy, however the last referendum was held over 22 years ago.

Since that time, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the Referendum Act) has not kept pace with changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act1918 (the Electoral Act).

The Bill makes amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context to ensure the voting process and experience is similar to that of a federal election.

The Bill also ensures that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections will also apply to referendums.

Aligning funding and disclosure requirements

This Bill will establish a financial disclosure framework for referendums, to support transparency and accountability with respect to funding and expenditure. This Bill replicates financial disclosure obligations in the Electoral Act, requiring those involved in referendum campaigning, referred to as 'referendum entities', to disclose how much they spend and receive on campaigning.

This is consistent with similar returns made by those involved in election campaigns, and will allow voters to access information about the financing behind campaigns that seek to influence their voting decisions.

These obligations will only be triggered where a referendum entity spends over the 'disclosure threshold', which is set by reference to the Electoral Act. Linking the Referendum Act financial disclosure obligations to the Electoral Act disclosure thresholds ensures ongoing consistency between elections and referendums.

Donors will also be required to provide a return for any donations over the disclosure threshold. This is consistent with return obligations in the Electoral Act for donors to election campaigns.

Both referendum entity and donor returns must be provided to the Australian Electoral Commission 15 weeks after the referendum voting day, and will be published on the Commission's Transparency Register. This is consistent with timeframes for election returns under the Electoral Act.

This Bill also extends prohibitions on foreign donations in the Electoral Act to the Referendum Act, to prohibit foreign donations over $100 for referendum campaigning.

This will ensure only those with a meaningful connection to Australia are able to influence Australian referendums.

This Bill also restricts foreign campaigners' ability to fundraise or incur referendum expenditure and authorise referendum material, consistent with the Electoral Act.

Creating a financial disclosure framework for referendums supports the transparency and integrity of Australian democratic processes.

Further consideration of reforms to the funding and disclosure framework for Australian elections and referendums is being addressed as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter's (JSCEM) inquiry into the 2022 Federal Election, which is due to report in September 2023.

Education on the Constitution and referendums

A decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. It is therefore important that the Government can fund civics education in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice.

To that end, this Bill will temporarily suspend expenditure restrictions in section 11 of the Referendum Act to ensure the Government can provide Australians with factual information about the referendum.

This information will provide voters with a good understanding of Australia's Constitution, the referendum process, and factual information about the referendum proposal.

The Government has no intention of funding 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns.

When the pamphlet requirement was introduced in the early 20th century, it was an important way of ensuring that all voters were properly informed about why their elected representatives supported or opposed a referendum question.

As the next referendum will be the first in the digital age, there is no need for taxpayers to pay for a pamphlet to be sent to households. Modern technology allows parliamentarians to express their views to voters directly and regularly through a wide variety of sources, such as television, email and social media, that did not exist when the pamphlet was introduced in 1912.

Conclusion

Australia's electoral system is one of which we can be proud. The effective functioning of our democratic system is thanks, in part, to the Parliament's commitment to engage in regular reviews of our electoral system through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

In this spirit, the Special Minister of State has written to the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to ask that the Committee inquire into this Bill and report early in the new year.

I commend this Bill.

Debate adjourned.

I table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022.

As a servant to the many and varied people making up the amazing Queensland community and Australian nation, I speak to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. It's significant in my speech's opening that I refer to myself as a servant to the Queensland and Australian people. Whoever wrote this bill is not a servant of the people—in fact, the proposer of this bill sees the people as their servants, slaves, serfs. It destroys fundamental human rights, smashes fundamentals of law, removes the tried and true system for authorising new drugs and places the Australian public at the mercy and under the control of unelected bureaucrats. The same bureaucrats proved themselves unfit to exercise their current already disproportionately large power during COVID, all with no accountability.

First, let me explain this bill's provisions: firstly, introducing a framework for the mandatory reporting of adverse events. One Nation supports this measure. Secondly, it introduces a new marketing approval pathway for biologicals for export only. One Nation supports this. Thirdly, it enables the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to approve the importation or supply of overseas prescription medicines that are substitutes for existing medicines with no checks and balances on that process. One Nation opposes this measure. Fourthly, it eliminates the human rights of people to contest decisions on the provision of documents the secretary requires. One Nation totally opposes the removal of common law rights to due process. Next, it enables the secretary to require any person to provide information or documents relevant to a possible contravention of the act. This bill does not do so fairly, and therefore we do not support this provision. Next, it permits therapeutic goods advertising. In the absence of justification for making this charge, One Nation opposes this provision. Finally, it clarifies the secretary is not obliged to observe natural justice. One Nation will defend the rights of everyday Australians to enjoy basic human rights provided across 1,500 years of common law, and so we oppose this provision.

This is a significant bill with new powers and provisions that did not go to committee inquiry. It sums up the arrogance of this Soviet-level government that such a wide-ranging bill removing basic human rights, smashing legal principles, containing significant penalties and coercion and with a huge impact on the approval of new drugs will be forced through parliament without being subject to committee inquiry, especially after the separate Scrutiny of Bills Committee in its seven-page report thrashed the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. Here are the main elements of that criticism. Firstly, the reversal of the evidential burden of proof:

Item 2 of Schedule 5 seeks to insert proposed section 45AC into the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act) to create an offence for failing to comply with a notice from the Secretary requiring the production of information or documents.

Proposed subsection 45AC(3) provides the defence of reasonable excuse, yet the defendant must prove their defence. In simple terms, this bill treats anyone coming to the attention of the secretary of the health department as guilty unless proven innocent. The presumption of innocence dates from Roman Emperor Justinian in the sixth century and, for 15 centuries, has remained a fundamental principle of Western law. If the bill allowed the normal checks and balances that criminal and civil courts provide, the defence of reasonable excuse would not be necessary. It would be available automatically. This bill is extinguishing our defendants' existing legal rights, all this smashing of legal rights and principles from a Labor government.

Secondly, strict liability offences:

Item 2 of Schedule 5 proposes to introduce subsections 45AC(2) and 45AD(2) which contain strict liability offences for failure to comply with a notice—

to produce documents. The recipient of a notice does not have to be a large corporation that can afford the compliance cost. It can be any medical professional or administrator. If the recipient fails to produce a notice, as the secretary demands, then a strict liability offence is committed. If the defendant was in hospital the whole time, for instance, it doesn't matter—here's the fine, $27,000, pay up, no appeals! Does that sound fair? No.

Thirdly, procedural fairness. Item 1 of schedule 10 to the bill seeks to insert subsection 61(13) into the act so that the secretary is not required to observe any requirements of natural justice in relation to releasing information under the act. What does the secretary think they are?

Fourthly, the incorporation of external material. These are all criticisms from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Instruments made under items 12, 15, 16, 20 and 30 of schedule 12 to the bill allow for the later inclusion of any written matter from any suitable source. The material itself is not included, so anyone subject to government action under the bill will have no idea of the full legal position they're operating in. How can Australians follow the law if we're not able to determine what the law is? We cannot. The last time this was used was to remove the reference in the Banking Code of Practice to the international standard for handling customer disputes, which was only available to paying customers from an American company that maintained the code. That document established banking customers had rights they were unaware of. Linking to the document, instead of explicitly setting out the rights, let the banks run riot from 2003 through to the banking royal commission final report in 2019.

The ALP have learned nothing from history, or they have deliberately ignored history. These four criticisms alone from the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee are all valid. The Soviet-style government should have addressed all before the bill came to the Senate. I urge all senators to vote this bill down and resist the attack on common law rights and restore principles of law that everyday Australians have held since Western settlement of our beautiful country.

Slipped into the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 are provisions that circumvent the approval process for new drugs. The policy direction implicit in schedule 9 should have been set out in a separate bill sent to the committee, widely consulted and properly debated. So extreme is this provision. In schedule 9, after subsection 19A(2)(2B):

The Secretary may, by notice in writing, grant an approval to a person for the importation into Australia, or the supply in Australia, of specified therapeutic goods (the subject goods) if the Secretary is satisfied:

(a) that there are no registered goods that could act as a substitute for the subject goods; and …

…   …   …

(c) that all of the following apply:

(i) the subject goods are not registered or approved for general marketing in any of the foreign countries specified by the Secretary in a determination under subsection (3);

(ii) the subject goods are registered or approved for general marketing in at least one foreign country that is not specified by the Secretary …

What? Those statements appear to cancel each other out. And thirdly:

(iii) the manufacturing and quality control procedures used in the manufacture of the subject goods are acceptable; and

So not even a good manufacturing process is specified. The minimum required for a supermarket packet of vitamins in Australia, just acceptable. What on earth does acceptable mean? This gives bureaucrats unlimited power with no accountability. It goes on:

(d) that the subject goods are of a kind included in Schedule 10 to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990—

which, for clarity, includes vaccines, and—

(e) that the approval is necessary in the interests of public health.

That's in the bureaucrat's opinion. So let's take a closer look at this deceit.

The wording of this section is turned around. A drug can be approved if there is no drug already available that can substitute for the new drug. Isn't that any new drug? Because by definition there will be no existing drug to substitute for it. Isn't this just a backdoor to allow the secretary to approve new drugs at their discretion without a specified approval process? This is being sold as a measure to combat drug scarcity, yet it's not how the section was actually written. This section does not contain any of the following. There's no explicit binding limitation that this provision can only be used in the case of a drug scarcity. There's no definition around when the provisions are exercised other than a general statement about the interests of public health, which could be anything that the bureaucrat decides on a whim. There's no sunset clause. With a wave of the secretary's magic sceptre, even under the excuse of shortage, drugs and vaccines are approved permanently. There's no requirement for safety testing. There's no suitable requirement for manufacturing quality and consistency.

If powerful multinational pharmaceutical companies have the ability to get a new-generation drug approved with a shiny new patent to replace a drug that's out of patent and all they have to do is stop making the old drug to create a deliberate shortage, what do you think the drug company will do? Of course this will be rorted. We've no protections in place to stop that happening. Four hundred new mRNA drugs are in development. Two mRNA manufacturing facilities are already under construction in Australia alone. What did the drug companies know last year when they started construction of these plants? This bill is what they knew. This was coming for them.

Schedule 9 will save drug companies billions in regulatory costs. During COVID the TGA approved 23 new drugs under an emergency use authorisation. There was no long-term safety testing, minimal testing of any kind, no testing on progeny and no close monitoring of the Database of Adverse Event Notifications other than to minimise the extent of the harm family doctors reported all over Australia or, rather, doctors were reporting until AHPRA bullied medical professionals into silence. With the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 the Albanese Labor government is setting Australia up to be a paradise for big multinational pharmaceutical companies and to be a killing field.

Separately on today's Notice Paperis the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022, which, if passed, will require every business in the country to introduce vaccine mandates for their staff, for their people. Employers who do not will face savage penalties. The Albanese Labor government is not a government of the people. It's a government of the global elites, for the global elites. And with big pharma's $500,000 in election campaign donations to Labor, it's a government under globalist elites—the globalist predators: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. Welcome to the facade that they have in front of them, apparently with the consent and aid of the Greens and with the Liberals-Nationals who scored big pharma election donations of $500,000, another half a million bucks. I'm old enough to remember when the Greens campaigned against foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies. Now the Greens actively expand big pharma's influence. They expand their market share, profit and control over people. Talk about 'please explain'.

We cannot say with complete certainty whether the 20,000 excess deaths up to October 2022—that's in just 10 months—were the cause of COVID vaccines or some other factor. Most likely it's a combination of many factors with medical experts saying quite clearly that excess deaths are directly and indirectly attributable to COVID injections causing heart attacks, blood clots, cancers, Alzheimer's and many other adverse effects. What is inexcusable is not knowing the causes and not caring—inhuman. How can 20,000 extra Australians die in a 10-month period and there not be a hue and cry to get to the bottom of it? It's immoral; it's inhuman. Yet now Labor wants to give these callous, shifty bureaucrats greater power to work for their big pharma mates. Surely we have to understand why so many people are dying before we make any significant change to the authorisation of new pharmaceutical drugs.

If, as seems highly likely, the extreme level of harm being experienced is confirmed and death is confirmed as being due to the mRNA technology or the spike proteins in these hideous things, and we as a Senate approve a dismantling of the drug approval process, then the very people we are here to represent will rightly damn you all for all time. I am appalled and disgusted that the Albanese Labor government would even think about introducing this monstrous, inhuman bill.

The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to implement a number of measures which support the delivery of the highest quality health care for the Australian public by ensuring the continued access to critical prescription medicines, and supporting the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening therapeutic goods post-market monitoring and compliance.

In particular, the bill supports the implementation of a scheme for mandatory reporting by hospitals of adverse events associated with medical devices. This measure would support the improved monitoring of safety concerns associated with medical devices through access to information held by hospitals that identifies serious adverse events and earlier detection of safety signals that may raise concerns about particular devices.

The bill encourages innovation and investment in biologicals in Australia by introducing a new dedicated pathway for marketing approval of biologicals that are for export only. The bill addresses and alleviates the effects of medicines shortages by amending the act to allow the secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to approve the importation or supply of an unapproved medicine that could act as a substitute for medicine that was previously approved in Australia. This measure is designed to ensure the continued supply of critical prescription medicines for Australians.

The bill supports the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening monitoring and compliance activities through a number of measures, including stronger information-gathering powers, extending the time frame for retaining seized goods and allowing the due date for an infringement notice to be extended once the due date has passed. The bill expands the persons to whom therapeutic goods advertising may be directed to include certain health professionals, persons purchasing therapeutic goods on behalf of registered charities or governments and purchasing officers or practice managers of a healthcare practice.

The bill also provides a mechanism for the approval of a restricted representation to be withdrawn where additional information about the efficacy of therapeutic goods becomes available, ensuring that advertising only corrects correct and accurate information and reducing the risk of unsafe use by consumers. I thank senators for their contributions to debate on this bill.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Steele-John on sheet 1835 be agreed to.

I move my second reading amendment on sheet 1836:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government and the Therapeutic Goods Administration to urgently remove barriers to gay and bisexual men, trans women and some non-binary people who have sex with men giving blood, including by replacing the current approach of a population-based risk assessment and the 3-month deferral period with an approach based on an individual risk assessment".

I'll put the question that Senator Rice's amendment on sheet 1836 be agreed to. Do the noes have it? No? Senator Rice, it is after 6.30, so there are no divisions. Would you like to do it on the voices?

No.

You want to hold it over until tomorrow?

Yes.

Okay. We'll do that.

I move my amendment on sheet 1850:

At the end of the motion, add "and the bill be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 June 2023".

I'll put the question that Senator Babet's amendment on sheet 1850 be agreed to. Do the noes have it? No? Senator Babet, would you like to hold that over until tomorrow morning?

Yes.

Thank you.

Debate adjourned.

I rise to speak in support of the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022. Work health and safety laws in Australia are a shared responsibility. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing, regulating and enforcing their own work health and safety laws. Australia has model work health and safety laws that have been adopted in all jurisdictions except Victoria, which has similar laws in place. These model work health and safety laws are developed and administered by an independent statutory body, Safe Work Australia, through a process involving all jurisdictions as well as employer and employee representatives.

In 2018, the five-yearly review of the model work health and safety laws was commissioned by Safe Work Australia. Safe Work Australia appointed independent reviewer Ms Marie Boland to conduct the review. The Boland review found that the laws were largely operating as intended, and the 34 recommendations from the Boland review were mainly clarifying in nature. In May 2021, as the Commonwealth minister responsible for work health and safety, I convened a work health and safety ministers meeting to consider the response to the Boland review. Ministers agreed on action for all 34 items of the Boland review, reflecting the cooperative approach to the discussions that we all took. A key outcome of the meeting was ministers' unanimous agreement to introduce gross negligence, or equivalent, as a fault element for category 1 offences, which apply when a worker is killed or suffers a serious injury or illness, which this bill will now introduce.

The bill before the Senate introduces the first tranche of policy decisions that were settled in the ministers meeting. These decisions were: amending the model work health and safety laws to provide that a work group is negotiated with workers who are proposed to form the work group—that was recommendation 7b; amending the obligation to train health and safety representatives to provide that health and safety representatives are entitled to choose a course of training—that was recommendation 10; to align the process for the issuing and service of notices under the model Work Health and Safety Act to provide for clarity and consistency—that was recommendation 16; providing the ability for inspectors to require the production of documents and answers to question for 30 days after the day they or another inspector enter a workplace—that was recommendation 17; enabling and clarifying that work health and safety regulators can participate in cross-border information sharing—that was recommendation 19; amending the Work Health and Safety Act to include, as I've stated, gross negligence as a fault element in category 1 offences under the Work Health and Safety Act—that was recommendation 23a; extending the 12-month deadline to 18 months for a person to make a request to the regulator to bring a prosecution for a category 1 or 2 offence—that was recommendation 24; and prohibiting insurance for work health and safety fines, and the inclusion of offences for breaching this prohibition—that was recommendation 26. The government is also setting the fines for the newly created offence of providing insurance for work health and safety penalties.

One of the most important aspects of this bill, as I've said—and I worked through this with the ministers at the time in a very cooperative fashion—is the introduction of gross negligence as a fault element for category 1 offences and the extension of time. Without a doubt, any workplace death is a tragedy, and one death is one too many. Category 1 offences, as they currently stand, have a standard of recklessness which requires prosecutors to prove any intent to disregard a risk of death or serious injury. This can be very difficult to prove at times. What this bill will do is introduce recommendation 23a of the Boland review, which was the inclusion of gross negligence as a fault element in category 1 offences. I just note, as the Commonwealth minister at the time who was negotiating and working with the state and territory jurisdictions, that this recommendation was universally supported by all jurisdictions. I am very proud that we were at the time able to achieve that result and that it is now being legislated.

Grossly negligent conduct, as well as recklessness, should attract the most serious penalties under our work health and safety laws, and that is why, when in government, I was pleased to lead the Commonwealth government charge to support the decision to introduce this change. By introducing the fault element of gross or criminal negligence, the change will ensure that the appropriate threshold is set to capture culpable conduct but also preserve the current risk-based approach adopted in the category 1 offence. A category 1 offence is an offence by a person engaging in conduct that exposes an individual to whom a duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury being reckless to the risk. So, for example, an employer in the construction industry does not provide safety equipment such as a harness, netting or railing in an open-aired elevated workplace and an employee severely injures themself. The employer may be penalised under a category 1 offence as they were grossly negligent and/or reckless in their work health and safety duty, which led to a serious injury. This means businesses as well as workers with a work health and safety duty can be penalised if they are needlessly reckless or negligent in their duty. It also means that where accidents do occur, businesses and workers with work health and safety duties are not going to be unfairly penalised when they take the appropriate steps and minimise the risk of death or injury. Importantly, it continues the key principle of a risk based approach for the work health and safety laws and does not focus on the outcome that occurs. In other words, we are seeking to prevent that outcome from occurring.

It is critical that we ensure prosecutions and higher penalties apply not only to when a death or serious injury or illness occurs but when there is a near-miss due to gross or criminal negligence. This will ensure that Australian workplaces become safer for all. The priority must be on strengthening the risk based approach of the work health and safety framework and to apply higher penalties equally to near-misses and serious injuries, and these decisions in the bill do just this.

The bill will also extend the deadline for requests of regulators to bring prosecution for category 1 and category 2 offences. This was another recommendation of the Boland review, which, again, as the Commonwealth minister, I supported in the Work Health and Safety Ministers' Meeting. What the extension of time will actually do is ensure that another six months will be provided before a person loses the ability to request a regulator to actually bring a prosecution. What this in turn does is provide more time to them to provide the information as to why, especially due to the likelihood in these incidences for significant recovery, for the grieving process et cetera and processes that mean you could actually miss the deadline. That is why this additional six months was so important.

In terms of the banning of the insurance and the indemnity products for work health and safety fines and penalties, what the bill does—and, again, this was unanimously supported—is also prevent a person required to pay a penalty under the law from recovering that penalty under a contract of insurance. The banning of the provision of insurance or indemnity products for criminal fines and penalties is not uncommon in Australia. For example, the Corporations Act 2001, the Financial Accountability Regime and its predecessor the Banking Executive Accountability Regime already have, or had, similar provisions to prohibit insurance and indemnity for penalties. Under the Fair Work Act, federal courts have the ability to make personal payment orders for breaches of the Fair Work Act. This was an often used provision to ensure payment by individuals of, say, matters the CFMEU brought to the court by the now abolished ABCC. The power to do this was reconfirmed by the High Court in the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v CFMEU. This was actually a High Court of Australia case. The rationale provided in the Boland review is the provision of insurance and/or indemnification for work health and safety penalties. What that actually does is undermine the deterrent effect of imposing such penalties. The rationale, as set out in the review and agreed to by the ministers, makes sense and is accepted in similar scenarios to ensure personal payment for misconduct. This is why the Commonwealth supported this recommendation. It is important for the record as well to clarify for businesses that this part of the bill will not criminalise access to insurance or indemnity arrangements for legal costs in defending a prosecution. The Boland review itself expressly stated that companies and officers should not be precluded from accessing insurance or indemnity arrangements for legal costs in defending a prosecution. The legislation before us does not do that either. It only stops insurance and indemnity from when prosecution has been successful and the penalty itself has been determined.

In terms of clarifying Safe Work Australia's access to data, the bill will also amend the Safe Work Australia Act to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that information necessary to support Safe Work Australia's data and evidence functions may be provided to Safe Work Australia. Safe Work Australia is the national policy body for work health and safety and workers compensation. Its members represent the interests of the Commonwealth, states and territories as well as employers and workers. As part of its role in developing these national policies and strategies Safe Work Australia maintains and publishes national data, and it helps to inform policies that improve Australia's work health and safety laws and policies by maintaining national datasets and developing evidence based research that relies on input from a range of sources, including jurisdictional authors. The amendments in the bill that we have before us will ensure that persons with relevant information, including work health and safety regulators and workers compensation bodies, are able to provide this information to Safe Work Australia.

The work health and safety ministers meeting also recommended that the work health and safety regulations be amended to deal with psychological risks and injury. Again, this was in recommendation 2 of the Boland review. Amending the regulations in this way represented a strengthening of our commitment to addressing and preventing psychological injury in Australian workplaces. This recommendation responded to stakeholder concerns at the absence of specific regulation on this issue, and it now assists businesses—in particular, obviously, small businesses—to meet their obligations in relation to psychological health. Many recommendations agreed to at the meeting of ministers in May 2021 respond to concerns raised by families who have been affected by a workplace death, and they overlap with a number of the recommendations that were contained in the Senate inquiry into industrial deaths, They never came home.

Ministers at this time also agreed that Safe Work Australia work with relevant experts to undertake a review into the feasibility of developing national work health and safety sentencing guidelines, and that was recommendation 25. Ministers also endorsed the national principles to support families following an industrial death. These principles were developed by Safe Work Australia in response to the recommendations of the Senate inquiry into industrial deaths, They never came home. All ministers at the time, including me, agreed to task Safe Work Australia to work with experts to undertake research into whether it was possible or feasible for national work health and safety sentencing guidelines which would further help further harmonise regulators' responses in similar situations across jurisdictions. In the same meeting, work health and safety ministers agreed that Safe Work Australia produce and publish the model code of practice, managing the risks of respirable crystalline silica from engineered stone in the workplace. Other Safe Work Australia undertakings under the former coalition government included drafting amendments to the model work health and safety regulations to prohibit the uncontrolled processing of engineered stone, publishing revised national guidance on working with silica and silica-containing products and developing additional guidance materials on managing the risks of occupational lung diseases.

Without a doubt all Australians have the right to be safe in their workplaces, and it is important to Australians, whether they be employers or employees, that there are consistent laws around workplace health and safety. I am very pleased that the laws we are introducing today were agreed to when I was the minister, and I am very pleased to support the bill.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022 and to indicate the context in which this debate is happening. Last year, I think, 169 workplace fatalities occurred in the country—that is, 169 workers who went to work and didn't return. We should think of the collective trauma of their families and their co-workers and acknowledge from the outset why it is essential that this house gets work health safety right, this parliament gets work health safety right. That is why we look forward to reducing risk in the future and why that should be an essential part of the work of this chamber and this parliament.

This bill is, largely, a non-controversial bill that makes a number of changes to improve and streamline the operation of work health and safety laws in the country. In large part, it seeks to implement recommendations made by Ms Marie Boland as part of the review she did of the model work health and safety laws, and in particular her final report that she delivered in 2018. Just pausing there, it is somewhat frustrating that it has taken five years to actually implement these recommendations, and I do want to credit the minister for bringing this on, moving this through the parliament and putting it in place. Five years was too long to wait for the implementation of these reforms from the Boland review.

I won't go into detail for each of the amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act, but they include providing that negligence can be an alternative fault element for the most serious offences, for category 1 offences. Of course it should be, and the fact that it wasn't in the initial laws has led to a good many prosecutions not being put forward because, in the absence of that alternative basis for proving fault, it was next to impossible. It was next to impossible to meet the standard to hold employers and others to account for the most serious breaches of work health and safety laws.

The amendments also prohibit insurance for work health and safety fines. That's critical if we're going to have accountability in this space. If employers can insure away a potential cost to them, as corporations or individuals, if they can just insure the risk, then that creates a lack of personal incentive to ensure that the laws are complied with. If you can contract out your criminal risk, well obviously that makes workplaces less safe. Clearly prohibiting the insurance for work health and safety fines is essential.

It also clarifies that health and safety representatives are entitled to choose a course of training, that they don't have to take the training often offered by the employer. There are obvious reasons why you would want to empower health and safety representatives to be able to choose the training that is going to be best for them, rather than the training that their employer may want them to undertake.

It deals with some of the complications around processes for issuing and servicing of notice. It simplifies that, and I think that's a good thing for all involved. And it has a series of other modest technical and clarifying amendments.

It is clear, though, that, even with the passage of this bill, there is a vast amount more to do. After essentially a decade of the intentional erosion of workplace conditions and workers' pay and rights under the former coalition government there is a lot more to do than is contained in this bill. Workers have seen their wages and conditions eroded. Overwork and unsafe work in parts of our economy have become normalised. Precarious work is becoming a business model. And all of this is of deep concern for work health and safety in the increasingly diverse workplaces in this country, and the Greens will continue to push for comprehensive reforms that workers need going forward. In particular, Safe Work needs to be up to this reform task, and the evidence to date would suggest it isn't.

The Greens will be moving a second reading amendment to reflect one specific aspect of the future reform work that's needed, and that relates to the ongoing use of manufactured stone and the scourge of silicosis in the workers who work with it. We have known for years that Safe Work has recognised silica as a workplace hazard—indeed, a lethal workplace hazard—and has, at different times, recommended standards for treatment, recommended additional air filtering, made recommendations about wet or dry cutting and made recommendations about personal protective equipment. But they've known from the outset that those aren't working in place. They're not working in the diverse array of workplaces, often without much supervision, where manufactured stone is being cut, whether it's in small workshops in Western Sydney or onsite in the high-rises and commercial and residential buildings where this manufactured stone is being put in place. They know it doesn't work, and they've known it for years. They've known that every year they allowed high-silica manufactured stone to be put in workplaces, young workers and others are being exposed to early, awful, painful and in some cases utterly inevitable deaths as a result of their exposure to this dust. They've known it and they've failed to give the key advice about banning it. That has been put to them for years.

I know this for a fact because, in my former work as a state MP in New South Wales, we undertook in 2019 a review of the state's dust diseases scheme. The thoracic surgeons, the unions and the workers came to us in that inquiry and gave us some of the most heartbreaking evidence about young workers' lives being cut short by silicosis. I still remember the workers coming into the committee hearings and telling us about their diagnosis, telling us about the high likelihood of an early death in two or three years. Some of these workers were in their late 20s or early 30s. They spoke about their families. They spoke about how they had done the work because they were skilled in it and they needed the income for their families, and now it was killing them and leaving their families with nothing. I remember today just how absolutely heartbreaking it was. To then hear that Safe Work Australia wasn't moving to ban the product but was just putting yet more ineffectual measures in place was just so frustrating. Neither the state government nor the state Labor opposition at the time, let alone the federal coalition government or Safe Work Australia, were willing to make the hard call then and ban this stuff.

So, in a dissenting statement at the end of that inquiry, I said this, and I stand by it to this day:

Manufactured stone is a relatively new product, first being distributed in the NSW construction sector in or about 2001. There are numerous credible alternatives for it in all aspects of construction. Consistent with the hierarchy of control measures that forms the core of work health safety responses in Australia the first response to an identifiable hazard like manufactured stone is, where possible, to remove it from the workplace.

There is no doubt that manufactured stone has certain attributes that make it attractive to use; it is consistent, it is relatively cheap and it provides a relatively low cost high gloss finish that is attractive to certain consumers. In its time asbestos also had certain attributes that made it attractive. It was low cost, highly fire resistant and easily cut and affixed. However as the full medical and human cost of its use became apparent asbestos was nevertheless eventually banned. This was after initial attempts by the industry to seek safer handling procedures and more restricted uses.

I firmly believe we should learn from this history and based on the evidence available to date make the call to ban the use of manufactured stone in NSW. Of course a federal ban would be preferable and I acknowledge that NSW cannot ban its importation or availability in NSW, however we can regulate construction and work health safety matters and under those heads of power a ban is entirely possible.

Every month and year we delay, more workers will be exposed to the risk of deadly silicosis. No shiny benchtop is worth that.

That's what I said in 2020, and I said it with the support of thoracic surgeons, the CFMMEU and the workers. That was at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020. What has Safe Work done to date? More of this tinkering around the edges. More of this: 'Oh, we can deal with it by greater regulations in the workplaces. We can put more filtering in the workplaces.' None of that will work. None of that will stop workers dying of silicosis. They've known that for years.

That's why, on behalf of the Greens, I move the second reading amendment that was circulated on sheet 1847, as revised:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) high silica manufactured stone is currently causing the painful death of many young workers who contract deadly silicosis,

(ii) the Federal Government and SafeWork have been on notice about the deadly health impacts posed by manufactured stone since at least 2019 when the matter was canvassed extensively in an inquiry by the New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice and by the press,

(iii) high silica manufactured stone is the asbestos of our age, and the evidence shows it is not being used safely, with deadly results; and

(b) calls on the Government to work with all relevant authorities to consider an urgent ban on manufactured stone and to ensure medical and financial support for those workers who are suffering with silicosis".

And I want to put on the record my gratitude to the minister in working collaboratively to get agreement on that form of words and hopefully work to the truth of that.

But, I ask again: where was Safe Work? And why is Safe Work still not providing the unambiguous advice that all the evidence says they should be providing? They're the work safety regulator for the country. They're being told by unions, by workers, by thoracic surgeons—by everybody, apart from the companies themselves—that this stuff is deadly, and they can't bring themselves to give the obvious advice that it should be banned. Worse than that, many of the workers who have been exposed to this deadly dust in this country since September 2020 can't even rely on the fact that there's an insurance product from the manufacturers that will meet the costs of the claims that they have.

The biggest manufacturer in this space globally, Caesarstone, has been refused insurance for its manufactured stone product in Australia since September 2020. We know that not because of what Safe Work Australia has done but because Caesarstone has had to give the disclosure in their returns to US corporate authorities. What has Safe Work's response been? They know this stuff is deadly, they know workers are dying and they know the main distributor and manufacturer of the product in Australia, Caesarstone, hasn't even been able to get insurance for the costs since September 2020. They've done bugger all.

So yes, let's get this amendment through. And yes, I commend the work that the minister, the unions, the workers and others in this space have been doing to move towards a ban. But this can't wait another week. It can't wait another month. It can't wait another six months. Every day of delay sees more workers exposed to deadly silicosis. At the moment, any worker whose exposure came through Caesarstone faces the very real risk not only of having a deadly disease but also of having no insurance product to meet the claim, for themselves and their loved ones, their families. If Caesarstone, which is a foreign corporation, decides to just pack up in Australia and cease its business, there will be no assets, no insurance, nowhere to go. It's like James Hardy mark 2, and it's unfolding directly in front of us.

If there's one agency that's had the job of preventing this from happening and has failed to act, failed to live up to its duty of care, it's Safe Work Australia. We have a collective responsibility to do better, because, as I said before, and I'll say it again: no shiny benchtop is worth the death of a worker.

I rise to speak in favour of the Albanese Labor government's Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill, and in doing so I might just quickly speak to some of what Senator Shoebridge was raising and the very real and urgent need to address engineered stone and the impact it's having on workers. I want to thank the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for urging urgent reform on this and working with state and territory ministers to get that urgent reform. We know this is something that has been on the agenda for some time, and it's something that needs to be dealt with urgently. I look forward to seeing those reforms in place at a national level and across the country. I welcome the opportunity to speak on these important measures in the bill and congratulate the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations as well as his state and territory counterparts for landing consensus on these measures. They might be modest reforms, but they are very meaningful reforms.

This bill harmonises the existing act with the model laws from Safe Work Australia's work in response to the Boland review. Many people may not have heard about what the Boland review is, but it's a really important piece of policy work. Ms Marie Boland conducted a review of Australia's model work health and safety laws in 2018. The Boland review made 34 recommendations on updates to model work health and safety laws, and I want to thank Ms Boland for her important work in this space. Since then, the recommendations of the review have been the subject of tripartite collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, as well as employers and unions. These groups have been meeting to examine the recommendations and build consensus on the model work health and safety laws. This bill is the first step in the Albanese Labor government's work health and safety reforms.

So what will change because of this bill? As I said at the top of my remarks, these modest but meaningful reforms have the potential to make important impacts on the prevention of workplace accidents. This bill strengthens the government's national approach to managing work health and safety, delivering more consistency across jurisdictions and improving information sharing between key organisations.

Importantly, this bill clarifies that health and safety representatives—or HSRs, as they're commonly referred to in the workplace—who are elected by their workmates can choose a course of training and more effectively issue improvement notices. HSRs are elected by their workmates to do the important work of maintaining and advocating safe systems of work and the elimination of hazards. It would seem straightforward that an HSR should be able to select a training course best suited to them and their workmates to ensure they are prepared and supported in the work they do, but not all employers have respected that principle.

A few years ago, at a train maintenance depot in Sydney, two HSRs went to their boss and put in their paperwork for a health and safety course of their choosing which suited their needs and those of their workmates. They were told by their management that they weren't able to attend their chosen training and that management would choose where they would go. Those HSRs fought this direction all the way to the state Industrial Relations Commission, and they won. That precedent informs the clarification that we see now in this suite of measures. I want to congratulate those particular HSRs and their workmates, who backed them every step of the way. I also want to acknowledge the members and staff of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who got behind those HSRs and made that win possible. Because of their support, that win is now becoming national law. We know that health and safety representatives are trusted leaders and play a vital role in keeping workplaces safe. This is why we are updating the laws to make their jobs easier and simpler.

Our government's work health and safety amendment also closes a loophole that some unscrupulous employers have used to avoid accountability for poor safety performance. Currently, employers can purchase insurance for work health and safety fines, which is extraordinary when you think about it. Imagine if an ordinary person could take out an insurance policy against getting parking fines. You would imagine that the compulsion to act in a way that avoids punishment would be seriously diminished, and that is exactly what has happened in workplaces. That's what this loophole means for some employers: the potential punishment and spirit of the penalties are neutralised. Our changes mean that employers doing the wrong thing can't avoid taking financial responsibility for unsafe work environments. Our changes prohibit insurance for work health and safety fines.

Importantly, the bill also guarantees stronger consequences and penalties for employers who expose workers to serious and fatal risks. The bill strengthens the ability to take action against employers who have recklessly caused fatal injury to a worker. It updates what are called category 1 offences, the most serious category of prosecution in relation to injuries to a worker, to now include negligence, which has a more realistic prospect of prosecution. Previously, category 1 only listed offences on the basis of recklessness leading to the death of a worker, which has never been used, because of the unrealistic threshold for prosecution. This sounds like a very small, technical, legal change, but my hope is that it is a first step to more prosecutions in cases were there has been the death of a worker that could have been prevented.

Too many workers are killed in preventable workplace accidents. Last year 169 workers lost their lives. They went to work and they never came home. Just over two weeks ago in North Queensland two workers lost their lives. Dylan Langridge was 33 years old and Trevor Davis was aged 36. They had long lives ahead of them. They died in North Queensland in a mine when they were trapped underground. They went to work and they should have come home. I want to be really clear about this because this is incredibly important. The only acceptable number of workplace deaths is zero. Every single worker has the right to come home at the end of their shift just as safe and healthy as when they left for work. Our government not only believes that but today is legislating to make that so. That's because Labor is on the side of working people.

We believe that workers should be safe, respected and fairly paid. These changes start our work in improving workers' safety. The previous government had had this report since 2018. Until now not a single recommendation had been implemented by the Commonwealth. These are modest and mostly technical changes but they demonstrate our government's commitment to safety and respect at work and they paint a stark contrast with the previous government.

This is just the beginning of our government's reforms on health, safety and respect at work. The tripartite body that made these recommendations has continued their work looking at future reforms. I understand that the next tranche of reforms will continue to strengthen protections for workers from serious and fatal injuries due to negligence and recklessness. This is what's needed to keep workers safe.

I also want to acknowledge the important work being done alongside union members and our state counterparts to take long overdue action against hazards, including silicosis. This is incredibly important work that has gone silent for too long and must be fixed. Our government is also working through industrial relations changes which have a direct correlation with better health and safety. If you want a safe workplace, if you support workers coming home at the end of the day, then you should support Same Job, Same Pay laws. Because we know that when workers have the same job and the same pay, when they are treated with dignity and respect and they are given the power to speak up about safety, they come home safe at the end of the day.

I commend these changes to the chamber. I urge the Senate to support them. I thank the Senate.

nator SCARR (—) (): I too rise to speak in favour of the amendments in the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022. I don't accept the characterisation from the previous speaker, Senator Green, in relation to the last government, but I'll quickly move on to deal with the substance of the issues here.

The way I want to address this is by talking about a particular case. When I was looking into this topic, I saw some commentary in relation to this case and I went back and read the case. Let me tell you the story of Brett Fritsch and why his story is extraordinarily relevant to the legislation which we're talking about today. During the construction of the Adelaide Desalination Plant on 16 July 2010, occupational health and safety offences were committed by a company called Ferro Con SA Pty Ltd and the relevant responsible officer for safety. They resulted in the death of 35-year-old rigger Brett Fritsch and a near miss for another rigger by the name of Craig Fowler.

The rigger's employer, Ferro Con, was using a large crane to install a 1.8-tonne, 14-metre-long steel monorail beam to the rafters of a partially built building. The lifting of the beam had been poorly planned by others. No risk assessment or job safety analysis had been undertaken for this type of lift, and no safe working procedure had been devised to take account of the particular hazards of the task.

As a result, Mr Fritsch was required to pull down heavily on a tag line in an attempt to lower the tilted beam's high end to a level position so it could then be bolted to a rafter. This required Mr Fritsch to stand under the 1.8-tonne beam—just think about that—to exert the required force, contrary to a general instruction to not stand under a load. While Mr Fritsch was trying do this the fabric sling supporting the beam snapped, resulting in the end of the beam dropping directly onto his head. He was instantly rendered unconscious and died soon after.

The other rigger, Craig Fowler, was standing on an elevated work platform at the time. His machine was struck by the falling beam, but he was able to ride the fall until he could jump clear onto nearby scaffolding. That is the case of Mr Brett Fritsch.

I want to read to you excerpts of the statement that Brett's mother gave to the South Australian Industrial Relations Court. When we're debating or considering provisions such as this, I think we should reflect on the individuals who are impacted by these events. These changes aren't just words on a page. They have material impacts for everyday Australians' loved ones who are doing their work duties and suffer harm. This is what Brett's mother said:

This is my victim impact statement, but I am not the victim here. Brett, my beautiful boy, is the real victim.

…    …    …

Brett has been robbed of his life, of being a devoted and loving hubby and daddy when he was so happy and in the prime of his life. You have changed the natural order of life for me—a mother should never outlive her child …

She went on to talk about her grandson and the impact of this tragedy on him:

Watching Brett's little one grieve and struggle with questions about death that a now four-year-old should never have to deal with is utterly heart-wrenching. He periodically asks me about his daddy. He asked me last year, 'My daddy is lost. Where is he lost to, nanna' and he has cried and got angry and frustrated because he can't possibly understand or find in his vocab the words to explain his feelings and queries.

Finally, Brett's mother said directly to the magistrate hearing the case:

Your Honour, I need for something very positive to come out of all of this. Please don't allow my Brett to have died in vain. You have the authority to send out a message loud and clear to construction companies that workplace deaths and serious injuries will not be tolerated by the courts.

I can't imagine what it's like to be in that position. I can try to understand, but I can't fathom what it must be like to lose your son and then have to face dealing with a grieving family whilst also dealing with a mother's grief. I think it is fit and proper that we consider those words as we consider this legislation and also consider that this legislation will have an impact on everyday Australians. Senator Green referred to those who are killed at work and those who suffer serious injury. These are not just words on a page. This is dealing with everyday Australians.

In this case, the industrial magistrate identified no less than four failings of the company involved, Ferro Con. I'll go through them. First:

Ferro Con knew decisions may have to be made during the course of each lift, but left all safety considerations of the job up to the supervisor and workers to, at best, be identified, discussed, agreed upon and implemented on an ad hoc basis.

Second:

The second major failing of Ferro Con was to not ensure that a site and task specific workplace procedure was developed for lifting this particular beam on 16 July.

Third:

Ferro Con's third failing was in not prohibiting the installation of the beam unless sufficient space was available on the ground inside the building in which to lower the beam for the purpose of re-rigging.

And fourth:

Ferro Con's fourth failing was to not ensure that the lift complied with its own general job safety analysis for structural steel erection, and in particular a written requirement that riggers were not to stand under a load.

These are clearly acts of negligence and omissions which would fall within the definition of negligence as is introduced by this bill. It should be recognised that, in relation to the standard of proof that is required in this regard, there is reference to the Commonwealth Criminal Code definition of negligence, which is:

A person is negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if his or her conduct involves … such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances … that the conduct merits criminal punishment for the offence.

That is the standard, and that is the standard which every single employer in this country should meet. Every single employer should be meeting those standards, and if they aren't there needs to be consequences, because there are consequences for people such as Brett and his family. We need to take that carefully into account. I say that as someone who comes from the mining industry. For 12 years I worked in the mining industry, and before that I was involved in a number of investigations into fatalities and serious injuries on mine sites. The memories of the consequences of those fatalities, for the individual workers concerned and for their workmates and their families, have stayed with me.

Lastly, I want to deal with a point, which again came up in Brett's case, in relation to this issue of general indemnities. I quote from the case:

Ferro Con had in place a general insurance policy which apparently included indemnification of its Director for fines imposed for his criminal conduct …

In this case, the director—the responsible officer of this company—had an insurance policy which provided an indemnity with respect to any penalties he received. The magistrate continues:

The insurance cover carries a $10,000 excess or deductable payment. As Ferro Con is in liquidation and has no assets with which to pay the excess—

Because the company went into liquidation after this, there was no recourse against the company—

Mr Maione has paid it personally.

The responsible officer paid the excess personally to get the benefit of the insurance policy.

The magistrate continues:

He may not even bear the full cost of this if claimed as a tax deduction. By his payment he has ensured the insurance company grants both Ferro Con, and more importantly him, the indemnity he sought. In this way Mr Maione has made arrangements to avoid the vast bulk of the anticipated monetary penalty.

In my opinion Mr Maione's actions have also undermined the Court's sentencing powers by negating the principles of both specific and general deterrence. The message his actions send to employers and Responsible Officers is that with insurance cover for criminal penalties for OHS offences there is little need to fear the consequences of very serious offending, even if an offence has fatal consequences.

That is the issue that this legislation fixes. It should not be the case that a responsible officer who has been grossly negligent is able to get an indemnity through insurance against the penalty which is imposed after going through the appropriate legal process against the consequences of him or her breaking the law. It should not be the case that someone should be indemnified through insurance so that they don't have to take the real financial consequences, which cannot in any way compensate or be an appropriate indication of the loss suffered, in this case by Brett's family, the loss of that young life. It should not be the case that a responsible officer should be able to get indemnity insurance to cover that cost.

I see Senator Roberts has just arrived. I know Senator Roberts held very responsible positions in the mining industry as a site officer and had responsibility for safety. I'm sure Senator Roberts would agree with me that the No. 1 obligation upon people holding those positions of responsibility is to make sure all of their workers, after they spend a day at work, get home safe and sound to their loving families. That is the No. 1 responsibility, the primary responsibility. It is wrong that in a case such as this, in terms of the death of Mr Brett Fritsch, the responsible officer should have been able to avoid responsibility, the cost, of meeting the criminal penalty that was incurred by him, because he did not discharge his responsibilities as a responsible officer.

I want to say, for the record, that this is a case where the Senate is looking to close this loophole. It is about more than just words on a page. This is about people who have suffered great loss in their families, and the human element of this must always be remembered and always be considered. I hope Brett Fritsch's mother somewhere, somehow, knows that this place is now rectifying this situation where the responsible officer, who had responsibility for keeping her son safe and sound, managed to avoid liability to meet the penalties that were justly imposed against him.

I want to read a summary of this Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022, because I'm a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, and I know I'll only get two minutes tonight and will be in continuance in the morning.

This is a sneaky, dangerous bill that, if implemented in full, puts many employers and employees at risk of severe penalties, including up to five years jail and fines of up to $600,000. There is an obligation on employers to enforce safety measures, which could include compulsory vaccinations against COVID or similar diseases for employees. Secondly, if a complaint is made about the employer, even if the complaint is made not involving deliberate actions, the onus of proof is reversed and the employer is considered guilty unless he or she can prove their innocence. That's a complete overturning and reversal of fundamental legal principles.

Any legislation that includes a reversal of the onus of proof is a major event and never should be considered non-controversial. The reversal of the onus of proof flies in the face of the accepted principle that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proof is on the person asserting guilt. This is known as the presumption of innocence.

I notice that all the lawyers in this place, in the previous bill on the TGA, which is in continuance, and this bill, hang their heads and pretend it goes away. The reversal of the onus of proof is a major issue and should only be imposed in exceptional cases. Labor have, at least, three pieces of legislation proposed in this week's session, and two on the noncontro list include provisions for the reversal of the onus of proof. They include the export control measures bill as well as this work health and safety bill.

We will definitely be opposing this bill in its current form. It is a sneaky, dangerous bill. We will be raising two amendments and, if they pass, then we will be supporting the bill. Before I get shut down for the night, I want to say that in my experience—

Order, Senator Roberts. It being 7.30 pm, you will be in continuation.

I rise this evening to speak about youth mental health and the impact of social media. Professor Patrick McGorry spoke with me recently about the concerning increase in the number of young people dealing with debilitating mental health problems. Whilst there have always been issues with bullying and harassment of young people, there used to be the escape of going home. Now the bullying follows our children home on social media. The faceless way that people can bully others on social media means that bullying is often more distressing and perpetrators get to hide behind a screen.

The pressure on young people to fit in with their peers, to be up to date with trends and to be grown up before their time is widespread, and some of that has been attributed to social media. Young people are feeling pressured into have sexual relations before they're ready. They're being pressured into participating in other activities that I believe put them at risk. Without the necessary skills and experience, it's hard for young people to identify when they're being groomed, who the perpetrators are, and the risk they face by not understanding the implications of child exploitation.

If our youth do not comply with the norms, they are subject to further harassment and bullying. The social media pile-on gets greater and greater and has an enormous impact on their mental health. Children are being pressured to grow up and to use social media perhaps before they're truly ready as individuals. Quite often we find that children are influenced by their peers, and we know that we all mature at a different pace. Too often, we find that, through social media, children are ending up in circumstances and situations that they're really not skilled to cope with. They don't have the experience to deal with it, and, unfortunately, too many parents and carers are themselves not au fait enough or experienced enough with social media to understand and identify the dangers.

We all know that low self-esteem is made worse by the pressure placed on young people, by themselves but also by their peers. Dr Emanuele, a senior psychologist at the Child Mind Institute's Mood Disorders Center, says that social media is making self-esteem even worse for young people. These are real issues that young people are dealing with every day.

Social media has also contributed to the horrific rise in the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. This is happening not just overseas; it's happening in our own backyards and across all our communities. Children are spending an inordinate amount of time on the internet playing games and using social media, potentially becoming targets of predators. As I said, this isn't just a problem for countries overseas. This is a problem in Australia, and it is a problem in my own community. In just the last six months or so, almost half a dozen perpetrators have been brought to justice in my home state. We need to be serious when we're considering how we deal with social media and the impact that it is having on our children. We need to engage with them. We need to know who they are engaging with on social media. This is an ever-present problem in terms of perpetrators that are out there taking advantage of vulnerable young people. We need to be mindful of that. We need to educate ourselves as parents and as carers and as grandparents. I can't emphasise how important this education is in helping us to protect our children. (Time expired)

I would like to speak tonight about Malcolm 'Tiger' McKenzie. Tiger is a 70-year-old proud Aboriginal man. Tiger lives on a property near the town of Hawker in the stunning Flinders Ranges area of South Australia. Tiger has worked hard all of his life, and he's taught his children and grandchildren the importance of education and hard work. He proudly declares that his family includes five tradies and a sergeant of police.

In 2019 the local Port Augusta newspaper wrote:

'Tiger' McKenzie is a champion of the Aboriginal. As an indigenous leader, he wants to get his people into business and jobs. … Mr McKenzie, of Port Augusta, is described as a motivator, activist, intimidator, provocateur, visionary and one-of-a-kind. He aims to bring about the best for his Aboriginal community and the region they live in.

Tiger can be proud of what he has built from humble beginnings. He grew up on a mission. When he left to attend school later on in life, his education was stymied by discrimination. But he was gifted at sport and, through the connections he made at football, he was able to find work as a driver for the Commonwealth railways. He later mentored young Indigenous people who worked at the Roxby Downs mine, and he served as a councillor on the Davenport council.

Tiger is a great Australian character. I had the privilege of working closely with Tiger, his family and his community when, as minister for resources, we were consulting on where to select a site for a national radioactive waste facility. Tiger wanted this facility in his community, because he could see the potential that it could bring in terms of local jobs and economic development opportunities, especially for young people.

Tiger recently phoned me up because he wanted to share with me his views about the Voice. Tiger supports a voice that can improve the lives of Aboriginal people on the ground. We had a broad-ranging and respectful discussion about the proposed Voice. At the conclusion of our discussion, I proposed I make a speech in the Senate providing his perspective as a thoughtful and worthwhile contribution to this debate. Hence this speech tonight.

Tiger wants to support the Voice, but he's disappointed about the lack of detail coming from the government about the proposal. While not denying the good will of those supporting the Voice, Tiger is concerned that the government is not telling the Aboriginal people how the Voice will benefit them. And, from Tiger's perspective, this benefit must mean more education and more jobs and business development opportunities, especially for young Aboriginal people. Tiger questions how a panel of bureaucrats in Canberra can determine how the Voice will work or how they can choose representatives or how they can decide where the benefits, support and funding will flow. He says: 'They need to get out and listen to people. They are getting well paid just to sit in Canberra.'

While Tiger strongly supports native title, he's also worried that bureaucrats in that system might simply see the native title rep bodies as being more broadly representative, an easy option for the Voice that could effectively block the small-v voice of individuals on the ground and not share the benefits more widely. Tiger just wants to see resources shared where they can do the greatest good. He uses the example of working with G'day groups at Wilpena Pound, a model that could work at other locations across Australia, where local Aboriginal people sit down with tourist operators and determine how they can work together for the benefit of both the business and local people. I agree.

What Indigenous Australians want, just like all other Australians, are practical examples and solutions that promote education, training, employment and business development and that break the cycle of unemployment, welfare dependence, violence and crime. In my opinion, we can do these things without creating another big expensive bureaucracy.

It was a great honour to work with Tiger and his community to try to achieve more economic opportunities for the Hawker region. Unfortunately, for Tiger, the vote in his region did not support a radioactive waste facility, and instead the project is proceeding in Kimba nearby, also in South Australia, where 60 per cent of people voted in favour. But I recognise Tiger's unwavering passion and commitment to deliver practical outcomes for his family and community. As I have seen him fight for them, I have come to understand where he gets his nickname of Tiger.

I hope we can approach the debate on the Voice in a similar way to the respectful discussion that Tiger and I had. Aboriginal people are individual people. Each of them has their own individual positions. Not all of them have the same view on any issue, let alone on the Voice. Indeed, they can not even be divided into arbitrary, binary yes or no categories. Some are maybes, some are don't knows and some are even don't cares, but all of these views must be respected, otherwise the Voice proposal will not recognise Australians; it will just divide us.

Across that diversity of opinion, I am sure there are a lot more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people like Tiger who share some level of dissatisfaction, disappointment, frustration and caution about the Voice. They want to be more fully informed. They want to know how the Voice will improve their lives and, importantly, improve the futures of their children and grandchildren. They want to know that someone will listen, understand and act on their concerns—not just speak for them but listen as well. I hope Tiger's request does not go unheard.

In 2005 Tom Calma, as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, called for a deep commitment to achieve equality in health and in life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within 25 years. That was 2005; we are now in 2023. The outcomes of the Closing the Gap annual report last year highlighted the need for significantly more action. We do not see ourselves making the progress that was anticipated back then. We do not see ourselves making the progress that was anticipated when Kevin Rudd said sorry in 2007, and we don't need any of the other multitude of reports and investigations that are released to tell us exactly what this latest report tells us as well. We are not there; we are not making sufficient progress. There are far too many of the recommendations that are either stagnant or going backwards.

The implementation report that was released this year is the chance we need to turn those goals, to turn those aims, into a genuine action based plan, to set ourselves real targets, to set ourselves a real trajectory to make a fundamental difference because that's what we really need to do. The implementation plan includes such things as accelerating the building of new and remote housing, which is essential. It includes support for the prevention of family violence and for legal service providers to deliver those legal and nonlegal supports to women and children experiencing family and domestic violence. It also includes support for First Nations water infrastructure because we still have communities who do not have safe and reliable drinking water. There are also measures to look at the education outcomes for First Nations students, including on-country education, delivering improved access for junior rangers and more choices for families when it comes to culturally appropriate distance learning because distance learning is something that is an option if they do not wish to leave home.

We definitely need to do things differently. We need to work in partnership with communities to get better results. We must work together to close the gap and ensure that First Nations Australians have the same opportunities as every other Australian. Alongside the implementation plan the Voice to Parliament will be critical. I have worked in Aboriginal affairs in various roles and I've seen time and time again ideas, reports and suggestions being put forward only to fail. They may be implemented partly or not completely, or they may not be given enough time, or they may be poorly pitched. The idea of running the Voice to Parliament is that it will give us an opportunity to discuss that advice for how thing will go on the ground, how it will actually play out for people who are living in those communities, who are experiencing the health, life and life expectancy challenges that we see every single year in the Closing the Gap report. The Voice to Parliament will be an enormous aid for us to close the gap, by talking to the people who are affected, talking to people to whom we say we are trying to improve the outcomes, asking them, listening to them, taking their advice. The Voice will make a difference and it will help us to close that gap.

Senate adjourned at 19:44