I report to the Senate that, with other senators, I presented the address-in-reply to His Excellency the Governor-General this morning. The Governor-General indicated that he would convey the address-in-reply to His Majesty the King. I thank the senators who came along.

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

I stand to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. This omnibus social services bill includes a range of measures that the government announced in its budget this year. The coalition have considered each of the proposals put forward by the government, and we will be supporting the expanded eligibility for assistance for single parents, the expansion of the higher rate of JobSeeker to those aged 55 as opposed to 60 at present and the increase in Commonwealth rental assistance of 15 per cent as announced. But we call on the government to support the coalition's policy on JobSeeker as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech. This relates to the government's measure to increase working-age payments such as JobSeeker by $40 a fortnight.

Currently we have a historically low rate of unemployment. We have 431,000 or thereabouts formal job vacancies and over 800,000 JobSeeker recipients across the nation, at a time when businesses are crying out for workers. I expect there would be few people in this chamber—indeed, few people in Australia—who have walked down a shopping strip and not seen a number of shops closed, with advertisements in the window asking people to apply for jobs within so that those businesses can reopen or extend their hours again. The tightness of the labour market right now is undeniable and is placing a huge, huge toll on hardworking Australians, who are having to work even harder due to these workforce shortages.

On top of that, under this Labor government we have seen the cost of living skyrocket. The average mortgage holder is paying $22,000 more than they were a year ago. They're spending more on their grocery bills, more at the bowser and more on power prices.

These are the millions of Australians who get up every day and are happy to pay their taxes and are happy to contribute to our social welfare system, but they do expect that people will avail themselves of the opportunity to work where the jobs are available and where they're able to do so. That's why the opposition leader, in his budget-in-reply speech, outlined a better way to provide additional support for people on JobSeeker. Our approach is to increase the income-free threshold by $150 a fortnight, giving those Australians the opportunity to work more before they lose a cent of their payment. We know it's good for the economy, we know it's vital for small and medium businesses that are looking for more workers and, most importantly, we know it is the best thing for the individual who is on JobSeeker. Encouraging a JobSeeker recipient by giving them financial incentives to take up more work, which we know is available, is a far better way in this current economic environment to provide support to JobSeeker recipients than simply increasing the amount of the JobSeeker payment that they receive with no incentive to work.

It goes without saying that increasing the income threshold by $150 a fortnight achieves each of the objectives that I expect fair-minded Australians would be seeking. It helps alleviate the labour shortages that are currently being faced throughout the economy—those 431,000 or so formal job vacancies. And we know there will be thousands and thousands more informal vacancies, such as the sign in the window that's not formally counted in those numbers.

Our policy will not only help businesses by encouraging more people to do more hours or to start working some hours—we know that 75 per cent jobseekers right now currently have no earnings—but will also help those people and families at the heart of small business. It helps those people who are creating jobs and creating wealth for our country. It also means that people are getting the vital skills that they need for meaningful long-term employment. We all know that the longer you're out of the workforce the harder it is to re-enter it. Again, it should be plainly obvious to everybody that the coalition's approach of incentivising work, not incentivising welfare, is the best approach to helping people. It's ultimately best for the wellbeing of the JobSeeker recipient too. We all know the dignity of work and the dignity of having a mission. For that reason, our approach is far superior to the one that has been put forward by the government, and we will continue to encourage the government to adopt our policy, which is in the best interest of just about everybody.

We give credit to the government. They've partially adopted the policy that we announced in our budget-in-reply speech in October in relation to senior Australians being able to work more hours. They did it begrudgingly, but in the end they saw the absolute common sense of our proposal. The current income-free areas can act as a deterrent for some people looking for more hours of work or looking for hours of work. Undoubtedly, the best way to facilitate people into meaningful work is to make that first step as easy as possible. How do you help them make the first step? The first thing you do is remove the barrier to making that first step: the financial disincentive of doing that extra hour of work, taking that job or taking on some part-time work. The evidence is clear: where you can facilitate someone who is unemployed into part-time work, it is often the pathway to meaningful full-time employment. In fact, we know that people who report earnings are twice as likely to move to full-time employment as those who do not report earnings. This is an outstanding dividend for that person, for our economy and for welfare costs. It is the trifecta.

We can compare that with what the Labor Party is proposing. The Labor Party, in this bill, is proposing $9.5 billion of spending over the forward estimates, which undoubtedly will put pressure on inflation. Every dollar the government spends at a time when the Reserve Bank is trying to remove money from the economy just means that the government and the Reserve Bank are working against each other. It means that inflation stays higher for longer, which means that mortgages stay higher for longer. What the government is proposing is simply to increase the JobSeeker payment and ask hardworking Australians to fund a little bit more—a little bit more of your tax while your cost of living skyrockets. Meanwhile, in material term terms, you're poorer now than when the Labor government was elected. That is going to impact your standard of living even further. Not only do they pay for social welfare out of one pocket; but they get smashed on the other side with higher costs of living.

The coalition's strong view is that we need to respect those people who get up every single day and work hard to contribute to our economy and fund Australia's social security system. There is widespread support for our approach of removing these disincentives to work and encouraging people to take up work. The wonderful thing about our policy, too, is that, if a jobseeker avails themselves of the opportunity to work, they will actually be significantly better off financially. They'll be personally better off, and that's without taking into account the other benefits of engaging in the workforce: your self-esteem, your morale and the benefits to your overall lifestyle.

We do support, and we will continue to support, the change for eligibility for assistance for single parents. It's worth noting, though, the quite disgraceful things that the government has said about the ParentsNext program. It's an astonishing attack on what we consider to be some of our most vulnerable Australians, and the government has confirmed it will abolish the ParentsNext program. This is a program that keeps young parents engaged with the workforce, and most of these people are young women. This will clearly punish some of our most vulnerable people and remove a very successful way of keeping them connected to the workforce. It's a vital program to help them maintain that connection while facilitating their parental responsibilities, and it shows Australians that this government has no understanding of mutual obligation.

We want to hear from the minister what the government proposes to do to keep parents connected to the workforce and to be job-ready when their children get older. When parents are able to work, and when they want to work, what practical and tangible assistance is this government going to offer when it takes away the ParentsNext program? Abolishing this program, we all know, is ideological, but even the government, through its ideological lens, must accept we have to do something to help parents remain connected to the workforce so that they can easily transition back into the workforce when their children get older.

We will also support the expansion of the higher rate of JobSeeker for those aged over 55. We will support the increase to Commonwealth rent assistance. We are to some extent drawn to the position of supporting CRA because of how badly this government has handled the housing portfolio and how desperate the situation is out there now. We have a government with no housing agenda. We have a government that is seeking to bring in 1.5 million migrants over the next five years with absolutely no plan about where they are going to live. The situation right now is absolutely dire, and the government doesn't have a solution. We saw in the budget in October the government with their 'Ruddesque' announcement of a million new homes over five years. What they failed to tell the Australian public was that a million new homes had been built over the previous five years. That was business as usual, to be frank. But everybody knows—every economist, the HIA, the MBA—that they will now fail to meet this target.

The increase to Commonwealth rent assistance will help a fairly small number of people. It will be very few people around the country. But we're drawn to supporting the measure because the Labor Party have trashed the housing portfolio so badly in just 12 months and we cannot, in good conscience, oppose this. However, we are asking the government to reconsider their approach to JobSeeker. We're asking them to adopt the far superior proposal from the coalition which has respect for taxpayers, which will not add to inflationary pressures and which will remove the disincentive for people to work either more hours or at all. That will help hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country, businesses that are struggling—people who are literally working themselves to the bone—by giving them an additional source of employees.

Finally, we call on the government to support our proposal, as opposed to theirs, because it will materially improve the lives of people on JobSeeker. That is why, on behalf of the coalition, I will be moving an amendment as a request of the Senate to that effect. Because our policy will not only ensure that jobseekers have more money at the end of every fortnight, but they will also be incentivised to re-engage with the workforce in a way that we know will be the best thing for their lives, their morale and their self-esteem. It is a trifecta of good outcomes for the economy, small business and individuals, as opposed to the Labor Party's very lazy approach. I commend our amendment.

I rise to speak to this so-called strengthening the safety net bill. This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023, is not strengthening the safety net. As one of the witnesses to the inquiry into this bill said:

… I wouldn't call it a safety net, I would call it a parachute with holes. If you are on JobSeeker, you are going to hit the bottom at some point.

This bill is putting a tiny patch on that parachute with holes. It is not going to lift people out of poverty. It is going to leave people in dire poverty, leave people who are on JobSeeker, on youth allowance, on student allowance in dire poverty. That is a choice that this government is making. Poverty is a political choice the Liberal Party made in their decade in power. They slashed income support payments, they tore holes in the safety net that was already inadequate and they made life harder for people who were doing it the worst.

We welcomed the changes that were made during the COVID pandemic, including both the COVID supplement and the increases to the income free area, and we opposed their removal. They were temporary changes but they were positive. Doubling the amount jobseekers were allowed to earn lifted people above the poverty line. It lifted people out of poverty. It enabled people to live a modest life of dignity. It enabled people to get back into the workforce. It enabled people to repair their car. It enabled people to repair their washing machine so they had clean clothes for job interviews. The evidence shows very clearly that, during the COVID pandemic, when people were lifted out of poverty, more people were able to enter the workforce and other people who were not able to work were able to at least get by and not be in the shameful position of not being able to live, to put food on the table, to pay the rent, to pay for their medicines.

When those temporary COVID changes were reversed, however, there was still some hope with the change of government. There was hope from progressive voters and from people across the country: what were Labor going to do in government if they were elected? They thought the election of a Labor government would mean a change for people on JobSeeker. But, sadly, we have seen this government join the Liberals in choosing to ignore the urgent calls for action to undertake a meaningful increase in the rate of JobSeeker.

We have seen evidence mount since the election for urgent action. As chair of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into poverty in Australia, I have travelled the country. We've been holding hearings in most states and territories. We've heard from people with direct experience, community organisations, economists and the national peak bodies, and there has been a single, clear, unified call from dozens of witnesses, across all the people we've spoken to. They've called for the government to increase the rate of JobSeeker so people are no longer living in poverty.

Since the election we've seen the work of the government's own hand-picked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. That committee was chaired by a former Labor minister, and it made a clear finding that the rate of JobSeeker was seriously inadequate. It also made clear, in its very first recommendation, that it recommended:

The Government commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of JobSeeker Payment and related working age payments as a first priority.

Even after that report, however, the government refused to commit to an increase in JobSeeker.

There was an open letter that was signed by the Greens, Labor backbenchers and other members of parliament. They also called for an urgent increase. At the same time we have seen rental costs skyrocketing, increasing in double digits. In the last quarter we have seen the largest increase in rents across the country in the last 35 years. A new wave of people are facing a cost-of-living crisis and are facing a housing crisis due to rental increases. Rental increases put incredible increased pressure on the safety net—one that is already inadequate.

In the face of mounting evidence on the seriously inadequate rate of JobSeeker, in the face of a rental crisis, our Labor government made a choice. Sadly, they have not chosen to side with the people on JobSeeker. They chose an absolutely paltry increase of $2.85 a day, or $40 a fortnight—not even enough to pay for half a loaf of bread, not enough to pay for a coffee. It's less than the increase the Liberals had in place when they removed the coronavirus supplement. I know that in the last couple of days the government has been saying that the application of indexation on top of the JobSeeker increase will mean an increase of $56 a fortnight. Okay. That makes it $4 a day rather than $2.86. It is hardly even going to be able to allow people to provide a piece of fruit in their kid's lunch box. That's the increase that is being made. That increase of $4 a day still leaves people on payments well below the poverty line, which Labor's own expert Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee said was seriously inadequate.

As for claiming that it's a win because they are increasing the amount by CPI, governments on both sides increased JobSeeker by CPI. It was a standard thing to do. That's setting aside the fact that the cost of living for people on JobSeeker is actually outstripping CPI. Rents have gone up massively more than CPI. Food costs have gone up massively more than CPI. Even that indexation is not keeping pace with the increased cost of living, and the people who are on JobSeeker are those who are having to face the hardest impact of that increase in the cost of living.

The fundamental reality is that Labor have made a choice. They have chosen $300 billion in the stage 3 tax cuts. They have chosen the $368 billion for the AUKUS submarines. They have chosen to have a $20 billion surplus rather than implementing a meaningful rate of increase for JobSeeker. And all three of these things—the AUKUS submarines, the stage 3 tax cuts and the budget surplus—were also the Liberal Party's priorities. It is tragic to see a Labor government, after a decade in opposition, come into government and clearly signal through its budget priorities that it is refusing to diverge from the settings of the appalling, atrocious decade of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Poverty is a political choice. We know that. I am heartbroken that, despite the calls from across the community, there hasn't been an answer from this Labor government, who claim that they are leaving no-one behind. They are leaving everyone who is on JobSeeker well behind. I am heartbroken that this Labor government has not answered those calls and put into place a meaningful increase to the rate of JobSeeker.

There are four measures in this bill. There's the inadequate $40 a fortnight increase that Labor has brought forward—a complete failure to respond to the unanimous calls from across the community. There is the change that will enable people who are long-term unemployed to access a higher rate of JobSeeker when they are 55 rather than 60 years old. There's the change to enable single principal carers to receive the parenting payment single until their youngest child turns 14 rather than eight, as was legislated by former Prime Minister Howard. There's also a 15 per cent increase to the rate of Commonwealth rent assistance. That is an absolute drop in the bucket—a drop in the ocean—given the rental increases that are being experienced by people.

Obviously, we as Greens are not going to stand in the way of the tiny increases that are being put forward in this bill, but we will be absolutely clear that they are not enough. I will foreshadow, given they are not enough, that we, having listened to the calls from the community, are going to be putting forward a number of amendments to this bill. We will have amendments to lift the base rate of JobSeeker and other income support payments to $88 a day—above the poverty line. If Labor and the Liberals choose to vote together to vote these amendments down, that is going to be on their heads. But then we will have other amendments that would lift the base rate of JobSeeker to $68 a day, in line with the recommendations of the government's own hand-picked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. You would hope—however, I am sadly not expecting it—that the government would actually be listening to their own hand-picked committee Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and support that amendment.

We also have amendments to lift the rate of Commonwealth rent assistance. Again, we hope that Labor won't join with the Liberals to vote down those amendments. We will have an amendment to change the age at which people are able to stay on parenting payment single to implement in full the changes proposed by—again—the government's own Women's Economic Equality Taskforce so that single principal carers are able to receive the parenting payment single until their youngest child turns 16. And importantly, we would want to see those changes implemented as soon as possible, on royal assent, to help the thousands of single parents who have been forced off the payment due to the delay in implementing the budget measures.

The Greens have an amendment to increase the income-free area for most payments to $300 a fortnight, because, yes, allowing jobseekers to earn more is important; it needs to be in addition to increasing the base rate of payments. It was a change that we supported during the COVID-19 pandemic and it is a change that we have in our election platform. We also have an amendment to implement recommendation 18.2 of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. There has been extensive in-depth examination of the robodebt scheme and its harmful impacts, and one of the recommendations for a clear, simple change was reinstating measures that were abandoned in 2016 by the Abbott government that enabled charging for debts more than six years old, which contributed to the cruelty of robodebt. That recommendation identified specific clauses in legislation and could be implemented quickly through this bill, and we think that is an appropriate step. We think these are important amendments. They are amendments that would improve the conditions of hundreds of thousands of people in our community and they are constructive. We call upon the government and the Liberal Party to support them because they would make a real difference in people's lives.

I have spoken about the support across the community for an increase in the rate of jobseeker. The most important voices that I want to bring into this place are the calls from those with direct experience of living on income support. I want to share some of the direct evidence we have heard during the inquiry into poverty. Joe said, 'I am 58 years old. I have been waiting for a total hip replacement for 14 months. I get $683.40 per fortnight on JobSeeker. It should be more than that, but Centrelink has not recognised my new lease that I have uploaded three times, or answered my calls. I am going to lose this tooth because I can't afford to see a dentist.' Rebecca said, 'When you are on it, the indignity of being on Centrelink and the hold that people have over you. Literally, if you miss a call for some reason, say you run to the toilet and in the five minutes you have gone to the toilet they call you in the hour period of time that they are supposed to call you, they cut off your payment.' Jennifer said, 'I spent nearly eight years living in my car because I could not find anywhere suitable to live. The longer I went without anywhere to live, without an address, the harder it became for me to find anywhere suitable to live.'

I think of the evidence that we have heard about families—homeless, children living in cars, children living in tents. You can't have a dignified life like that, but that is what being on jobseeker payments is confining people to. It is destroying their lives, and for children in those families it is having a major impact. It is bad for them. It is bad for the country. We know what needs to happen. The evidence is so very clear. It is overwhelmingly clear, and I just call on this government to listen to it. We must raise the rates of income support. We must raise income support above the poverty line. We must raise the rate to at least $88 a day.

So for all of those out in the community who are fighting for a meaningful increase to the rate of jobseeker, we will keep fighting, we will keep pushing, until we get that success. The evidence is clear: we must raise the rate. We will listen to you and we will be working with you until we achieve that outcome.

I too rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill. Before I get to the detail of this particular bill, I just want to start with some of the economic fundamentals because we do face a very challenging economy at the moment, and, sadly, we have a government that does not seem to have a clue as to how to deal with those economic challenges. The biggest challenge we face is of course inflation. Inflation is a destroyer of wealth. It is a destroyer of peoples livelihoods. It reduces an individual's ability to improve their lot in life. It crushes families. It crushes small business. Inflation is the biggest economic challenge we face.

In my home state—and I know this is replicated elsewhere as well—we see union demands for pay rises that will only exacerbate the inflationary challenge we face. In one case in Western Australia, a 25 per cent immediate pay rise is being demanded; in another case, it's 12 per cent over two years, including seven per cent immediately. If these sorts of pay rises were accepted by anyone in power, they would add to the inflationary pressure that's already in our economy and they would flow through to other sectors and risk a wage price spiral. That is not something that is completely out of the question, sadly. For those who are old enough to remember the last wage price spiral, which went from the early 1970s and into the 1980s, it was an extraordinarily destructive period for our economy. Getting inflation under control was extraordinarily difficult and something that caused untold harm to many families and businesses right across this country, including the farming business owned by my parents at the time. Probably the toughest period in their lives was when inflation got out of control and a heavily regulated labour market caused a wage price spiral. We see a recentralisation of the wages system under this government, so those risks are very much present again.

We should also not seek to put inflationary pressure into the system through our social security safety net. A safety net is just that. We need to take that seriously. We need to look at the general economic settings and understand the position Australia is in. Luckily, we have a historically very low unemployment rate at the moment. That is something that this government inherited from 10 years of coalition management of the economy. Those opposite blame absolutely everything on us, but they take full credit for the unemployment rate. How they justify that, even if their own minds, is beyond me.

The fact is that Australia does have a very strong employment rate, with very strong growth in employment. As I said, that is on the back of a decade of coalition management of the economy and on the back of the JobKeeper program, something that kept hundreds of thousands of Australian workers connected to their workplace throughout the global pandemic, which risked seeing businesses shut down. In other parts of the world, where businesses were forced to close down and where the connection between businesses and their employees was not maintained, the economic results were a lot more negative and significant.

The other thing that I always like to address at these opportunities is the myth that, in some way, the coalition government was not a friend of real wage increases. In actual fact the decade of coalition government saw real wage increases throughout that period—sustainable real wage increases, and this is the point. Real wage increases—wage rises above inflation—have to be based on productivity and on the needs of small and medium-sized businesses across Australia and their ability to pay. We can't see wage rises or social service payment rises come as a fiat from on high. That is where we will get into very real risks for our economy, including the risk of putting further upward pressure on inflation at a time when the Reserve Bank has done the heavy lifting, not helped by this Labor government. There does seem to be some downward movement in the inflation rate, but that is not something that can't be taken for granted, and the Reserve Bank may have to move again, particularly if they see continuing inaction from this government, as they saw in the last budget.

The Reserve Bank were sitting on their hands; they were waiting to see what the government did in the budget, and, following the budget, after having a look at what the government presented, the Reserve Bank were forced to raise rates again. Obviously, this government didn't tackle inflation, didn't know how to tackle inflation in its budget, and the Reserve Bank had to act. Because the Reserve Bank are the only sensible economic player through this period, when the government have completely failed to deal with what they themselves say is the biggest economic challenge at the moment; they say that inflation is the biggest economic challenge. They just don't do anything about it.

This bill will make a range of changes to our social security safety net, and we will be supporting aspects of this bill and we will not be supporting other aspects of this bill. The coalition believe that we have a better path forward, that we have a better approach. We will be supporting expanding the eligibility for assistance for single parents under schedule 1. We will be supporting expanding the higher rate of JobSeeker for those aged 55 in schedule 2. We will be supporting the increase in Commonwealth rent assistance under schedule 3. We will be opposing the increase of payments by $40 a fortnight. Instead, as I say, we will be demonstrating our path forward, our better way, which is moving amendments to increase relevant income thresholds by $150 and removing the government's proposed $40 increase to the bill, allowing those on social security to work more to earn more income before they lose benefits. As I said, we will look to increase JobSeeker and other income-free areas by $150 per fortnight across the payments under the social security safety net.

This bill will increase the base rate of payments by $40, but it fails to reduce barriers to work. There are currently 431,000 job vacancies in the Australian economy. The unemployment rate sits at a historic low, but Labor continues to fail jobseekers, businesses, communities and, importantly, taxpayers across the country by doing nothing to alleviate the entrenched disadvantage. We need to further incentivise jobseekers to take up those employment opportunities that do exist. There are 808,000 JobSeeker recipients of which more than 75 per cent had no reported earnings. We all know that creating jobs and getting people back into work is the best way of improving living standards, and it's also the best way of breaking intergenerational welfare traps. That's why, in his budget-in-reply speech Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, stated that increasing the amount that can be earned before benefits are reduced and thus incentivising jobseekers to take up employment opportunities is coalition policy. Increasing the amount that can be earned supports jobseekers and many small- to medium-sized businesses who are crying out for workers and who are being left stranded by the Labor government.

My colleagues in the chamber and I meet with those businesses—in my case, particularly in rural and regional Western Australia. We meet those businesses literally every time we are out and about. Increasing the amount that can be earned supports jobseekers and many small- and medium-sized businesses, as I said, which are crying out for workers. This is a preferable way of providing additional support to people on JobSeeker. Our approach has been to increase the income-free threshold from $150 to $300 a fortnight before taper rates of JobSeeker payments kick in, giving those people more opportunities to work. This is good for the economy, we know it's crucial for small- and medium-sized businesses looking for more workers and we know it is the best thing for JobSeeker recipients themselves. Breaking back into the workforce, particularly when you have been on social security support for a period of time, is the most important change you can make in your life, and it does change lives. I'm sure every single person in this room, no matter where you sit in the chamber, would have met many people who have been in that circumstance—who have been long-term unemployed and who have turned their lives around by being given an opportunity in the workforce.

Under our approach, income-free thresholds will also be increased by $150 for other related working-age payments such as youth allowance, parenting payment partnered, Austudy payments and the disability support pension youth. Encouraging a JobSeeker recipient by giving them that financial incentive to take up hours of work that we know are available or take up even further hours of work if they are already working is a far better way in this economic environment of providing support to those JobSeeker recipients, as opposed to simply increasing the amount of JobSeeker they are receiving for no work, with no requirement or incentive to do additional work or even some work at all. It helps alleviate labour shortages that are currently being faced throughout the economy.

As I've said, and I'll end on this, there are 431,000 formal job vacancies in Australia. There are many, many hundreds of thousands, as all of us would know, of informal job vacancies in the economy as well. You come across them every day if you are talking to small- and medium-sized businesses in Australia. I commend the coalition amendments to the chamber.

I rise to speak to this Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. In doing so, I want to reflect briefly on the final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, though I hope that we can have a much broader discussion on this in parliament in the months ahead.

What immediately struck me about the final report was Commissioner Holmes's reflection on how we speak about welfare recipients in this parliament and beyond. On the one hand, we can recognise that our family, our friends and our neighbours can fall on hard times and need our support to get back on their feet. We recognise that communities and that society has a duty to ensure that people don't go without food, that they don't go without shelter and that they don't go without the basic necessities of life. On the other hand, as Commissioner Holmes says, we can:

… regard those in receipt of social security benefits as a drag on the national economy, an entry on the debit side of the Budget to be reduced by any means available.

Too often the tired frame of taxpayer versus welfare recipient is dragged out not for any public policy benefit but as a means of demonising a group of people for political advantage. I saw just this morning on breakfast news, where the former deputy prime minister, a person who represents quite a lot of people on income payments, took an opportunity to tell the country that some people are undeserving of support.

Robodebt was an illegal scheme and it thrived in conditions where social security recipients were treated as numbers to reconcile rather than as people in our communities. How we speak about our social security safety net matters. It's my hope that the royal commission's findings are treated with the gravity they deserve and that we all heed the message that we, the people in this room, need to change the narrative. It is unworthy of this parliament to speak about anyone as not being deserving of society's support. In particular, it's time we end the argument that there should be no souls on JobSeeker when there are jobs available. Jobs are not available everywhere in Australia. Many people don't have the financial resources to move to get a job. People may not be qualified for the jobs that are being advertised. Some people only have a partial capacity to work. Others are living with a disability but are not able to apply for the disability support pension. We need to stop thinking about people as numbers and need to start thinking of people as individuals, who may come to unemployment for a range of reasons, which cannot be boiled down to a simple statistic or category.

I'd like to talk about the substantive elements of this bill. I watched the inquiry with great interest and I want to thank everyone who contributed, particularly those who are living on income support or the disability support pension and who donate their time to helping to improve the system for others who use it. Something that stood out to me was a quote by a young person on income support living here in the ACT—and I know Senator Rice mentioned this in her speech. This young person says—and I'm paraphrasing a little bit: 'Our safety net is more like a parachute with holes. It will slow your descent to the bottom, but you will eventually hit the bottom.' This is what our current safety net does to people. It drains them of any financial resources and it leaves people without the basic necessities of life. The net result is people who become increasingly marginalised, stigmatised and excluded from our economy. The simple fact is: if you can't afford rent, food and things like deodorant, a haircut, public transport, heating or even the basic privilege of a replacement light bulb, you are not in the best position to find a job.

Our safety net is a net that traps people in unemployment. This was the first finding of the expert Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and it is why they recommended a substantial increase in working-age payments—to remove the inherent barriers to work and better set people up for success. They recommended increasing working-age payments to 90 per cent of the age pension for a number of reasons, chief among them that this is the only payment that has been reviewed in recent years and adjusted to ensure people can afford the basic necessities of life—though, given the huge cost-of-living pressures existing today, I'm sure you would find it hard to find a pensioner who agrees that living on the age pension is an easy life. The committee found that the current rate of JobSeeker is actually an impediment to getting into the workforce. We've just heard a lot about how unemployed people need to get a job. Well, we've currently got our social security set up in a way that actually acts as a barrier to them getting out and finding jobs, filling those positions that we hear so much about.

Despite what was recommended, what has been received is a fairly miserly increase of just $2.85 a day before indexation. It's $4 a day after CPI is applied, but, given grocery prices have risen by seven per cent, indexation of two per cent is cold comfort. Let's be very clear. This bill will not lift people out of poverty. It will not break entrenched disadvantage in communities across the nation. While any increase is welcome, $2.85 is just not going to be enough to ensure people can eat fresh food whilst also heating their home through winter. The government say—and I'm sure we'll hear it many times today—that they have carefully calibrated the budget to pay down the debt and control inflation, whilst also supporting those most in need. This is a pretty difficult pill to swallow when you read about the huge profits that the supermarkets and banks are reporting while people struggle to afford their grocery bills. It's an even harder pill to swallow when you read in leaked documents that the Treasurer ignored the advice of his own department and chose the weakest reform option for the petroleum resource rent tax. We've got a government that talk about revenue issues, the deficit, and then when they are presented by the Treasury with options to actually get more money from companies that are making record profits from our own resources, the Treasurer goes for the option that's not going to bring in that much—doesn't want to upset the gas industry.

Last estimates, we confirmed with the Treasury that not a single offshore gas project has paid a single cent in petroleum resource rent tax, and yet the government is cowering to the gas industry. That is our gas that they are selling off for record profits. Australians deserve a fairer cut of that. We should be able to actually put that to use for people in our communities who need it. We should be able to use that to pay down the debt that we hear so much about from both sides of this chamber.

Our safety net is greater than just JobSeeker and youth allowance. It also extends to the Child Care Subsidy, and I just want to pick up on a recommendation made by both the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. The activity test does not work. Both committees recommended it be scrapped, the EIAC stating that it was an example where the social security system reduces rather than enhances economic inclusion, especially for women, and causes additional hardship and disadvantage for children. Yet the government chose not to scrap the activity test in the most recent budget, despite this compelling advice that it is limiting access to early childhood education as people are not able to pick up extra shifts as work. The activity test disproportionally impacts First Nations families, non-English speaking families and low-income families. It is bad policy. It means children don't get the benefit of early childhood education, and it leaves people separated from work for longer. It makes no sense that the government did not act early on the recommendations to scrap it.

This bill does not provide a strong safety net for Australians. It may patch a few holes in the parachute, but it will ultimately leave people descending to the bottom. And yet we know what it would take to fix this. We have the expert advice and we have the analysis. All we need is the political will to do right by our family, our friends, our neighbours, our community. We can do so much better, and I urge the government to stand up for Australians who desperately need our support. I move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the expert Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC) found that the rates of social security payments for working age Australians are seriously inadequate and are creating barriers to paid work,

(ii) the EIAC recommended the JobSeeker Payment, Youth Allowance and other related payments be raised to 90% of the aged pension to restore a previous relativity between the payments, reduce financial stress in the community and improve the wellbeing and security of the most vulnerable Australians,

(iii) the Albanese Government has rejected the expert advice of the EIAC and has chosen to raise the rates of income support by just $2.85 a day, before the payments are indexed,

(iv) the Albanese Government has decided not to remove the activity test for the Child Care Subsidy, despite recommendations to do so by the EIAC and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, given findings that it is perversely reducing economic inclusion, especially for women, and causing hardship for children,

(v) the Albanese Government has chosen not to raise the age of eligibility for Parenting Payment (Single) to when a parent's youngest child turns 16 years-of-age, leaving over 18,000 single parents without access to the payment,

(vi) by the time changes to Parenting Payment (Single) commence, over 5,000 single parents will have been needlessly removed from the payment and will need to reapply,

(vii) we are in a housing affordability crisis and the EIAC found the current rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) to be inadequate,

(viii) at a time of rapidly rising rents, the 1.3 million Australian households receiving CRA are at greater risk of financial stress and poverty,

(ix) the EIAC recommended the Government commit to increase CRA and reform its indexation to better reflect rent paid, and

(x) the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme reported that politicians need to 'lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments' and change the narrative of 'taxpayer versus welfare recipient'; and

(b) is of the opinion that the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 will not do enough to reduce poverty in the community and provide all Australians with a strong social safety net; and

(c) calls on the Albanese Government to:

(i) change eligibility for Parenting Payment (Single) to support parents to continue on the payment until their youngest child turns 16,

(ii) raise the rates of working age payments to at least 90% of the aged care pension, as recommended by the EIAC,

(iii) scrap the activity test for the Child Care Subsidy,

(iv) significantly increase Commonwealth Rent Assistance, and

(v) commit to the development of a modern measure of poverty in Australia to guide future policy making in social services".

I start my contribution to the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 with a quote:

Employment advances the wellbeing of individuals and their families, grows community capability, and enables employers and the economy to be more productive.

This statement from the 2023-24 report to government by the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, a committee comprising social security and economics experts and leaders from the community sector, advocacy, organisations, unions, business and philanthropy, illustrates an important point: we need to do all we can to get people into jobs. It is good for the individual, good for the family, good for the community and good for the economy. On this we should all agree: a strong workforce supports economic growth and our nation. This is at the very heart of the coalition's opposition to an increase in JobSeeker and related work-age payments by $40 a fortnight. Why? It's simple: we want people working. We want to use all the incentives we can to assist people into jobs. We want jobseekers, including those who will have several attempts for various reasons before securing sustainable work, to at least have a crack, knowing the safety net of JobSeeker is there but the expectation of work remains constant.

I've shared my logic on why I am supporting most of the bill but not the JobSeeker increase. We all must remember that every single dollar spent by the government is a dollar someone else has earned. As I expressed in my maiden speech and have continued to advocate and repeat, we absolutely need to have greater transparency, accountability and outcomes for every taxpayer dollar spent.

Not only does employment underpin the economic output of our nation and enable people to support themselves, their families and their communities; it is also connected to physical and mental health and is a key factor for overall wellbeing. A simple look at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report confirms that.

In my home state of South Australia, the employment-to-population ratio is sitting at 61.8 per cent. That is 952,000 employed. South Australia's unemployment rate of four per cent sits higher than the national June figure of 3.5 per cent. When compared to the nation's underemployment rate of 6.4 per cent, South Australia again sits higher at 7.1 per cent.

Incentivising people to work is the way to increase opportunities for sustainable work, rather than incentivising them to stay on 'sit-down money', as I often hear it called. That's a devastating term. I hear it often where welfare is the expected destination in contrast to work. As I travel around South Australia and speak to businesses, from small to medium to large, they are all looking to hire more staff. It is like it is on repeat—'We're looking for workers. We're looking for workers. We can't find them.' But, despite looking for workers, they are finding it hard to find them—in hospitality, in health and even in volunteer organisations.

Last week in Adelaide I visited a vibrant family business in Melrose Park. The owner of the business, Alicia, expressed to me her frustration in not being able to find workers. Advertising for a shop assistant to serve her customers, Alicia recently received 70 applications, but only two of those applicants accepted the opportunity for an interview. She expressed her concern that it seemed that none of the applicants were really interested in the job but were more interested in being able to tick a box so they could continue to receive their benefits. Another example is a family owned electrical and mechanical engineering business in Dudley Park which has been searching for extra staff for more than a year. Their advertisements on Seek and other forums get a lot of box tickers—those who want to meet their mutual obligation requirements but really don't have a desire for paid work. The hidden part of this equation is that this process costs those small family businesses money and time. Revenue is not being generated while they are genuinely interviewing people or reading applications from those who really don't want a job.

We know the work is there. Just a one-minute search of Seek jobs website last week found over 9,000 jobs available in Adelaide alone. Looking nationally, there were 432,000 job vacancies in May. Job vacancies remain high—around 89 per cent higher in May 2023 than before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Again batting above the statistics, my home state of South Australia recorded the largest growth in job vacancies, up nine per cent for the quarter.

Just as the coalition has repeatedly stated in policy, it is well known that the best form of welfare is a job. More should be done to help those on JobSeeker get the training and confidence needed to enter the workforce. This would benefit all Australians. I can attest to that, having previously worked in tourism and hospitality as the chief people and performance officer for more than 1,000 staff, many of whom were beginning their first jobs either as young people or as long-term unemployed. We knew that for them to succeed we needed to put in place responses that allowed for their development and confidence. We added training and engaged service providers to help with numeracy and literacy or medical care where they needed it and we set up social networks for those who were a long way from home. These were just some of the steps we took. These steps helped staff wellbeing, but, importantly for the business, retention levels rose. That support was only temporary, tailored and not permanent, recognising expectations were the same as every other employee. Low expectations kill expectations and diminish potential. If you can work, you should.

In being opposed to the proposed increased JobSeeker and related working-age payments by $40 a fortnight, the coalition is highlighting the need to provide the right incentive to ensure we are getting people into the workforce. With this particular increase in the indexation changes over the past year, since May 2022, the base rate of the JobSeeker payment will have increased 14 per cent. That's a 14 per cent increase. What other part of the Australian workforce has had a 14 per cent pay increase in the past 12 months?

True to its record, since gaining office the Albanese government has not done an appropriate level of modelling on increasing the income-free threshold from $150 a week. The Albanese government reluctantly implemented a coalition recommendation in 2022 to increase the amount jobseekers could earn before their income support payments are affected, and there is room for further increases in this threshold to encourage people to remain connected to work and to transition to work and off support payments.

With disciplined economic management during its time in government, the coalition was able to deliver the largest permanent increase to the JobSeeker income support payment. In the past three decades no government has done more for Australians doing it tough than the former coalition government. Under the Albanese government life is certainly harder for every Australian with rising costs of living, exorbitant energy costs—South Australia is one of the worst—and spare change in the hip pocket becoming a rarity for most Australians, let alone the growing line of standing behind people at teller machines when there's not enough money in there.

In summary, I join my coalition colleagues in supporting expanding eligibility for assistance for single parents, expanding the higher rate of JobSeeker to those aged 55 and an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. But I will not support an increase to JobSeeker and related working-age payments by $40 a fortnight because those who can work should be incentivised to do so. Work readiness is not at the centre of these reforms and leaves a policy gap that will have a disproportionate impact on those already disadvantaged in entering and remaining in the workforce. That's why the JobSeeker and related working-age payment income thresholds must be increased by $150 a fortnight, and the government not be able to proceed with the $40 increase per fortnight. Those on JobSeeker are on that payment because they are supposed to be looking for work and there is an expectation they will work. We need to help them and incentivise them to do that.

I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. At the outset, I confirm that the Greens will not stand in the way of people getting this tiny, tiny increase that is so not enough. It is an insult. This bill would increase the JobSeeker rate by $2.85 a day and after you add indexation it works out to be about $4 a day, which is woefully inadequate in a cost-of-living crisis and in a housing crisis. This so-called safety net bill reinforces what we already knew: Australia's social security system is not fit for purpose. Centrelink payments are not a real safety net. People can't afford food, rent, medicine and this bill doesn't change that.

The Albanese government is spending $313 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy, but it's claiming it's too poor to increase JobSeeker above the poverty line. In a wealthy country like ours, there is absolutely no excuse for keeping the income support below the poverty line. It certainly doesn't help people get jobs, and it condemns them to a life of poverty. There is no excuse for keeping the most vulnerable in poverty while offering tax cuts to the wealthiest Australians. Where are your priorities? I thought we had a change of government. We were expecting a change of policy. Labor promised in opposition that no-one would be left behind. But this bill leaves people behind—young people, students, renters, disabled people, women and people relying on income support. It leaves them so far behind. Labor has the power to help people but it's choosing not to.

One in eight people in Australia live in poverty, according to the latest figures from the Australian Council of Social Service, or ACOSS, and more than one in six children. Households where women are the main income earner experience twice the level of poverty as those where a male is the main income earner. There are 300,000 single mums who rely on Centrelink as their main source of income. We know that women make up more than 60 per cent of those relying on the lowest income support payments. We also know that women and girls made up more than 60 per cent of clients of homelessness services this year and last year. We know that rental prices are skyrocketing; we've just seen the biggest quarterly increase in rents in 35 years. And we know the fastest-growing group of people at risk of homelessness is women over the age of 45; it used to be women over the age of 55, before COVID, but now it's women over the age of 45. Across the country people are living in tents and cars, if they have one—children living in tents and cars.

As the women spokesperson for the Greens, I know these risks are compounded for women and children trying to leave abusive relationships. Women are given an impossible choice: stay in an unsafe home, or leave and put themselves and their kids at the mercy of a system of inadequate support, stretched DV services, housing shortages and punitive income tests. Professor Anne Summers undertook one of the most comprehensive studies on the interrelationship of poverty and violence, and found that a lack of money and financial support was a significant reason why women were unable to leave their violent partner. Condemning women to stay in violent relationships because of a lack of a decent rate of income support and a lack of investment in housing is indefensible. It risks the continuation and possible escalation of violence, social stigma, the loss of independence and agency, and the very life of the woman. That study by Professor Summers also found that many women who temporarily left violent relationships returned because they had no money. Painfully, returning to their violent partner seemed a better choice than being homeless and trying to survive in poverty.

The Albanese government policy, through the current National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, is meant to be to encourage and support women to leave violent relationships. But continuing welfare measures that are below the poverty line ensures that as many as half the women who are able to choose to leave violent relationships end up in poverty. The consequences of the Albanese government's choice to not stop poverty are very stark for women who are seeking to escape domestic and family violence.

I want to move to the single parent payment, which this bill also addresses. My wonderful colleague and our portfolio holder Senator Rice has already flagged we will move amendments to raise the single parenting payment cut-off threshold to when the youngest child turns not 14 but 16 years old, as well as amendments to raise income support to $88 a day so people aren't forced to live below the poverty line, which condemns them to a cycle of poverty and joblessness. Single mums are particularly vulnerable. They make sacrifices every single day—skipping meals so their kids can eat, skipping a doctor's appointment so they can pay rent, putting off dental care or not getting it at all so they can buy their kids school uniforms. Since the Gillard government's cruel decision a decade ago to drop the eligibility for the single parent payment from 16 to eight years old, single parents are losing about $100 every week once their youngest child turns eight. There's no logic to that. There's certainly no heart to that. This is an arbitrary cut-off that makes life harder for single mums and their kids. It's a change that can tip people into homelessness, and governments must act to properly fix it.

In the budget, now operationalised through this bill, the government lifted that age threshold from eight to 14, but I note that the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, another government body whose advice the government is sadly ignoring when it comes to matters of poverty and need, said it should be 16. They said it should revert to what it was before then Prime Minister Gillard dropped it from 16 to eight. It is an arbitrary cut-off that fails to recognise the costs that single parents face when they're raising young adults. The government contended that, by age 14, children are reasonably settled into high school, but there was no rigorous analysis of the expense involved in raising high school children. There was no rationale. There was certainly no consideration of the 23 per cent rent increase in private rentals in my home town of Meanjin—or Brisbane, as it's known—in the last 12 months. The government said it was 'responsible budgeting'. I don't think it is responsible to condemn single parents to poverty and to fail to reverse that abominable change, which damaged so many families.

Many single-parent families remain stretched beyond capacity. Advocates like Anti-Poverty Week and the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children have urged the Albanese government to reconsider this. The government should support the Greens amendment, which would raise the age to 16, not 14, as the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommended and as single parents, and single mums in particular, around the country are begging for.

I also note that the government has been ignoring correspondence from Senator Rice and me and also, I believe, from the crossbench. It has failed to provide for families that fall through the gap—if their child turned eight after 30 June but before September, when the changes to lift it to 14 kick in. For those families, that's now up to three months of being dropped down to a payment that is clearly inadequate to meet their needs. It's three months in which they will struggle even more to put food on the table, to buy school uniforms and to pay the rent. The government must do something to support these families and prevent them from falling into poverty and homelessness. Why are you not fixing that? You can't expect people to be $100 worse every week for three months, in this cost-of-living and inflation crisis, just because you can't be bothered to change the commencement date on a provision. At the stroke of a pen you could fix this situation. I urge the government to support the amendment to close that three-month gap.

Labor's so-called safety net bill does not do enough for those who most need the safety net. Anglicare's 2023 rental affordability snapshot of over 45,000 rentals found that zero per cent of rentals were affordable for a single person on JobSeeker, and the tiny increase in the base rate and Commonwealth rent assistance that this bill will provide will do nothing to change that situation. In fact, Anglicare found that it would make one additional home, across the whole country, affordable for a person on JobSeeker—one additional home.

I'm incredulous that the government can be so wilfully blind to the real peril that so many people on JobSeeker and single mums are facing. Those opposite have the ability to fix it and choose not to. Poverty is a political choice, as Senator Rice so eloquently reminds this government every time she speaks. When you've got $313 billion that you're prepared to give to the wealthiest Australians and billions more for nuclear submarines, and you've got a $20 billion surplus, how dare you not spend that on lifting people out of poverty! How dare you have that as your priorities! We changed the government; we expected the policies to change. The Australian people are incredulous at the underdelivery of this limp new government. How dare you condemn people to stay in poverty when you've got the ability to fix it!

Budgets are all about political choices and priorities, so let's have a look at what the recent Albanese Labor government's priorities were in the recent budget. There was $368 billion on nuclear submarines, and I bet it ends up being a lot more than that—if those submarines are ever delivered; $313 billion for stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires and for politicians like us; $10 billion a year to the fossil fuel cartel to keep boiling the planet; and $7 billion a year to property moguls in subsidies, supercharging inequality and the housing crisis.

Let's talk a little bit more about priorities and tough choices. Labor says that they have to make tough choices in government. Any government does. But, when we look at their priorities and what they are spending the money on, what they are doing is forcing the rest of us to make tough choices. Poverty is a political choice. With the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023, Labor are saying that people on JobSeeker should be grateful for a $40 a fortnight increase in payment and a $16 a fortnight increase due to regular indexation. As my excellent colleagues have said in here today, that equates to $2.85 per day, and, if you add the indexation, to around $4 a day. How many of us seriously think that would make an improvement to our lives? It is not even the price of a coffee from your local barista.

This still leaves people on payments well below the poverty line. Labor's own expert committee said this was seriously inadequate. According to the ACOSS 2023 poverty report, 3.3 million people in Australia, or one in eight people, live in poverty. More than one in six Australian children live in poverty. A survey of 449 people living on Centrelink payments found that 62 per cent of people are eating less than they should be or are being forced to skip meals. Is $2.85 a day really going to help someone eat healthy food and keep them safe? With these budget changes, Labor is making the choice to keep hundreds of thousands of Australians living in poverty. These are the choices we are about to vote on in this bill.

Nowhere is more affected by growing inequality and poverty than my home state of Tasmania. It's no secret that battlers in Tasmania are doing it tough in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Inflation has been supercharged by corporate profiteering, and it is our most vulnerable who are paying the biggest price. In Tasmania, 47,000 households are currently experiencing energy poverty and 120,000 Tasmanians are living below the poverty line. That's nearly 20 per cent. Rents in Tasmania have exploded, and Tasmanians who rely on our government to help them just can't keep up. Anglicare data released in April this year showed that rents in Tasmania are rising up to ten times faster than income support payments. The same report showed that single Tasmanians on the age pension can only afford a room in a share house. This is no way for any Australian, especially older Australians, to be living. Living alone without flatmates is not possible for people in Tasmania, unless they go into rental stress. Single people on JobSeeker or youth allowance cannot afford to rent any property in Tasmania and must consider shared living. This is not acceptable in a country like Australia, the so-called lucky country.

Taking a national perspective, an analysis of over 45,000 rental listings in 2023 found that zero per cent of rentals—no rentals—were affordable for a single person on JobSeeker. Poverty in Australia is not inevitable; governments choose to make it so by their policy and budget decisions, and that is exactly what we will be doing today.

Labor promised in opposition that no-one would be left behind, but the budget delivered in May leaves young people, students, renters, disabled people and people relying on income support behind. The government just announced last week the expected surplus was bigger than expected—$20 billion. This could do so much good at a time when people are hurting and being pushed to the brink but, instead, our Treasurer decided to bank it—and gave himself a pat on the back. Instead of using that surplus for good, we have a parade of Labor MPs in here today and in press conferences in recent days lining up to tell us that a $2.85-a-day JobSeeker and $1.12 rent assistance increase will make a difference to people's lives. Who are you trying to kid? We need to lift JobSeeker and all income support payments above the poverty line—absolutely black and white. The Greens won't stand in the way of this increase today.

I would also like to acknowledge my colleague former Senator Rachel Siewert for all the work she did for many years before she handed over to Senator Rice, who has continued her Herculean efforts to continue to push all governments to take a reasonable and humanitarian stand for those most in need. We know there is money in the federal budget for all the things we need to do to lift people out of poverty. But what will the most vulnerable people in this country get? Scraps, not enough to lift them out of poverty. The people who need our government to step up and help them as they suffer in the midst of an unprecedented cost-of-living crisis are being at best offered a cup of coffee a day by the Labor Party.

Economic inequality is at a 70-year high. Almost half the private wealth of this country—to remind senators in here today—is held by the top 10 per cent of Australians. One per cent of taxpayers own nearly one-quarter of all property investments in this country, and that hasn't happened by accident. That has happened because of structural shifts in policies over many decades giving unfair subsidies to the wealthiest Australians to keep buying investment properties at the expense of young and low-income Australians who would dearly love to own their own homes. We know the cost-of-living crisis has hit those on JobSeeker hardest, and rent hikes are at record highs, which is why it is so critical we raise the rate to $88 a day and implement a freeze and cap on rent increases.

In the year in which will be voting on a historic referendum to enshrine a First Nations Voice to Parliament in our Constitution, it is critical we also highlight the unacceptable reality that right now 31 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in poverty, and poverty amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is twice as high in very remote communities as it is in major cities. If Labor are serious about helping people on JobSeeker and ending poverty, they should back the Greens' demands and the amendment to lift the base rate to $88 a day. We need a strong social safety net for everyone who needs it and we can afford it. Unlimited rent increases should be illegal, and Centrelink payments should be above the poverty line.

I want to finish with one point today reflecting the cost-of-living crisis that so many Australians are facing. We heard Mr Albanese last week talk about a potential double dissolution if the Greens don't pass his very inadequate Housing Australia Future Fund bill, saying that he can't control the states or dissolve the states or tell the states what to do. But we know that this parliament was recalled in December last year—many of us were brought back—to legislate the energy crisis relief plan, which essentially capped power prices for many vulnerable Australians. That was leadership by the government, and will I recognise that—good on them. They worked across party lines to do this. They worked with the National Cabinet and the states, and they achieved that. It wasn't perfect, but it was something. How is it that the Prime Minister can do that to energy and power prices to help struggling Australians but can't do it for rents? It just doesn't make sense. What we need from the Prime Minister is, again, for him to show leadership and for the Labor Party to show leadership. With the exception of Tasmania, all the states have Labor premiers. We know that the Victorian Labor government was talking about rent freezes. We know we did it during COVID, with the states and the National Cabinet working under the previous COAG system so that the nation was federated and working together on these issues. The Prime Minister simply needs to show the same level of leadership. Listen to the Australian people—the one in three Australians who are renters and are suffering terrible rent hikes. Do something for them. We can do it. I'm sure the Prime Minister can do it if he puts his mind to it. Stop playing political games and grinding your axe against the Greens, which you've done now for many decades. Actually work with us, and let's get on with helping struggling Australians by capping rent hikes, putting in place rent freezes and making a serious commitment to invest in public housing in this country.

I'd like to associate myself with the comments particularly of Senator Janet Rice, whose work on delivering welfare payments above the poverty line has been strong, consistent and constant for so many years. Of course, my other Senate colleagues have contributed so powerfully to this debate. We must raise the welfare rate. We must lift people out of poverty. How we treat those who need our help says a lot about the values of a society. Do we prioritise dignity, equity and giving everyone a fair go? Or do we keep payments so low that people have to skip meals, can't pay their rent and can't turn the power on, with medical and dental care impossibly out of reach? Are we satisfied that, after this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023, is passed, kids will still go to bed hungry? As an institution, this parliament would rather pay hundreds of billions for nuclear subs and forgo hundreds of billions of dollars more to give stage 3 tax cuts to the already wealthy than give a kid a meal or fix someone's teeth. They're the choices that this institution is constantly making. Because of the institutional agreement between parties that call themselves parties of government—Labor and the coalition—every time, it's the subs, the weapons and the wealthy who seem to get the largesse from this chamber. Kids? They can just go hungry.

Let's be clear: a vote of this place could literally end poverty in Australia. That's what we could do if we came together. We could end poverty in the country. It's a choice not to have that on the table today. In fact, to hear the coalition opposing even a $40 a fortnight increase—to hear that being said by people in such privileged positions, on the incomes that they are on—is a deep, deep insult to millions of Australians. It's a choice to make the welfare system impossibly complex, deeply punitive and degrading. It's a political choice to spend billions policing poverty rather than lifting people out of poverty. This government, in just the last week, have jumped out and promised a $20 billion budget surplus—and still they tell us they can't raise the rate of welfare above poverty. It's not that they can't raise the rate above poverty; it's that the Albanese Labor government won't raise the rate above poverty. Labor promised in opposition that no-one would be left behind. Does anybody remember that? We heard the Albanese cry, 'No-one will be left behind; vote for Labor—yadda yadda yadda.' That's what we heard when they were in opposition. But, of course, Labor in opposition and Labor in government are two totally different animals. We see it time after time after time. In opposition, they want your vote and they make promises. In government, they govern for the status quo. That's the Labor Party. That's actually it's job, it seems, in Australian politics—to back in the status quo with a smile and a well-meaning message. It's like the coalition with a good social media platform.

I call on Labor today to tell us how they'll deliver on that promise of no-one being left behind. How will they raise the rate, remove punitive mutual obligations and actually invest in committees? This bill does expand parenting payments for single principal carers whose youngest child is 14, up from eight years old. In actual fact, it's reversing a previous noxious policy put in by Labor. But I'll give credit where credit is due: that should be reversed, and it's good to see it being reversed. That's a meaningful change, but it's a meaningful change we need because Labor did that rotten deal to make the problem in the first place. Again, Labor in government compared to Labor in opposition.

Eight years old was never an appropriate limit for parenting payments. While we're heartened that the change is being made today, it's important to reflect on why it had to be made at all. The choice to save public money by cutting welfare payments is a cynical and damaging political choice, and it's a choice that has been made by both Labor and the coalition when in government. Both of them are willing to play the politics of punching down against people on welfare, punching down against single mums, punching down against people with mental health problems who are struggling to get by, punching down against people who can't get a job in a system that's designed to create structural unemployment. We saw from the robodebt royal commission how that punching down by both Labor and the coalition hurts so many. It hurts the most vulnerable.

This bill is a kind of light punching down, by pretending a $40 a fortnight rise is about addressing poverty. When you hear, if you're struggling to get by, that this government, which was voted for change, is giving a cup of coffee a day—maybe a cup of coffee a day—and celebrating it as no-one being left behind you know it's cynical, damaging and plain wrong. The last budget increased those payments by $40 a fortnight, or $2.80 a day, at a time when it's not unusual for rents to increase $100 a week, and when groceries and bills are spiralling out of control. That's what's been promised. It's an embarrassing increase for this government to be trumpeting.

If we want to talk about closing the gap for First Nations people across this country that needs to include raising the rate. We know that the rate of First Nations people in poverty is far too high. Data from ACOSS that's been given to everyone in this place—ACOSS reached out to all of us, gave us the data, gave us the information—estimates that almost a third of First Nations people live in poverty, sometimes entrenched poverty. And the rate is almost twice as high in very remote communities. How does anyone pretend that $40 a fortnight is going to lift people in remote communities out of poverty when we know that just going to the grocery store can be a heart-stopping experience, where sometimes the basic staples are two or three times what is required to be paid in capital cities?

I remember once going with community to the one store in Wilcannia in north-west New South Wales. The town is majority First Nations people, and the store is run by a white storekeeper, who I have very little time for. I remember going in and seeing a kilo of Black & Gold flour for something like $3. That's something you can buy in a Sydney store for about one third of that—a dollar or less. I remember also seeing in the freezer section so many pet bones, food for pets, which wasn't explained by the number of pets in Wilcannia, and the prices of every item. I thought, 'How could you possibly survive in this town on the kinds of payments that the government gives?' The answer is: you bloody well can't, not with dignity. Is $40 a fortnight going to address that? It absolutely will not.

Of course, this bill really isn't about lifting people out of poverty. This bill is about doing the bare minimum for Labor in government. It's nothing courageous. It's nothing generous. It's nothing to crow about. That's the Albanese government all over—nothing generous, just the bare minimum to satisfy a media release, to satisfy a vague promise in opposition on the way to the election but never to change the status quo, because that's Labor in government. They back in the status quo. They back in structural unfairness. And then they tell us about their surplus.

I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. Of all the ridiculous pieces of spin we've seen come out of the Liberal and National parties, I don't think anything compares to the Leader of the Opposition saying earlier this year that the Liberals and the Nationals are the parties for the working class. These are the parties that have voted against lowering energy prices, voted against a $10 billion investment in social and affordable housing and voted against laws for secure jobs and better pay. And, today, when Labor has come to Canberra to pass laws that will increase JobSeeker, youth allowance, parenting payments, Austudy, Abstudy, the youth disability support pension and Commonwealth rent assistance, delivering real cost-of-living relief for the most vulnerable in our community, the Liberals and Nationals are saying that they oppose this.

It was reported in the Australian today: 'The opposition leader on Monday will commit to scrapping Labor's $40 a fortnight increase to the JobSeeker rate.' How out of touch can you be, to cut $40 from the most vulnerable people in our community? They aren't there throwing parties with the money. They aren't there using the money to fly in fancy au pairs. People depend on this money to pay for their rent, heating and food. That is what Mr Dutton is proposing to take away from people—rent, food and heating. Which one of these things should people cut if Mr Dutton cuts their payment? Should they save money on rent by sleeping in their car? Should they save money on food by only having dinner every second night? Should they stop using heating or turning the lights on in the evenings? These are the decisions that Mr Dutton and those opposite will force people to make if these payments are cut.

Here I was thinking that we had all agreed, many decades ago, that all people deserve these basic human rights. But clearly those opposite feel differently. But fortunately Mr Dutton is not the Prime Minister, and those opposite are not in government. On this side, the Labor government are here to fight for a stronger safety net. The Liberals and Nationals oppose that. We're here to create more secure jobs and increase wages. The Liberals and Nationals oppose that. We're here to fight for more affordable housing. The Liberals and Nationals, and the Greens, oppose that. We're here to protect Medicare and the NDIS. The Liberals and Nationals want to tear them down. We're here to deliver cost-of-living support for Australians doing it tough. And the Liberals and Nationals oppose it.

This $40 per fortnight increase will support 1.1 million people. Together with the other measures in this bill, like the increase to Commonwealth rent assistance, this bill provides urgent cost-of-living support for two million people across the country. To those two million people I say that Labor is here to fight for you. A Senate community affairs committee inquiry into this bill said that antipoverty campaigners supported a strong increase to working-age and student payments. Many said the increase needed to be higher, and I understand those calls. But who agreed with Mr Dutton's opinion that the rate shouldn't be increased? The only organisation the Liberals and Nationals could find to support their view was the Institute of Public Affairs, an organisation that exists to promote the selfish interests of Gina Rinehart and a select number of other billionaires at the expense of everyone else. What did they say about the $40 a fortnight increase? They said it's 'unlikely to succeed because it will disincentivise social security recipients from seeking the best form of welfare—a job.'

That's the position of the IPA and those opposite: if you're poor and you're doing it tough, it's your own fault; get a better job. The Liberals' and Nationals' party line is that, if you don't have a job, it's because you are not destitute enough yet. Their party line is that every unemployed person needs to be crushed and ground down by abject poverty, and then miraculously they will find a job. It's a ridiculous position that is not supported by any evidence or reason. It's a position that is rooted in a sneering sense of self-superiority. Mr Dutton's looked at those in poverty and said, 'It's your own fault.' Many Liberals and Nationals look at people who live in poverty and think to themselves that it could never happen to them. They are too brilliant, too clever, too hard-working. The reality is that any person—it doesn't matter how clever or brilliant you think you are—can find themselves living in poverty. It's a question of luck and circumstances.

How can anyone look at people doing it tough and think to themselves that they deserve to live in poverty? It's a disgusting worldview. Between the increases in this bill and the indexation changes under this government, the JobSeeker rate has increased by 14 per cent over the last year. That's $90 more per fortnight or over $2,300 per year. It is a meaningful increase, and my hope is that we will continue to do more. I'll never share the worldview that people who are unemployed, who are studying or who are on a disability pension deserve to live poverty. I oppose that view with every bone in my body. Working people deserve a living wage, and those unable to secure work deserve a fair standard of living that does not leave them in abject poverty. Mr Dutton's promise to cut $40 a fortnight from welfare recipients is a disgrace, but sadly it's what we've come to expect from the Liberals and Nationals since the Howard era. When the most vulnerable people are used as a political punching bag, that is something I will never support.

I rise to speak to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023, and I want to add to the chorus of my Greens colleagues who have spoken today and echo some of their comments in relation to what this bill represents. It legislates the four income support measures that were contained within the 2023-24 budget, the first one being allowing single parents with children up to the age of 14 to access the single parent payment. The others are increasing the rate of working-age and student payments such as JobSeeker, youth allowance and the partnered parenting payment, Austudy and the youth disability support pension to a measly $56 a fortnight; reducing the qualifying age for a higher rate of JobSeeker from 60 to 50 years, and increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. I'll be very clear from the start of this speech that these increases are not enough. An additional $56 a fortnight is not enough.

The Greens will not stand in the way of this increase today. We were pleased to see it increased over the weekend, but it's still not enough. This bill ignores all the evidence from the countless inquiries, all the advocacy from organisations, the testimonies of lived experience of Australians on these payments and calls from the members of their own parties to do better. Under this legislation, JobSeeker payments will still keep Australians below the poverty line while this government will persist with nuclear submarines and stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires. The government had an amazing opportunity to make a real difference. They absolutely did. Yet they chose not to. They made a political choice not to.

The Greens have long called for the base rate of all income support to be lifted to $88 a day. We believe that everyone has the right to access adequate high-quality resources to enable them to participate fully in society, and this includes the additional targeted services and supports that people need. It's about meeting people where they're at. It's very, very simple. People should have those resources that they need to live a fulsome and dignified life, and that should in fact not be a controversial statement to make in this country.

I would like to also acknowledge the work of my predecessor, former senator Rachel Siewert from Western Australia, who did an amazing amount of work in this place. After Rachel left, her incredible work has been picked up by Senator Rice, who has helped expose the true centre-right agenda of this government which in fact presents itself as progressive. It's beyond my comprehension how they can actually do that.

This bill is far from the ambition and compassion that people on welfare payments deserve to be shown. Under these changes, people will still be forced to make a choice between paying their rent, paying their bills, buying their medication and buying food. They're the choices they have. A survey was conducted of people living on Centrelink payments. It found that 62 per cent of those respondents, so over half, were eating less food or in fact skipping meals altogether. They're making a choice, that they've been forced into, between rent, bills, food and medication. People in this place and the other place have gone on record saying that they couldn't possibly live on these payments, and yet they expect millions of Australians in this country—the Lucky Country we call it—to live on these payments. What an absolute joke.

For those folks who are watching out there, those in the gallery, politicians in this place will say, 'We couldn't possibly survive on that,' but we expect Australians to. And the sick joke is that, on their comfortable salaries, politicians will say: 'This is all we had to offer. This is a choice we made in this budget. We were being responsible.' On the weekend we heard the minister, Minister Rishworth from the other place, go on national TV and say, 'This is what we had to offer in the budget, and we dished it up.' With an estimated surplus of $20 billion, this is all they have to offer Australians.

One in eight, or 3.3 million, people in Australia live in poverty right now. More than one in six of our children live in poverty. Poverty is in fact that political choice. This government and previous governments—the coalition can't escape from this—made their choice to keep people in poverty in this country. Being on income support is not a personal failing. It's not bad budgeting. It's not laziness or some of the other excuses that you've heard people use to talk about those who are on income support. It is the decisions that are being made right here in this building that are keeping people—women, children and our families—in poverty. Make no mistake, these are not just numbers—we can bandy those numbers around and talk about those; these are very real human people at the core of this issue. They are people that are isolated. They are crushed by the poverty that this government has now left them in.

I am going to talk to some of the quotes they shared during the Senate inquiry into the extent and the nature of poverty in Australia. One of them said:

To be on income support and have no money is very dispiriting. It is crushing. It is soul destroying. You become socially isolated.

Another said:

… I have seen how this country treats poor people. I've been on the receiving end of it long enough to have had a gutful, and it regularly—

I want to emphasise the word 'regularly' in the evidence this person has provided—

makes me think, 'Hey, maybe death might not be such a bad idea.'

During the inquiry into this bill, one witness also stated:

… this increase doesn't recognise how close I am to homelessness. It doesn't recognise how close many of my friends are to homelessness. It doesn't recognise the people who already are out of a place to live and how it's impossible for them to find anything.

…    …    …

I wouldn't call it a safety net; I call it a parachute with holes. If you're on JobSeeker, you're going to hit the bottom at some point. I do think ending up on JobSeeker puts you into a state of poverty, and it makes it much harder to get out of that.

These stories are absolutely heartbreaking. We must never forget about the real human impact that the development of legislation and laws in this country around welfare has.

This government has been very averse to breaking election promises regarding the stage 3 tax cuts, but it has never been more happy breaking promises that, as others have said today, were about leaving no-one behind. How many times did we hear that during the election campaign? Labor said they would leave no-one behind, but what have they done? In this bill they have left people behind, and they continue to do it. Young people, students, renters, disabled people and First Nations people are all being left behind.

So often it is the case that the impact of these decisions will be felt disproportionately, particularly by my people. In fact, 31 per cent of First Nations people across this country already live in poverty and over half of the First Nations people in very remote communities also live in poverty. At a time when we are talking about last week's report from the Productivity Commission about closing the gap and only four of the 19 targets being 'on track', we know that First Nations people are poorer, get sicker and die earlier. We all know these stories. I sit here and listen to people on both sides of this chamber say to me, 'We've been out to these communities.' Well, the pretty picture you're trying to paint when you do that for your own purpose is not the pretty picture here. Communities are not given the support they need, and that extends to the matters contained in this bill. The intersectional issues of poverty cannot be ignored. However, that also means no-one should be living in poverty. Regardless of age, race, gender or postcode, it is utterly shameful that millions of people in this country—a wealthy country like ours—are forced to live in poverty because of the political decisions of the government.

I would like to finish up with just a few statistics that might bring some understanding to this. Information that was talked about on Insiders yesterday shows that we've had increases to food and beverages of 7.5 percent and increases to rent. In a time when we in the Greens, along with the coalition, are being blamed for stopping the housing bill, rents in this country have gone up 6.7 percent, and everyone is deaf to that. This is particularly impacting upon people on income support. Electricity has gone up 10.2 percent and gas has gone up 22.2 percent in this country. It is unacceptable that we should sit here and talk about that $56 a fortnight that we're so-called giving to people to get them closer to getting out of poverty.

The quote that I want to finish with is from the Antipoverty Centre's submission to the Senate inquiry on the extent and nature of poverty in Australia. It says:

We reject the ideological underpinnings and framing of poverty as a "wicked problem" lending itself to intergenerational cycles of disadvantage that cannot be helped by simply giving people money.

This narrative serves the interests of the architects of the poverty machine and those who perpetuate it. It is the reason why, despite endless cycles of consultation, targeted programs, and "place-based" experiments there are more of us in poverty, not less.

Supports and services can never fulfil their aims while trying to counter the effects of having insufficient resources. The idea that people need enough money to live should not be a radical one.

The biggest barrier to escaping the poverty trap isn't inherent human flaws, it's poverty itself.

We must continue to understand and work to bring forward those stories of the human element of the impact of what's happening across this country. It is our job. The reason that we have been elected to this parliament is to make sure that we hear what the Australian public are telling us, and what they are telling us is that this is insufficient. This is not enough and we are not listening. This government is not listening. Over on this side, we are listening and, as I've said, the work that Senator Rice has done as the chair of this inquiry has been amazing. It continues to raise these issues, and we must never forget the stories of that impact.

I thought I might rise to make some brief remarks in regard to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 and make very clear what the coalition's position is. We have heard some contributions from government senators which tell half the story, so I'm keen this afternoon to make sure that people understand exactly what the full story is and why the coalition's amendments should be supported and why they concur or align with some comments that were made by the Secretary of the Treasury earlier this year.

To reiterate, the coalition will support expanding the eligibility for assistance for single parents, which is contained at schedule 1 of the bill. It will also support expanding the higher rate of JobSeeker for those aged 55, which is contained at schedule 2. It will support the increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, which is detailed at schedule 3. It will oppose increasing payments by $40 per fortnight; instead, we will move amendments this afternoon or tomorrow to increase the relevant income-free threshold by $150 and remove the government's proposed $40 increase from the bill. Fundamental to this is the idea that, in a period of very low unemployment such as we're experience in Australia now, where job opportunities are at their greatest and at a historic high, we must use this unique set of economic circumstances to give people the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of work. We know that when Australians have the benefit of employment their state of mind improves, they are happier and they are able to make a much greater contribution to our community. That's a view that is reflected in the HILDA report. It's not a guess; it's not an idea. It is something that is supported by the evidence in the HILDA review.

I want to turn particularly to some comments that the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury made in April this year in an address to the Policy Research Conference. At that conference, which was hosted by the Treasury, the secretary made some very important remarks, I think, when commenting on the white paper on employment, which is expected to be released soon. The secretary made some observations with regard to income support recipients—exactly the sorts of people that we are talking about this afternoon. He made these remarks in trying to draw to people's attention some of the disincentives in our current system that deny people the opportunity to work more. I think these comments are very illustrative of why the coalition's forward-thinking amendments deserve to be supported, amendments that are about using the unique set of very positive circumstances in our employment situation to deliver better outcomes for people who are on JobSeeker.

In his 3 April address to the Policy Research Conference, the secretary said:

Income support recipients, those people receiving payments such as unemployment benefits and pensions, can also experience work disincentives resulting from the tax-transfer system. I will focus on the JobSeeker Payment as it is most directly linked to the labour market.

He goes on to say:

Conversations around JobSeeker often assume that recipients are unemployed. This leads to an analysis of benefit rates relative to the minimum wage. The reality is far more complex. Around one-quarter of JobSeeker Payment recipients had some form of earnings in the previous fortnight, with many employed in part-time, entry level jobs. Indeed, reforms like the Working Credit, which allows JobSeeker recipients to accumulate credits while not working that can be drawn down to reduce withdrawal rates when working, have sought to incentivise part-time work as a stepping stone to full-time employment and self-sufficiency.

This is the most important paragraph, I think. He goes on to say:

Given this complexity as people move from unemployment into work, it is useful to think about the effective marginal tax rates, or EMTRs, to measure financial disincentives for income support recipients. It is the proportion of each additional dollar earned that is lost through increasing tax and decreasing transfer payments.

What he means is that when people on JobSeeker are earning some additional income, which they are free to do, there comes a point where it becomes a disincentive to work to earn additional income, in addition to the JobSeeker payment, because the effective marginal tax rate starts to eat into every extra dollar earned.

The coalition's amendment seeks to remove or change that disincentive. What we're proposing is that people will have an opportunity to earn $150 a fortnight, in addition to the $150 per fortnight they can currently earn, without it impacting their JobSeeker payment. This is very, very important, because it will encourage people who are on JobSeeker to take up the opportunities that exist in the market already for extra work. We know that those opportunities exist because we have small and medium enterprises in Australia crying out for more workers. We have people who are interested in taking up the opportunity to work some extra hours without it affecting their JobSeeker payment, and what we're saying is that they should have greater incentive to do that.

If the government can't put its mind to accepting what are very reasonable and forward-thinking ideas about how to maximise the opportunities that we get at the moment from having a very strong labour market—ideas that I think are endorsed by the Secretary of the Treasury, based on his comments in April of this year—if the Labor Party can't bring itself to be forward-thinking and use these opportunities, then I hope that the Greens and Independent senators might allow themselves to open their eyes, to expand their minds, about how we can use this unique set of positive opportunities to deliver better employment outcomes for people and solve a labour shortage challenge in our economy.

As we move into debating the amendments and the detail of this bill, I encourage Senator Ayres and others to, at a minimum, familiarise themselves with the comments that the Secretary of the Treasury, Dr Kennedy made earlier this year. He is a reputable, professional, dedicated public servant—the Secretary of the Treasury no less. I hope that Senator Ayres will be able to jump to his feet and talk about why the Secretary of the Treasury's ideas should be repudiated.

I rise to speak to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. I would like to start off by thanking Senator Janet Rice and, before her, Senator Rachel Siewert for the passionate and compassionate work that they have been doing for years. I'd also like to thank my colleagues who have made such impassioned and heartfelt speeches today, making a case for why no-one in this country should be living in poverty—although we shouldn't really have to make a case for that in a wealthy country like Australia, where the government is banking $20 billion in surplus, where the government is giving $313 billion over the next 10 years to the wealthiest people who live here, where the government is putting $368 billion into war machines while leaving millions to live in poverty. That is just shameful.

Poverty is a political choice and one that this government, sadly, continues to make—one bill after another, one budget decision after another. They are actively choosing to leave people behind while boasting about a $20 billion surplus. What inhumanity, what callousness and what absolute disregard for so many people living in this country who are doing it so tough—people have to choose between heating and eating, people who have to choose between paying rent or getting medicine. This is what's happening in this country, and yet here we are tinkering around the edges. As my colleagues, including Senator Rice, have said, we see the evidence of this terrible political choice in this bill that we are debating today.

Let's not forget what the Liberal government, in their nine years, did. The Liberal Party left the rate of income support below the poverty line for those nine years. They actually slashed the social safety net, left people on inadequate rates of payment and refused calls from across the community to take any action. But we did hope for change at the last election, because people voted for that change and wanted to see that change. We hoped for something very different from a Labor government, because, in opposition, they did promise something very different. A few people have said this before. Their mantra before the election was: 'No-one left behind.' Then we saw their first budget, and there was no increase in JobSeeker. In the lead-up to their second budget, there was a concerted call from across the community and the sector, from advocates and community members, from people with direct lived experience, from experts, from national peak bodies to raise the rate above the poverty line. Labor's own backbenchers joined the Greens and others in calling for a substantial increase in income support. Sadly, in the budget earlier this year, we saw that the Labor Party did make a very deliberate choice to leave behind young people, students, renters, disabled people and people relying on income support. Their mantra of 'no-one left behind' was just that—a hollow political slogan.

We need to lift JobSeeker and all income support payments above the poverty line. While Labor's JobSeeker increase is woefully inadequate in the bill in front of us—it's less than a cup of coffee a day—it is absolutely atrocious that the Liberals want to block even that from going to those who need it most. How out of touch are you with what's happening on the ground in this country and how many people are suffering? We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Millions of people in this country are hurting. They're struggling to put food on the table; they're struggling to pay rent. The Greens very unapologetically are going to fight for those people so that everyone in this country will have enough to cover the basics, at the very least. Labor has the numbers in this parliament to make sure that everyone has enough to cover at least the basics. But, instead, they are choosing to keep people on starvation payments and locking 400,000 young people out of youth allowance.

I have to say it like it is: the government's wicked stubbornness in offering a pittance to those on JobSeeker and youth allowance means that they're pushing already vulnerable, struggling people further and further away from training and studies or any semblance of a good life lived in dignity. As the Greens spokesperson for education, I have heard from so many students in the past few months alone about how they are struggling. I do want to talk a little bit about student poverty. It must be really depressing and overwhelming to be a student right now. There was a time in this country when you could actually live a good life while being a student, but that time has long gone. Students are struggling to afford groceries, to pay for medicine or period products, to afford train or bus tickets or to pay weekly bills. They are surviving on instant noodles and lining up in queues for free food. Students are struggling to pay rents to keep a roof over their heads. There are facing rent hikes from greedy landlords. International students are suffering the most at this point in time. They are pitching tents in lounge rooms and sleeping in bathrooms.

Students are caught in a terrible debt spiral. Labor allowed student debts to rise by an astronomical 7.1 per cent on 1 June this year, handing down an even longer and larger debt sentence to millions of students. On top of that, another 3.9 per cent increase is predicted next year. We had that same increase last year. That means that, under a Labor government, in just two years, student debts have ballooned 15 per cent. The situation gets even worse for students who are required to work for free as part of their degrees while knowing they'll be paying off this debt for decades. It should be the other way around: degrees should be free and students should be paid for the work that they do. They should be on liveable incomes while they are doing their placements. Last month, I joined Students Against Placement Poverty to launch their campaign against unpaid placements, which is yet another unfair and unjust aspect of our education system. Hundreds of thousands of students are working countless hours without any pay or compensation.

Work placements are especially common in feminised fields of study. This further entrenches gender inequality. We already have that gender inequality entrenched as the rental crisis and the housing crisis soar; we already have that gender inequality in women having more student debt. And this pitiful increase in JobSeeker doesn't really address that problem at all.

One student at that forum which I joined last month spoke through tears about completing placement in a hospital and needing to work seven days a week just to afford to live each day. And this is what they said: 'You can't process anything when you have to work seven days a week. How do you learn and how do you get better?'

So students and young people are being pushed to the limit at the moment. Students in many situations are going months without a day off. They finish their placements at 5 pm and go straight to another paid shift at a pub or a grocery store. Students are having to choose between putting petrol in the car to get to placements and putting food in their stomachs.

Inflation is on the rise because of corporate profits, not because people should not live under the poverty line. Young people and students are working multiple jobs. They're cutting back on necessities but still they're barely scraping by. Yet here we are debating a bill that wants to keep them in that horrific situation where they can't make ends meet. It is an absolute travesty that the Labor government is allowing this to go on.

How is it that senior executives and CEOs of some of Australia's largest listed companies are pocketing 14 and 15 per cent average pay rises? How is it that vice-chancellors of universities are getting above million-dollar annual salaries and yet so many in this country can barely keep afloat? That is absolutely obscene. And yet whenever someone points out to the government how bad things are for students and for so many people living in this country, the response is, 'The current system is working perfectly. We'll put $4 in everyone's pockets a day and things will be hunky-dory.' Well, they won't. Those people will still be living in poverty.

Something needs to be done right now and the government has the power to do this. We are here. We have the numbers to be able to lift people out of poverty. The system at the moment is completely broken. A welfare system that doesn't lift people above the poverty line to ensure that they are living in dignity is an utterly cruel one. An education system that piles thousands and thousands of dollars of debt onto people is a broken one. We all know students are struggling. We all know young people are struggling. We all know millions are struggling. To say anything different would mean we're completely out of touch with any reality.

Labor can lower the age of independence for youth allowance from 22 to 18 and raise all student social security payments above the poverty line to at least $88 a day. You could not bank that $20 million surplus that you have and boast about; you could actually support and help people today. You could take meaningful action for renters by freezing rent hikes. You could wipe student debt, pay students a living wage for placements and make uni and TAFE free. There is absolutely no doubt, as I said earlier, that we can afford these measures. It is just a matter of political priorities. Labor has made the terrible choice to give $313 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy and spend $368 billion on dangerous war machines. Meanwhile, supporting struggling students and those doing it the toughest is apparently too costly: 'There's no money for that anymore.'

Despite the hardships that students and young people are facing, I am in awe of their courage to speak up, organise and mobilise to turn things around. They are rallying in the streets, bravely telling their stories and building a powerful movement for change. And that is what will change things. It will be those movements on the ground. It will be the work that the Greens do with the community—which is doorknocking and talking to people and listening to their stories and bringing them to this place—that is going to change Australia, that is going to force the government to change, that is going to change the world. I want to thank all those advocates and activists for showing such grit in the face of the really difficult circumstances that they face every single day. This fight will go on until every single person in this country is lifted out of poverty. At the end, I'd like to foreshadow the Greens second reading amendment, which Senator Rice will move later.

Labor governments believe very strongly in a strong social safety net. We need that safety net to be there for all Australians if and when they need it. We will always do what we can to support people in our nation who are doing it tough and need our assistance. This is why we have put forward the targeted and responsible measures in the bill before us today, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. Far from being a small patch, you can actually see in all the detailed, targeted measures in this legislation and in a wide variety of other measures we are implementing as a Labor government a commitment to all of the key areas within social security, within the cost of living, and to support Australians when they need it most. We are in the process of implementing a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package, which was announced back in the 2023-24 budget.

What we have before us today is an amendment to strengthen the social security safety net. As a package, the measures in this bill provide additional assistance to some two million income support recipients. The amendments in this bill will see an increase to the rates of JobSeeker, youth allowance, parenting payment partnered, Austudy, Abstudy, disability support pension youth, and the special benefit by $40 per fortnight from 20 September. These are significant increases in our social security payments.

What they also do is set a new benchmark for these payments. What the last government did during COVID, when they boosted payments temporarily, did not amend the base rates and did not even apply CPI to them. They simply made those temporary increases without ever doing anything substantive to address the underlying problems in the base rate of social security. Here, we are increasing the base rate for all of these working-age payments by $40 per fortnight from 20 September. This is a responsible, balanced increase targeted at people on some of the lowest incomes in Australia, who rely on this safety net for support. We have, in this increase, additional support to some 1.1 million people. Our approach in government, to contrast with that of the coalition opposite, is to see this rate indexed by CPI at regular intervals, which is particularly important at this point in time of high inflation. We also see, in the bill before us, increases in Commonwealth rent assistance.

We also see eligible payments—JobSeeker, parenting payment—indexed on 20 September as usual. The government could have said, 'We will apply that indexation only to the CPI and the payments as at 20 September,' but, no, we are applying that CPI indexation to the new $40 that's on the table. In this context, you can see the rate of JobSeeker for a single person with no dependants increases not by $40 but by $56.10, to $749 per fortnight, with an indexation of $16.10 to that $40. It's all very well for the Greens to simply say all that's on the table is a $40 increase. That $40 is a substantial increase, and it is an indexed increase—you can see, as I've just outlined, the rate of JobSeeker for a single person with no dependants increasing by $56.10. With this regular indexation, between May 2022 and September 2023 the basic single rate of JobSeeker payments will have increased from $643 to $749, a 17 per cent increase. That is $106 more in people's pockets each fortnight to help with cost-of-living pressures. This is some $2,700 in additional support each year.

The Labor Party in government is also expanding eligibility for the existing higher rate of JobSeeker to single recipients aged 55 and over who have been on income support for nine or more continuous months. This is a significant and targeted change. The higher rate of social security currently applies to people who are moving towards pension age from the age of 60. However, we know that there are many people doing it tough, including women moving towards retirement. The majority of people who this income support change will benefit are, in fact, women—55 per cent of them.

We're increasing this payment because we understand the additional barriers older Australians face when they're looking for work. This includes age discrimination and often poor health. In fact, I was talking the other day to my taxi driver, who had moved into transport because of such discrimination—being discriminated against because of the presumption of poor health. This taxi driver had clearly found a way of continuing to participate in the workforce, which can and should still continue to be our priority—to make the most of the skills of older Australians, particularly at a time of low unemployment, when many businesses are working hard to find the staff they need. I really want to encourage them not to look past the skills of older Australians. I won't outline some of the measures we're looking at as a government today in this speech, other than to highlight that we understand the importance of that workforce participation. It is a problem, and it's a problem that evolved under the last government where the proportion of mature aged recipients on JobSeeker payments significantly increased. Eighty-one per cent aged 55 or over stay on payments for more than a year.

Senator Pratt, I don't wish to interrupt you, but we're at the hard marker. You will be in continuance when the debate resumes. I shall now proceed to two-minute statements.

Over the winter recess, I attended three citizenship ceremonies in the electorates of Tangney and Burt. These events are always brilliant. Being able to witness new Australians take the oath and start their journey as an Australian is a truly wonderful experience. For these individuals and families, it's a momentous occasion and, for most, a major turning point in their life. Each person has their own unique story about what brought them to this great country. For some, it's about economic opportunity or even reconnecting with loved ones. For others, they might be fleeing turmoil and conflict.

To mark the significance, speakers at ceremonies are provided with some clear guidance on the allowable content and tone for speeches. To quote from the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code:

Speeches must be relevant and appropriate to the occasion and must avoid issues that may be contentious from a political, racial or sectarian point of view. Speeches that have particular political or denominational overtones, for example, would not be appropriate. It is essential that the dignity and significance of citizenship ceremonies be maintained at all times.

Yet, unfortunately, Labor senators, Labor colleagues, deem it fit for 'yes' campaign stump speeches to be used at these ceremonies. Recently, I witnessed this appalling behaviour. Think of a brand-new citizen: this is a ceremony marking a significant point in their lives, and a Labor senator stands up to read the minister's welcome, but first they must shove 'yes' campaign talking points down your throat. This is what I witnessed, and, frankly, it is against the code. Citizenship ceremonies are no place for political speeches. We are there to celebrate brand-new citizens and welcome them to this wonderful country. Citizenship ceremonies are the last place for divisive 'yes' campaign talking points. I urge those that use them to save them for doorknocking and your public rent-a-crowd rallies.

I rise today to share my pride in representing the best state in the nation by talking about the Innovation Design Entrepreneurship Academy, also known as IDEA. Well-known for presenting an alternative education option for young minds in Western Australia, IDEA is a pioneer in the field of creative arts education. The academy has an impressive track record of inspiring and educating students in a variety of creative disciplines, including digital art, design, filmmaking, coding and animation, and many others. What sets them apart is their unique approach to education, which emphasises hands-on experience, exposure to industry-standard tools and software, and access to industry professionals. They encourage students to experiment, take risks and learn from their mistakes, which builds confidence and pushes the boundaries of their creativity. Students have the opportunity to work on real-world projects, participate in internships and workshops, and collaborate with industry professionals.

This approach to education provides a unique opportunity for young creatives who want to pursue a career in the creative arts. It's a place where students can learn, grow and be themselves. Students receive mentorship and guidance from experienced experts, which prepare them for success in the industry. IDEA is a game changer, and their approach to education gives students the autonomy to sit in the driver's seat and be responsible for their own learning experience. It is preparing the next generation of creative professionals, and I'm so excited to see what they will achieve in the future. A massive thank you to Nicole and Rebecca for hosting my visit and for the incredible work they do.

Last week, the water minister, Tanya Plibersek, revealed information that confirmed the country's worst kept secret—that the Murray-Darling Basin is in peril and that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will not fulfil its objectives on time. This, of course, is not new. This is not new to those who have been watching and fighting for the river's survival for decades. It's not new for those of us who live at the bottom end of the river in South Australia. We have known that for years politics and greed have trumped science when it comes to managing the Murray-Darling Basin. Despite $13 billion being spent to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the plan was always set up to fail the river, to fail the environment and to fail South Australia. It was a broken promise to suggest the plan could be delivered in full and on time. But, worse than that, it has been a broken promise from both sides of politics, from both the major parties, for well over a decade.

We don't just need a delay in meeting the objectives of the plan; we need a new plan. We need a plan based on science, a plan based on fact, a plan that puts the objective of saving our most precious river system for the future first, a plan that puts the objective of looking after the environment first, a plan that says enough with the greed and the over-extraction of upstream states and corporate irrigators, and a plan that pushes the federal government to stand up to their Labor Party mates in upstream states and to stare down the corporate and greed interests of the big corporate irrigators. We need a plan that puts science first.

Earlier this month, the Senate's Select Committee on the Cost of Living held a public inquiry in Hobart to hear about the impact of the massive cost-of-living increases over the last 12 months on Tasmanians. The message from that committee hearing was clear: Labor's cost-of-living crisis is hurting Tasmanians.

The committee heard testimony from witnesses ranging from the not-for-profit organisations to representatives from Tasmania's local business community. The St Vincent de Paul Society said they were seeing more Tasmanians coming through their doors. Similarly, Foodbank told the committee that their agencies were experiencing unprecedented demand for food and groceries. According to them, that same demand for food and groceries is so high that they do not have enough to provide to all of those in need.

This is simply not good enough. Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, spent the better part of last year's election campaign saying that Australians will be better off under Labor. But, under Labor, the cost of living has only gone up for Tasmanians. Over the past 12 months, the price of bread has gone up 13.1 per cent. The price of milk has risen 16.1 per cent and the price of cheese has gone up a whopping 16.8 per cent. Mr Albanese promised that power bills would fall by $275 from 2022 prices. Instead, they are rising by hundreds of dollars. They also promised mortgage rates would be lower, yet, the cash rate has risen an eye-watering 11 times since they took office. And let's see what happens tomorrow, on Tuesday.

It is time for the government to stop making excuses and deliver the cost-of-living relief that it promised to Australians and, particularly, to Tasmanians. Far from cutting the cost of living, under Labor thousands of Tasmanians are struggling to make ends meet.

I rise to take the opportunity to speak to the delivery of that incredible report—the robodebt royal commission report—from Commissioner Catherine Holmes earlier this month. She simply stated the truth:

Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals.

That is exactly the sort of evidence that the Senate took through the community affairs committee. I want to acknowledge my former Greens colleague in this place Senator Rachel Siewert for her dedication with me on that committee to doing everything we could to get on the public record what was really going on with a government that was determined not only to silence Australians but to send them bills that they never even owed. So when we have members and senators in this place talking about how great they were when they were in government, people should never forget that that was the government that delivered you robodebt. The Abbot-Turnbull-Morrison governments of the previous decade illegally raised debts against our own citizens and then attempted to cover it up through lies—recanting statements in the guise of confidential legal advice. Indeed, in this very place, on no fewer than four occasions, the Senate rejected the claims of the government, who were determined to cover up everything they could about robodebt. Well, the truth finally got out and that gave me great confidence in Australia's capacity to ultimately get to the truth of the matter.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague the Hon. Bill Shorten in the other place, whose dedicated and determine leadership meant that this issue did not go off the boil; it was continually prominent throughout the time that we were prosecuting in opposition to tell the truth to the Australian people about what was going on. I can still recall almost word-for-word the grief and anger of the mothers, Jennifer Miller and Kath Madgwick, who presented handwritten testimonies to the Senate committee and who gave evidence to Commissioner Holmes. She heard you. We heard you. You have been attended to and listened to. (Time expired)

As a servant to the many different people making up our one Queensland community, in the past six weeks, I drove across Queensland listening to my constituents. At North Mackay Police Station I attended the National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee, NAIDOC, flag raising with local council and state representatives. The turn-out was excellent, despite rain and unusual cold, but that didn't dampen the spirits of the Tchundal Malar Dance Group's excellent performance. I chatted with Superintendent Graeme Paine of the Mackay police district about community policing, an exciting Queensland state policy dating from the 1990s. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander liaison officers worked in and with the community to identify children who may be heading in the wrong direction, giving them a hand to ground youth and community. This might mean staying at school, playing a sport, or learning Aboriginal culture, language and dance. As a result, the Mackay region doesn't haven't the same crime problem evident in other Queensland regions. Funding has recently been extended.

One Nation supports the community policing initiative and supports adopting this program across our state. Community taking care of itself reminds us that our beautiful nation was not built around Canberra; it was built around communities. We are a nation of Mackays, of Collinsvilles, of Moranbahs, with everyday Australians coming together as one community first and then as one nation. This is what Canberra should be encouraging—community, not conflict.

There will always be an issue like COVID or Ukraine or a Voice to divide us. Before these, there were Vietnam and the 'reds under the bed'. Australians to whom I have listened have had enough division, Prime Minister, enough shaming, enough abuse, enough lies. Division does not come from communities; it comes from Canberra. One Nation is a party of everyday Australians who understand we have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation.

I want to bring to the Senate's attention a sad circumstance in central Queensland where the Mount Morgan aged-care facility is due to shut later this year because of the government's inflexible requirements for nurses. However, laudable the new government's ambition is to require a registered nurse to be on site 24 hours a day at aged-care facilities, it is having a shocking impact on rural and regional communities that simply do not have that many nurses in that community. In Mount Morgan, a town of just 2½ thousand people, 40 minutes west of Rockhampton, an aged-care facility that has served the community for decades will shut. All residents were written to in the last few weeks saying that they could not find the required nurses under the government's new regulations; therefore, the residents there would have to make other arrangements. Invariably that will mean those residents will have to go to Rockhampton, which is about a 40-minute drive away. This will have a terrible impact on those families. Ms Marlene Sealey's husband, Fred, has been in the Mount Morgan aged-care facility for the past three years while he battles dementia. He is just down the road. She can go and visit him every day and she does. But if Fred has to go to Rockhampton, Marlene will struggle to see Fred very often, given the drive, the fact that she does not even have a drivers licence and there is not an extensive amount of public transport for a community that small.

This is the real-world impact of the Labor government's inflexibility. I call on the Labor government to apply their new rules in a flexible fashion that can allow families to stay together, that can allow aged-care facilities that have served their communities well for ages to survive. The reality is that requiring a nurse to be on-site 24 hours a day does not mean Mount Morgan has to find one nurse; it of course has to find at least three for the eight-hour shifts, and then four and five—I am told—to cover absences and holidays. That is never going to happen in a town of 2½ thousand people. These rules are designed for the cities, not for the bush, and the government should reconsider.

Well, it is game day tonight, guys! Tonight the mighty Matildas will take on Canada in Melbourne to keep their World Cup dreams alive. Like most football fans I'm in equal parts terrified and excited about the game tonight. But the Matildas have come so far. Women's football has come so far from where it started, so before the game tonight we should reflect on that achievement. Women's soccer was effectively banned in the 1920s, a ban that wasn't lifted until 1971. From humble beginnings the pioneers of women's football in Australia slowly started to build the game that we can see now. From those early days where players had to pay their own way to play overseas to where we are now where the professional and full-time squad will take to the pitch tonight, it hasn't been easy and their work to achieve equality is not over. But it wouldn't have been possible without the work of so many players, coaches and fans, and a little bit of unionism thrown in with good benefit.

As a long-term supporter of the Matildas I'm not surprised by the success of the Women's World Cup, but I think it's worth mentioning just how record-breaking this event has been. More than 1.5 million tickets to the event have been sold, with 1.1 million sold to Australian matches alone. The previous best attended World Cup was in Canada, in 2015, with 1.35 million spectators across that tournament. The average attendance for the matches to date is 30,000, and the Matilda's opening encounter against Ireland, which I had the privilege of attending, drew a record-breaking 75,000 fans. The Matildas opening World Cup match reached almost five million people across the world.

Australian football is full of myths, legends and miracles. We don't need a miracle tonight, but maybe we just need a Hail Mary. We are praying to the football gods. The Matildas' motto is, 'We're not done till it's done,' so we'll keep cheering until the final whistle tonight.

During the winter break I was fortunate enough to visit my sister at Jigalong remote Aboriginal community during NAIDOC week in Western Australia. Jigalong, for those who have seen Rabbit-Proof Fence, is on the edge of the Little Sandy Desert, about 200 kilometres south-east of Newman. I went there for two reasons: firstly, to see my little sister and see how she is going. She works for a corporation called KJ, which has a number of rangers and early childhood coordinators working in that community. The second reason was that I remembered the debate in here about the Voice that we had in the weeks prior to the break. I remember it being said in here several times by the LNP senators that, if you visited a remote Aboriginal community and you understand the problems there, you would never support the Voice. I have to say, having visited Jigalong and met the KJ workers, that KJ officially supports the Voice—in fact, I took some T-shirts from Senator Pratt's office in Perth when I visited the community—and I don't get it.

I totally accept that there are many, many problems in these communities and they get to take a long time to fix. The Voice won't fix them overnight, and I think that goes without saying. But, crikey, I don't know how it could do any harm supporting a voice and giving Aboriginal people a voice to have a say in matters that affect them and for them to have a role in advising parliament on what we could do better. I really for the life of me can't see how that would be a reason to oppose the Voice.

I enjoyed my time up there. It was eye-opening, and I learnt a lot. But I genuinely feel that this is a very important first step, giving First Nations communities a voice to advise parliament on matters that affect them. Hopefully, we can go further than that. I understand that's not enough for some Aboriginal people, but it was a great experience, and I want to give a shout-out to my sister for her great work and the great work all the other KJ workers are doing out there in the desert right now. It really does feel like another country when you're visiting some of these places.

I rise to express my deepest concern for members of the 6th Aviation Regiment, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock. These men were flying in a Taipan helicopter, which unfortunately crashed on Friday off the coast of the Whitsundays. At the time they were serving Australia in Operation Talisman Sabre, a multinational training operation. I can only imagine what their families and their friends are going through right now. I'm not going to prejudge what has happened or why—there will be a time for that in the coming days and weeks—but what I will say is that these men represent the very best of Australia, the very brightest, the bravest and the most patriotic. Every day, like every member of our Defence Force, they put Australia first and they put their lives on the line to defend and to protect our nation.

I know I speak for every single Australian when I say to their families: we are proud of your sons. We thank you for their service. We thank them for their service. We pray for them and we pray for you. God bless you all and God bless Australia.

On 16 July I attended the first Australia Bangladesh Business Forum meeting in south-west Sydney. I want to acknowledge the organisers of this terrific event—Brian Laul, Abdul Khan Ratan and my good friend Mohammad Zaman—for organising this particularly impressive small-business showcase which is only going to strengthen the ties between Australia and Bangladesh.

We have a very large and successful Bangladeshi diaspora in Australia, particularly in parts of Western Sydney, which is something to be so proud of. I believe the Bangladeshi diaspora to be one of the hardest working and least complaining diaspora groups anywhere in Australia. It is so important we are able to raise the profile of this bilateral relationship with our good friend Bangladesh.

It was well attended, including by the opposition leader in New South Wales, Mr Mark Speakman, and many other parliamentary colleagues. I think that's a testament to the respect the Australian parliament and the New South Wales parliament have for the Bangladeshi diaspora in Sydney and in New South Wales. Well done to all those involved.

To quote health minister Mark Butler:

Pharmacies hold a special place in rural and regional Australia, as a critical part of the fabric of a community …

I agree. Pharmacies are vital for health services in regional communities. We rely on pharmacies when we can't get into the doctor or on weekends, when everything else is shut. So why won't the government compromise on a policy that could see pharmacies closing their doors?

The health minister announced funding on Friday to help regional and rural communities adjust to the government's plan for 60-day prescribing. The funding was a step in the right direction but it's just not a big enough step. It means pharmacies in Hobart and Launceston might be $110,000 in the red rather than $160,000 in the red. That's still a closure notice on the door, and that means staff cuts, reduced services and reduced hours. This isn't pharmacists being dramatic in running a scare campaign; it's the reality facing people with kids to feed and mortgages to pay—people who work hard at their jobs and just want to continue helping people. This funding announcement isn't new money; it's part of the $1.2 billion the government says it's investing back into community pharmacies. When pharmacies say the total cost of this policy is $3.5 billion, you can see that it's not adding up.

People need cheaper medications; I don't disagree with that. But we need a plan that saves people money and jobs in health care at the same time. This policy comes into play on 1 September—four weeks away. Time is running out for the government to get this right. The health minister was right to say that pharmacies are critical to our communities, but it's not just enough to say it. The government need to put their money where their mouth is and ensure these pharmacies aren't worse off.

A little over a week ago the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a new national capital investment framework in partnership with the ACT government. This is what community members across the Canberra region have been calling for for a long time now—a partnership and framework to realise an ambitious vision for Canberra's future.

Canberra is the fastest-growing capital city in the country and has suffered from decades of underinvestment. The ACT is the only jurisdiction to not have signed one of the 12 city deals or regional deals since 2016. These deals included almost $10 billion of Commonwealth money, matched in many cases by states and territories, and the ACT has received zero dollars of that. Forward thinking and coordinated investment can transform Canberra. It can set us up for the future as a growing city in our own right and as a national capital that Australians can be proud of.

I look forward to continuing to engage with our community and collaborate with my parliamentary colleagues on this. We need to ensure that the National Capital Investment Framework meets community expectations and delivers the infrastructure we need. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build Canberra's future, and I look forward to engaging with all the various community groups, stakeholders and businesses who've been crying out for investment in infrastructure that will increase visits to the national capital, with conferences and major events.

I rise to register my deep concern about the exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 and I call upon all senators in this place to make themselves aware of the detailed provisions in this bill, which I consider to be a great threat to freedom of speech in this country.

From the trial of Socrates in 399 BC to the publication of John Stuart Mill's magisterial essay On Liberty in 1859, the importance of freedom of speech has been defended over the centuries. It has also been defended by previous generations of senators, who've sat in the chamber we now sit in. I therefore think it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to pay close attention to the provisions in this bill.

I will raise a number of concerns. First, I am deeply concerned about the power the bill gives to government officials to determine what is misinformation and what is false and misleading. I am deeply concerned about the power this bill would give the government to impose multimillion-dollar fines on digital platforms owners in relation to what they publish on their sites. I am deeply concerned about the powers it would give government officials to require Australian citizens to come before a government authority and provide information about what is on digital platforms. I call upon all senators in this place to read this bill very carefully. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was a warning to future generations, not a roadmap for government policy.

Last Saturday, 22 July, was a Saturday like any other. While most of us relaxed with family or friends, thousands of gig workers were on Sydney roads, driving passengers or delivering food. One of them was Akshar Deepak Doultani, a 22-year-old master's student from India. Akshar came to this country on a scholarship to pursue his dreams and give his family a brighter future. At around 8 pm, at the intersection of Blaxland Road and Epping Road in Epping, Akshar was making a delivery on his scooter when he was hit by an SUV. He was taken to Royal North Shore Hospital, where, tragically, he died a short time later. I want to pay my respects to Akshar and give my condolences to his family, who have given me permission to share these details.

Akshar is the twelfth food delivery driver, since 2017, known to have been killed while working. As a gig worker, Akshar has no basic employment rights, no minimum wage and no workers compensation. It's a job that forces people to push themselves to the limit to earn enough to make ends meet. This government has committed to reforming this lawless industry. We have committed to preserving flexibility while delivering sustainable minimum standards. The flexibility gig workers have now is a fiction—flexibility to risk their life for $6 an hour, working for a company that won't even compensate their family for their death. There have been 12 deaths since 2017. Twelve families have been failed by the system. Akshar deserves flexibility on his terms. Having that minimum safety net may have saved one of those 12 lives. (Time expired)

by leave—I know all senators and all Australians are thinking of the families of Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. As the Deputy Prime Minister said only a short time ago, it is now clear that any hope of finding these men alive is lost.

These four men made the brave and selfless choice to serve our country, to dedicate their lives to keeping us safe. Our first thoughts today are with the people who loved them and the people they loved because, of course, these men are soldiers, but they are sons, fathers, husbands and partners, brothers and friends. Our thoughts are also with all those who served alongside these four men, the members of the 6th Aviation Regiment based at Holsworthy in Sydney. We thank all who serve our nation's defences, many of whom have been involved in the search and recovery effort.

I acknowledge the support that the United States and Canada have provided to the efforts of the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force; and the support of civilian authorities led by the Queensland Police Service and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. We offer them all our strength and all our thanks while their work goes on.

This is a very difficult time for many serving members, their families and veterans, and the government encourages anyone who feels in need of support to seek it. Families can call the Defence Member and Family Helpline on 1800 624 608. Serving men and women, veterans and families can contact Open Arms on 1800 011 046.

As I said in my opening remarks to the AUSMIN meeting, those who serve our country do so knowing the risk. They know the risk that service entails and they demonstrate every day the courage to take on that risk on our behalf, and we thank them for it.

These Australians were taking part in Talisman Sabre, the exercise that brings together 13 nations and more than 30,000 personnel. It is an unprecedented display of strategic cooperation and coordination driven by a common determination to preserve peace in the Indo-Pacific and in the world. As I have said on many occasions, we must ensure that no state will ever conclude that the benefits of conflict outweigh the risks. An exercise such as this is part of ensuring that no country makes the calculation that they can successfully dominate another. This is fundamental to ensuring the safety and security of our nation and of our people. This is the noble ideal that these four Australians volunteered to serve, to uphold and to defend.

All Australians owe a debt beyond measure to the brave men and women who wear our uniform—Australians who risk their lives in order to protect us and our way of life. On behalf of our nation, our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and colleagues of Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. I thank the Senate.

by leave—I thank the Senate and I thank Senator Wong for her sentiments. On behalf of the opposition and coalition parties I extend our sincerest condolences and thoughts to those affected, and associate ourselves with the remarks of Senator Wong indicating that we—as a parliament, as a Senate and as a nation—are at one in relation to our reaction to these terrible and tragic events.

The tragedy that occurred during Exercise Talisman Sabre last Friday night was indeed a terrible tragedy affecting many. It occurred, as Senator Wong has said, during critically important exercises for our nation and for our role in the region and the world. We salute and thank all members of the Australian Defence Force and all of those who participate in Exercise Talisman Sabre, as we do in all of the operations and preparations undertaken by our defence forces.

The four men we particularly acknowledge today wore the Australian uniform and served our nation with distinction. These defence exercises are critical to the security and peace within our region, but, like all exercises, to be effective, to ensure preparedness for any and all operational circumstances, they carry serious risk and danger. Our personnel acknowledge that, and that is why their courage, their bravery and their willingness to sacrifice is so evident at all times.

We thank in particular those engaged in the search-and-rescue operations that now tragically turn to recovery operations. We acknowledge and thank the government for its indication that investigations will take place, that they will be thorough, and they will help all to understand what happened, particularly to help the families to understand that, and to work to prevent such a tragedy occurring again.

In that moment of disaster off Hamilton Island we lost four magnificent service personnel of the Australian Army: Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. Australians around the country can only imagine the ordeal their four families have been facing and will continue to do so. We extend every element of our thoughts and love to their families, to their loved ones, to their mates and to all those with whom they served in the Australian Defence Force.

We often say in this place, and elsewhere across Australia, 'Thank you for your service.' We say that to those who have served our nation, to those who do serve our nation and to those who will do so with such courage, bravery and sacrifice in the years ahead. On this occasion, we most sincerely say to the families of these four Australian service personnel: 'We thank you for giving of them. We thank them for their service and for their ultimate sacrifice.'

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. We will move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Minister, on 1 July this year your government brought in a requirement to have a 24/7 registered nurse in every aged-care home, against the recommendation of the royal commission and in the middle of a serious workforce crisis. In the last few weeks, the Mount Morgan aged-care home has announced it will close because of this requirement. This will separate Marlene Sealey from her husband, Fred, who has dementia. They were just around the corner from each other; now they will be at least a 40-minute drive apart. How many other aged-care homes have not met your requirement and will close? And how many other families like Marlene's will be impacted by your new requirements?

I thank Senator Canavan for the question, and I would start by saying the government doesn't apologise for being ambitious for aged care and for increasing staffing levels to improve the care of older Australians. It's been very clear for some time that one of the issues facing aged care was the lack of access to clinical expertise throughout the day, and the provision of 24/7 nurses is one of the ways that we can improve care for older Australians who are living in residential aged care. This, of course, has been supported by large parts, almost the entirety, of the aged-care sector, which agrees that this is a sensible and much needed reform.

There has been a sensible exemption arrangement put in place to allow for residential aged-care facilities to transition to the new arrangements. I know that the aged-care minister has been dealing with the sector and talking about the implementation of it, and it is a sensible arrangement to acknowledge that there will be areas where that nursing requirement won't be able to be reached in the first instance. I will come back to the Senate if I am getting this number wrong, but I understand that so far 55 homes have applied for an exemption, and I think that relates to homes under 30 beds in MMM 5 to 7 areas to allow them the time to transition to these new arrangements.

In relation to the closures, I will see if there is anything further I can come back to the Senate on. There have been a number of closures. My understanding is that, when you look back over time, there have been closures of aged-care facilities not necessarily linked to the 24/7 nursing care arrangements.

Senator Canavan, a first supplementary?

Minister, since your government's nurse requirement came into effect, aged-care homes that are eligible for the exemptions you've mentioned have been forced to report every 30 minutes that they do not have a registered nurse on site. These are rural and remote aged-care homes already facing significant challenges that now face significant administrative burdens because of your government's decisions. Sadly, as I've said, we've already seen facilities close because of this. How many more exempted homes will close because of the government's punitive requirements?

Again, the government doesn't apologise for putting in place 24/7 nursing arrangements to improve the quality of care. I do find it staggering, frankly, that the previous government of 10 years, who oversaw a royal commission whose interim report title was Neglectlet's not forget that—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan?

I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was on the government's requirements. Almost immediately the minister has gone to the previous government. This is a decision of the new government. I ask that she be brought to this question about her government's decision. It's got nothing to do with the previous government.

Thank you, Senator Canavan. The minister was being directly relevant to your question. I'll continue to listen and draw her to the question if necessary.

I was just providing some much-needed context for the question which Senator Canavan was raising. We have invested billions of dollars into aged care, whether it be to retain the workforce with a wage increase, recognising that they had been undervalued and underpaid for a long period of time, or so that we can keep residential aged-care facilities, whether they be in the cities, the regions or remote Australia, available for all Australians to get the care that they deserve and that they expect.

Senator Canavan, a second supplementary?

As you have noted, the exemption requirement is extremely limited and only for a certain amount of time. Some of these rural areas will never be able to meet these requirements. So when will the government consider expanding exemption requirements further so that these requirements do not force more aged-care homes to close and more families like Marlene and Fred Sealey to be separated at their time of need?

I would remind Senator Canavan I'm not aware of the case that he references. I'm not rejecting it at all. I understand the hurt that that would cause to that couple. I do accept that. But I also accept that aged-care facilities close for a range of reasons, as we have been seeing year in and year out. That is not peculiar to the requirement for 24/7 nurses. We will continue with a very sensible approach to the implementation of this measure. As we know, the vast majority of facilities have put in place 2/47 nursing care, and it has improved the quality of care for the residents in those facilities. Where it is not possible, the department will work with those providers to ensure continuity of care for the residents.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on the Australian-US Ministerial Consultations held over the weekend?

Thank you, Senator Green, for the question. I acknowledge your deep commitment to advancing Australia's interest in the world. I also acknowledge, as a Senator Watt interjected, that we did hold the AUSMIN talks in Brisbane. Queensland showed us and our American friends a wonderful welcome. We are very grateful to the governor and to Premier Palaszczuk for assisting us in hosting AUSMIN in Brisbane. As people would be aware, Mr Marles, the Deputy Prime Minister, and I welcomed the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, and the US Secretary of Defence, Lloyd Austin, for the 33rd Australia-US ministerial consultations, known as AUSMIN. It's the second AUSMIN since we've taken office, and we were, as I said, very pleased to have this in Brisbane for the first time. Of course, terrible news preceded the meeting when an Australian Army helicopter with four aircrew went down in waters off Hamilton Island. The meeting was held with heavy hearts and a clear reminder of the sacrifices of those who serve our nation. The fact that these AUSMIN consultations are held each year signifies the mutual respect and partnership between Australia and our vital ally and closest strategic partner. Under this government, we are working with the United States to modernise the alliance for a changing and contested world. As Deputy Prime Minister Marles said following the consultations, we will be seeing an increased tempo of visits from American nuclear powered submarines to our waters as we look towards the establishment of a US submarine rotation at HMAS Stirling later this decade. We also agreed various force posture initiatives to expand our cooperation, including in space. In a major step forward in our relationship, we are establishing a guided weapons and explosive ordinance enterprise in this country to see manufacture of missiles commence in Australia. (Time expired)

Senator Green on a first supplementary question?

How are the US and Australia working together for our region?

I do place on record how much of the discussions—obviously we did hold a press conference afterwards to discuss some of the outcomes—focused on how we work together to ensure that our region remains peaceful, stable and prosperous and for the security of all nations, including our two nations as members of the alliance. We are modernising the alliance to ensure we are focused on the priorities of the region, and, of course, one of the highest priorities is climate change and clean energy. This, as stated now, is the third pillar of the alliance after the announcement between President Biden and Prime Minister Albanese, and we are working on implementing the Climate, Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Transformation Compact announced by the leaders, supporting the transition to clean energy in our two countries and in our region. (Time expired)

Senator Green on a second supplementary?

How are Australia and the United States adapting the alliance for the future?

First is climate change and clean energy being the third pillar of the alliance. Second, future humanitarian responses will be faster and more coordinated in the region as a consequence of the MOU, which will be in place between my department and USAID, working together to pre-position humanitarian supplies in Brisbane and Papua New Guinea, and we're going to work more closely on infrastructure development financing. In relation to AUKUS and AUKUS legislation, can I state publicly that we are very grateful for the efforts of the Biden administration in respect of defence export control legislation. This is all about creating a more seamless defence industrial base between our countries. This is about our alliance, which fundamentally strengthens our position, fundamentally strengthens our contribution to peace and stability and fundamentally strengthens Australian sovereignty.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, given your government's claims that you knew nothing about Premier Andrews's plans to cancel the 2026 Commonwealth Games, are you concerned that neither the Prime Minister nor your government were warned of this decision and the impact of the Andrews government's decision on Australia's international reputation?

The decision to cancel the Commonwealth Games was a decision of the Victorian government, and I know that the opposition wish to try and play a bit of politics with this.

And a disgraceful decision it was!

I'll take that interjection, and I suggest, Senator, that you might well go to Victoria and express that view—

Order!

but it is not a decision—

Leaving regional communities in Victoria high and dry.

Senator Henderson, I have called you to order. I ask that you respect that and don't continue to call out, particularly to call out to me. Minister, please continue.

Again, this is a decision of the Victorian government, and we understand the political views that Senator Henderson is interjecting on. But ultimately those are positions she ought probably to be raising in Victoria, rather than interjecting on my answer.

On a point of order, President, I wasn't actually asking the minister in relation to the Victorian government. I was asking about the impact of the fact that the Commonwealth government was not consulted on the impact to Australia's international reputation—not Victoria's, Australia's international reputation—which I believe—

Thank you.

as Minister for Foreign Affairs is probably your concern.

May I remind senators, when you raise a point of order, you do it succinctly and you don't add additional bits. The minister's being directly relevant. In the first statement she made the minister directly addressed your question. Minister, do you have anything further to add?

I'm happy to add to the answer. I would make the point that I hope tonight, in terms of Australia's international reputation particularly for major sporting events, everyone will be watching the Matildas as we take on Canada and find our way into the next round of the World Cup.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat.

Oh, look, have you got anything against—

Minister Wong, I've asked you to resume your seat. Senator Ruston.

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right! Senator Ruston.

My point of order is on relevance. As much as I'd love to see the Matildas win tonight and go on to the next round, I was actually asking about the Commonwealth Games. Perhaps the minister would like to be relevant to it.

Thank you, Senator Ruston. I will draw the minister back to your question.

In fairness, President, I was asked about our international reputation. Yes, we do care about that, and I could go through some history about some of the things that occurred under the previous government. My point is that the Commonwealth Games decision was the decision of the Victorian government. Yes, the implication in the question is right that our engagement in international sporting events is an important part of our face to the world. Obviously, this is a decision that the Andrews government has made. I make the point that we are in the midst of hosting, very successfully if you look at the crowds and you look at the interest in the game, the Women's World Cup, which is one of the biggest international sporting events that is held—full stop. As foreign minister— (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, a first supplementary?

Minister, does the Albanese Labor government agree with Premier Andrews's decision to cancel the 2026 Commonwealth Games?

As I said, this is a decision for the state government. I know that Senator Ruston is inviting me to walk down Scott Morrison's path, which is always have a go at a state government, have a fight with a state government. Obviously, the blame games that we saw were so much a part of the cabinet of which Senator Ruston was a part. But I would acknowledge that this is disappointing news. We have acknowledged that. It's disappointing for athletes, it's disappointing for coaches and it's disappointing for sports fans in Australia. I would make the point also that sport is bigger than any one event, and athletes should have the opportunity to compete at home and abroad. What I also would say is, despite that disappointment, the reasons for the decision have been articulated by the Andrews government. If the senator has issues with that, obviously she is free to contest those in a public arena.

Senator Ruston, a second supplementary?

Minister, given your admission about the disappointment that's obviously being expressed by most Australians for our athletes, what do you say to the young Australian athletes who had their hearts set on competing in 2026 and were hoping that that experience was going to be the runway for the 2032 Olympic Games?

What I would say to them is that I do think it's a little disappointing that the federal opposition want to play politics with this state decision. But I suppose you have very little to say about anything else. I would say to athletes that I understand their disappointment. People have trained for many years, and they would like to compete on their home turf. Of course, we can understand the disappointment. What I would say is that the decision was made by the Victorian government. It's a matter for the Victorian government to explain the reasons.

Trash Australia's international reputation and—

Order!

Senator Ruston, I don't think any of those words came out of my mouth, but that's fine if you wish to put that. I'm simply making the point that this is a decision that Premier Andrews has explained. We understand that it's disappointing for athletes. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. The rate of JobSeeker is way below the poverty line and has been that way for a decade under the previous Liberal government. Your own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee said that it was seriously inadequate. Why didn't you listen to that committee and commit to 'a substantial increase in the base rates of the JobSeeker payment and related working-age payments' as a first priority, rather than implementing the totally inadequate increase that is essentially just a continuation of Liberal Party policy?

I thank Senator Rice for her question. Of course we, as a government, understand the difficulties that Australians are now facing in a whole host of areas, particularly as a result of the mismanagement of the former government in terms of how they handled the economy, how they handled the pandemic, and the issues that have arisen as a result of that mishandling.

When we came to government, we would have liked to have fixed every single economic problem that Australians are facing, but that simply wasn't possible in our first 15 months in government. But we do understand the problems. We are trying to work through them in a sensible fashion that ensures that we make sensible economic decisions based on all of the economic data that we have at any particular time but also trying to assist those Australians most in need.

I think it's fair to point out that the rates of JobSeeker and youth allowance and other working-age and student payments will rise by $40 a fortnight from 20 September, so it's not as if the government is not doing things in this space. We are doing things in this space but, as a responsible economic manager, we want to make sure— (Time expired)

Senator Rice, a first supplementary?

Minister, you say a substantial increase isn't possible. Why, though, are you choosing to give over $300 billion in stage 3 tax cuts to the richest people in our society, choosing to spend $368 billion on the AUKUS submarines, and choosing a $20 billion surplus rather than ensuring that people on income support can have more than one meal a day, aren't trapped into a whirlpool of declining health and can afford to live in a house rather than a tent or a car?

I thank Senator Rice for her question. I reject the implication in the question that this is an uncaring government. We have made decisions in the budgets that we have presented since coming to government where we try and assist those Australians that are most in need and most vulnerable. I can repeat what I said before, and that is that the rate of JobSeeker will increase by $40 a fortnight on 20 September. As a government, we can't just do one thing. We can't just look at issues relating to JobSeeker. We have to look at the totality of the economic circumstances. That does mean— (Time expired)

Senator Rice, second supplementary?

Minister, is an extra $4 a day going to fix things for Isabelle, who told our poverty inquiry:

… I have seen how this country treats poor people … and it regularly makes me think, 'Hey, maybe death might not be such a bad idea.'

Another witness said:

I've had seven years of pretending to my kids that I'm not hungry or I've already eaten.

What about people who are only showering once a week because they cannot afford their hot water bills? What do you say to them?

(—) (): I thank Senator Rice for her supplementary question. I think it's important that you look at the totality of what's being offered and proposed with respect to JobSeeker. I mentioned the figure of $40 a fortnight from 20 September. This increase will be combined with an increase from indexation for those payments indexed on the same day. For example, this means that a single jobseeker with no dependents will actually receive an increase of $56 a fortnight. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Could the minister please outline how the Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to establish Medicare Urgent Care Clinics? How will these Medicare Urgent Care Clinics help make it easier for Australians to see a doctor and take pressure off public hospital emergency departments?

I thank Senator O'Neill for her question and for her interest in Australia's health system. I hear those opposite laughing at the mention of the Medicare Urgent Care Clinics—scoffing at them.

No, we're saying you rebadged them.

Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Interjections across the chamber are disorderly, as are interjections generally. Minister, please continue.

The Albanese government is establishing 58 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics across Australia, with a total investment of $493.5 million over five years. These clinics are urgently needed to invest in the public health system to meet the needs of the Australian people. After 10 years of failure to invest, neglect of the aged-care system and failure of the public health system, we have significant challenges facing people who want access to affordable healthcare or, in this case, bulk-billed healthcare out of hours for non-urgent conditions. These Medicare Urgent Care Clinics are going to be part of the response, along with our investment in the tripling of the bulk-billing rate that we did in our budget, to ensure that the public health system is funded appropriately and that health professionals are supported in the work they do. Sixteen Medicare Urgent Care Clinics have now opened their doors around Australia—four in New South Wales, including in Albury and Wollongong; two in WA, in Perth and Rockingham; and nine in Victoria, including in Ballarat and Geelong. Today, the first clinic is opening in Tasmania, in Launceston, and we expect more to be opening in coming weeks and months—

They're not new. They're rebadged facilities. They're Victorian—

Order!

including in Tasmania. I know Senator Henderson hates services in Victoria. She opposes investments in Victoria.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Well, stop heckling, then! These are good investments for your constituents right across the country—

Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Henderson! May I remind senators that there's plenty of opportunity throughout the sitting period for you to make a contribution. Question time is not the time for that. Minister, did you wish to continue?

My four seconds? Yes. Affordable out-of-hours health care for Australians is something to be supported.

Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary?

The Medicare Urgent Care Clinics represent a new approach. Why are new approaches needed—

No, they're rebadged.

Senator O'Neill, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, once again, you are being disorderly. Senator O'Neill, please continuing your question.

Thank you very much, President, for that protection. The Medicare Urgent Care Clinics represent a new approach. Why are new approaches needed, and how is the government working to ensure that the urgent care clinics are integrated with existing health services?

Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for that question and for allowing me the opportunity to talk about how the urgent care clinics are integrated with existing health services. There is no doubt a new approach was needed. After 10 years of cuts and neglect, primary care is in the worst shape it has been in for almost 40 years. Bulk-billing rates are in decline. Only 14 per cent of medical graduates now choose to work in general practice, dropping from 50 per cent, but the need for those services hasn't declined. People still need to go to the doctor. They get sick and injured. They still need treatment. That's why we've been pleased to work with states and territories in the delivery of this program—because it's essential the Medicare Urgent Care Clinics align with and support the work that is done by state public health systems, particularly in relation to the emergency department. We know there were 8.8 million presentations to emergency departments in 2021, and, of these, 4.1 million were for non-urgent or semi-urgent conditions.

Thank you, Minister. Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?

Can a minister outline how the government is working with states and territories to ensure that the Medicare Urgent Care Clinics best meet the needs of local communities? Why is it important to work cooperatively with state and territory governments to deliver these urgent care clinics?

I thank Senator O'Neill for the supplementary. We are very keen to ensure the Medicare Urgent Care Clinics meet the health needs of local communities, and so we aren't imposing a one-size-fits-all approach, and it is importantly that we work cooperatively—I know it's a foreign concept to those over there—with state and territory governments, primary healthcare networks and health professionals on the ground to ensure that these clinics are jointly designed, implemented and integrated with the local hospital and health system. We're jointly developing operational guidance with state and territory governments that outline the type of care the Medicare clinics can provide and what MBS scheme items they can bill for. This work is critical to ensure integration with other health services, including GPs and hospital emergency departments. We know the value of working in partnership with state and territory governments, unlike those opposite.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Watt. Minister, in the most recent period for which you have the data, how many Australian homes did foreign buyers purchase, and what was the value of those purchases?

Minister Wong?

I was just going to invite the senator to redirect the question to Senator Farrell.

Senator Roberts, I'm taking it that you're redirecting to Minister Farrell?

Yes, I am.

I thank Senator Roberts for his question. In the last budget we did take some steps to remove the barriers to foreign investment in the new bill to rent to housing, to try and boost supplies of rentals. While the investment in building new housing is welcome, foreign ownership of existing housing is generally prohibited. While in some circumstances foreign residents can purchase a home while they are living in Australia, they are required to sell or rent it when they leave, and a vacancy tax applies to any properties left vacant. As we promised in the lead-up to the last election, we have doubled the penalty for breaches of our foreign investment rules from 1 January this year.

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson?

President, I have a point of order, on relevance to the question. It was about how much money has been invested by foreign investors. It's got nothing to do with Labor Party policy or budget.

Thank you, Senator Hanson. I'll draw the minister to that part of the question.

I'm happy to get the actual figures. I don't have the actual figures in front of me, but I do understand that it's a very, very small percentage of the overall expenditure in this area. But I will follow up with the Minister for Housing and get some more detailed information for you, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

So the upshot of that is: you don't know. Thank you for admitting it eventually. Publicly available data from the New South Wales Treasury covering the entire 2022-23 financial year indicates that 1,657 foreign buyers last year purchased housing worth $2.1 billion, suggesting every year in Australia 5,000 foreign buyers purchase $5 billion in housing. Minister, what is your government doing about foreign ownership of Australian housing?

I thank Senator Roberts for his follow-up question. I don't accept the proposition that I don't know the figures, Senator Roberts. I've indicated to you that I am happy to get the information from the relevant minister, this not being my direct portfolio responsibility. Of course, she does a terrific job in this area, and I'm sure she'll be able to provide you with some information in respect of it. I'll reiterate the point I made in answering your first question, and that is: we have doubled the penalties in respect of this area. I understand that the ATO has approved 1,224 residential retail purchases in the last three months— (Time expired)

Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Minister, the recent census found that, on census night, one Australian home in 10 was unoccupied—10 per cent. We know foreign buyers are buying new property and locking it up so they can sell that property as new in a few years time, after the price rises, preventing renters from accessing housing. This forces rental prices higher. Senator, I ask you again: will the Minister for Housing act to prevent foreign property speculators distorting the Australian property market and driving up rental rates?

Thank you, Senator Roberts. The quickest way to help renters and, for that matter, anybody looking to buy a home at the moment, of course, is for the coalition and the Greens to stop working together to stop our $10 billion housing program.

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?

President, this is a matter of relevance. I asked the minister to say if they would act to prevent foreign property speculators distorting the Australian property market and driving up rental rates. I don't want an argument between the Greens and the Liberals.

Sure. There was also the first part of your question, which went to the numbers from the census and went to holding stock, so I think the minister is being relevant, but I'll draw him to the second part of your question.

I explained to you in the two previous answers I've given to you that this government has actually acted to increase penalties on the things that you're complaining about, so to accuse us of doing nothing in this area is completely wrong. But I reiterate the point: there is a way of dealing with the issue that you're worried about immediately, and the way to deal with that immediately is for the coalition and the Greens— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, in the context of the highest inflationary pressures in over 30 years, including huge energy price spikes, Victoria has banned gas connections in new homes from 2024. According to Victoria's own energy reporting, the average per unit electricity price is 2.6 times higher than gas. Minister, how does forcing Australians away from cheaper gas ease cost-of-living pressures?

I will start by reminding those opposite that they voted against the price caps and the energy bill relief that we put in place in December last year, which has significantly lowered the price that households will be paying this year, as supported by and acknowledged by the Reserve Bank, by the Treasury—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue.

Thank you. The government's focus, the Albanese government's focus, has been to put downward pressure on energy prices, including the energy bill relief that will flow to five million Australians winter bills in the next little while.

Our support for energy upgrades and energy efficiency is that gas in fact does have a role to play as we transition to a net zero economy. It is not federal policy to ban gas connections, but we do acknowledge that states and territories also are implementing their plans around their transition to net zero as well, and that this is a question that really should be asked of the Victorian government. But I can certainly stand here and answer the steps that we are taking. We are mindful. We know that energy prices are hitting households. That's exactly why we took the action we did in December last year. We got ahead of it.

Again, let's not forget, when we came into government, we had an energy crisis on our hands that Minister Bowen was dealing with from day one. He had to stabilise energy markets, to manage it, to work across energy providers and other stakeholders and do the work that, frankly, should have been done by those opposite in the 10 years they were in government.

Senator McDonald, a first supplementary?

Minister, was your government consulted prior to Victoria announcing their decision? Was this a topic at the recent AUSMIN conference? And will you provide an assurance to Australian families struggling with the cost of living and rule out any plans to extend this ban on gas connections across Australia?

I would again say it's not federal policy to ban gas connections, but this is an area where the states and territories have responsibility. Certainly, from our point of view, we're not considering a nationwide ban on new connections, but we recognise that states and territories are having to consider the future of gas in their own energy mix.

In terms of consultation, I know that Minister Bowen and Minister McAllister work very collaboratively with state and territory colleagues about how to transition Australia in an ordered way to a net zero future—which I think used to be your policy too, wasn't it? You just didn't have any detail about how you'd get there. We do work with state and territory governments because we have to work together in the national interest.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Before I call you, Senator McDonald, I'm going to remind senators in the chamber that conversations and calling out across the chamber is incredibly disorderly and I would ask all senators to listen respectfully to the questions that are being asked and the answers being provided without the constant interjections. Senator McDonald, a second supplementary?

Minister, Labor governments across Australia, including the ACT government, continue to introduce policies that drive up cost-of-living pressures, such as banning access to cheaper energy. Why do Australians always pay more under Labor?

That's simply not true. It's simply not true, and the example you give in relation to the ACT, which went to 100 per cent renewable energy years ago, when I was still in the assembly, actually saw their bills go down this year because they are using a renewable energy mix which is often cheaper than other sources of energy. So it's simply not true, and we have been 100 per cent focused on meeting cost-of-living pressures or supporting households to deal with cost-of-living pressures, including in the area of energy, where we inherited, frankly, a total and utter mess when we came to government. We have been methodically working through it—which has included the legislation that the Senate passed, without your help, at the end of last year, which put downward pressure on those energy bills—and supporting households. Five million households have had support on their winter bills, which you also opposed.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Minister, offshore detention has been a humanitarian catastrophe. It has resulted in murder; death; rape; child abuse, including child sex abuse; armed assault by military forces; and deliberate government sponsored attempts to kill people by withholding food, drinking water, electricity and medical support. It was deliberately designed to harm innocent people, including children, by making their lives so unbearable that they were coerced into returning to the dangers that displaced them from their homes in the first place. The cruelty was a feature, not a bug, and now there are credible allegations of serious and systemic corruption involving millions of dollars of Australian government money. Will the government establish a royal commission into immigration detention? (Time expired)

Thank you, Senator McKim, for the question. Last week I think we all saw that a number of very serious issues were raised concerning the administration and governance of regional processing contracts and payments under the former coalition government. These are concerning allegations, and Mr Dutton, as the former home affairs minister, has a responsibility to explain what happened on his watch as home affairs minister. When these revelations came out, the government sought and received an immediate assurance that contracting and payments were being made according to law under this government. But we do need to get to the bottom of what has happened with taxpayers' money. As soon as these matters were raised, the government took action to be assured that governance arrangements were appropriate and called for evidence to be shared with the appropriate authorities.

Senator McKim, you may not have been aware of this, but just before question time today the Minister for Home Affairs announced that the government will appoint Mr Dennis Richardson, AC, a former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Director-General of ASIO, to conduct a review of integrity concerns and governance arrangements for the management of regional processing administration by the Department of Home Affairs. These issues do merit detailed and thorough examination, and the review will consider them in the wider context of serious issues that have emerged over many years. It will not canvass the policy of regional processing itself. The review will cover any integrity concerns about contracting arrangements regarding regional processing, whether public or otherwise, including the allegations and concerns raised by 60 Minutes and the Nine papers; the department's governance arrangements, oversight processes and systems for managing offshore processing, current and historic, including in relation to the engagement of subcontractors by head contractors; and any other related concerns regarding arrangements for regional processing administration.

Senator McKim, a first supplementary?

Minister, offshore detention is one of the darkest and bloodiest chapters in Australia's story. Unless we have a royal commission, with its independence, with its transparency, with its rigour, with its public hearings and powers to compel evidence and testimony, how are we ever going to write the conclusion to that chapter? Don't you agree that the matters you've just outlined are too narrowly scoped and will ultimately result in a cover-up, not the answers we need? (Time expired)

No, this government does not have any intention or desire to assist with a cover-up of the claim that Senator McKim is making in his usual overreaching style. I have, and the government has, full confidence in Dennis Richardson as one of the most esteemed public servants this country has produced to deliver a fully independent and thorough review. That's why we have appointed him to do so. In conducting the review, Mr Richardson will have regard to any previous and ongoing investigations, including by the AFP, AUSTRAC and the National Anti-Corruption Commission. He will seek information as appropriate and necessary from any Commonwealth agencies to support this inquiry. I can confirm that the minister has sought the full collaboration of her department in this regard. So we have full confidence that this is the appropriate way to handle what are very serious allegations and we have every intention of getting to the bottom of them.

Senator McKim, a second supplementary?

(—) (): Minister, given the repeated excoriating reports into the Department of Home Affairs by the Australian National Audit Office, the extensive criticisms of the department by multiple Senate inquiries and the department's ongoing failures to meet the most basic governance, oversight and probity standards, how can your government possibly have confidence in the secretary of the department, Mr Pezzullo, and will your government stand him down while the Richardson inquiry is ongoing? (Time expired)

The short answer to the question is no. The secretary of the department is serving a five-year term, having been reappointed in 2019. The Minister for Home Affairs has sought and has been given assurances that current arrangements for regional processing are lawful and address identified governance risks. But we do acknowledge that there have been serious issues within the home affairs department, particularly during the time that Mr Dutton was the minister. Senator McKim, you will remember that I asked many such question as an opposition senator in Home Affairs estimates. That's why we have now appointed Mr Richardson. I realise that your questions were probably drafted before that was announced.

Order!

You are clearly not interested in the answer, but we have full confidence that Mr Richardson will get to the bottom of what are some very serious issues and provide the government with high-quality advice about how these issues should be managed going forward.

I'll just remind you, Senator Watt, to direct your responses to the chair.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Is the minister aware that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2.6 million Australians are employed on a casual basis and over 270,000 of these workers have had regular work patterns for more than two years and are often referred to as 'permanent casuals'? These workers are working in permanent capacities without the job security or benefits that come with a permanent position in law and they lack leave entitlements and could be dismissed without notice. Does the minister believe this would be what most Australians would expect to be the definition of 'casual work'? What is the Albanese government doing to stand up for Australia's 2.6 million casual workers and provide them with the choice to obtain secure work? What is being done to close casual employment loopholes left by the Liberals and Nationals?

Thank you, Senator White, for that very thorough and detailed question. I know that you, along with pretty much everyone on this side of the chamber, have a very long history of standing up for the rights of workers, including casual workers.

Currently, the definition of a 'casual' within the Fair Work Act is based only on the original offer of employment and does not take into account any subsequent conduct of the parties. Unfortunately, this means that some employers are exploiting this loophole, treating employees as casuals even if they work regular and predictable hours. I've certainly met many such workers. Whether it be in the coalmining industry in Queensland or in many other industries across the country, there are thousands and thousands of casual workers who have been stuck in casual employment arrangements for too long. It would appear that some opposition senators seem quite content for that system to remain in place. Those casual workers are being used as though they were permanent workers, without the security of permanent employment, just because of what is written in their employment contracts.

This is the legacy of the former coalition government—the party of low wages and the party of insecure work. In 2021 the coalition introduced legislation to legitimise a blatantly unfair definition of casual employment. Then, extraordinarily, they voted down the other provisions of their own bill. The minister at the time—I wonder who that might have been? Oh, that's right; it was Senator Cash—and the coalition government voted against criminalising wage theft and the better off overall test because they were so focused on taking rights away from casuals. That's Senator Cash's record as the IR minister. That's the record of the coalition government at the time. What was left was an unfair and unreasonable definition that has now been in effect for two years. If the contract said you were working as a casual, that was the end of the story. The Albanese government's workplace relations reform agenda will introduce a new, fair definition of casual employment that will benefit all. (Time expired)

Senator White, a first supplementary?

Is the minister also aware that more than 40 per cent of casual workers are over the age of 35 and that many of these workers tell stories of not being able to go on holidays or take time off when they are unwell because they simply can't afford it? Given that many Australians are working multiple jobs because none of their individual jobs give them enough hours to cover their expenses, how do the government's casual worker reforms contribute to its commitment to improve job security in Australia?

Thank you again, Senator White. As you would recall, it used to be that those who were in insecure jobs tended to be students or people looking for some short-term work. Now, all too often, it's people trying to support a family or run a household. Now, too many Australians are stuck in insecure work, particularly those workers who have been stuck in casual employment arrangements for too long. The latest figures show that there are approximately 851,000 casual employees with regular working arrangements, but these workers do not receive paid leave entitlements. They may struggle to make financial plans for the future. They are more likely to expect to lose their job for involuntary reasons. They are more likely to be underemployed, and they are more likely to be female. There are legitimate uses for genuine casual employment, but indefinite casual employment should never be used as a loophole to undercut worker pay and conditions. The Albanese government will close this loophole, and we hope the whole chamber will join us in doing so.

Senator White, a second supplementary?

Women represent almost 50 per cent of Australia's workforce, and the majority of workers who have been casual for more than two years are women. How does the government's workplace relations agenda further contribute to its commitment to improve gender equality?

Great question!

It is a great question, because the latest figures show that women are overrepresented in casual employment in Australia. That is the legacy of 10 years of coalition government. Women make up 53 per cent of the 851,000 casual employees with regular working arrangements; 56 per cent of the 278,000 casual employees with long-term regular working arrangements; 55 per cent of the 753,200 casual employees who have been employed for more than two years; and 57 per cent of the 457,500 casual employees who were underemployed in August 2022. Again, that is the legacy of 10 years of coalition government—women being disproportionately overrepresented in casual employment. The latest data shows that the average weekly earnings for casual employees are approximately half that of permanent employees, on average a difference of $846. We're fixing this loophole. (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians. In the October 2022 budget, the government announced $5.8 million for an independent Makarrata Commission. What does the minister expect this commission to do?

Thank you to Senator Nampijinpa Price for the question. As Senator Nampijinpa Price would know, we have made substantial investments through the May and October budgets to ensure that we are supporting improvements in outcomes, particularly in closing the gap, in those key priority areas for Australia's First Nations people and, frankly, ensuring that those investments are targeted—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Nampijinpa Price?

I have a point of order on relevance—

A government senator interjecting—

Order! I've got a senator on her feet. Sorry, Senator Nampijinpa Price; would you start again.

I have a point of order on relevance. I'm speaking specifically to the $5.8 million for the Makarrata Commission.

Thank you. I'll draw the minister to your question. Minister.

But it's in the context of—

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. It is! I'm happy to get to it, and I give you a commitment: I will get to it. I am talking about the investments we made, because we made a number of investments. The senator's question goes to investments made in the budget, including—I acknowledge—to the Makarrata Commission, which I will get to. But I'm also saying that the government is doing a range of things to support additional investments in First Nations communities to deal with the gaps that we have in terms of health outcomes, engagements with the legal system, housing—

It's about Makarrata.

Well, it's not—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left! I called a number of you, Senator Ruston particularly. Interjections are disorderly. Minister, please continue.

That investment is to support one element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which included constitutional recognition through a voice to our nation's parliament—

Senator Ruston!

truth-telling and treaty.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Henderson! Order across the chamber! Order! Minister, please continue.

That's been around since 2017, so I don't know if you've had your head in the sand since then, Senator Henderson!

Minister, please resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, Senator Ayres! Senator McKenzie! I have reminded senators that comments across the chamber are disorderly, as is the noise level. Minister, please continue.

The government have been clear that we will establish an independent Makarrata Commission to oversee a national process for agreement-making and truth-telling. (Time expired)

Senator Nampijinpa Price, a first supplementary?

In an interview last week, the Minister for Indigenous Australians said that the Makarrata funding was really code for treaty. Can the minister confirm that this is correct?

The Makarrata Commission will fund and support local models of truth-telling in partnership with First Nations communities, community and church groups and other levels of government. The commission will create an official record of the stories being told and heard, including stories of survival and culture, colonisation, massacres, discrimination and resistance. The commission will also work closely with the First Nations Voice when it is established. I think that is well understood. I'm not sure what the concern that's been raised over here is about, because people have understood that the Makarrata Commission is an important part—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Nampijinpa Price.

On a point of order—does the minister agree with Minister Burney's comments?

Thank you, Senator. The minister is being relevant. Minister, do you wish to continue?

I think I've answered the question. I have explained what the role of the independent Makarrata Commission would do. I support the work of Linda Burney. She is an incredible member of parliament, and she's doing an incredible job in leading this and ensuring that people understand the positive impact of a voice through the Constitution. (Time expired)

Senator Nampijinpa Price, a second supplementary?

Thank you; I'll take that as a 'yes'. Why does the Prime Minister say that this is not about treaty, yet his Minister for Indigenous Australians seems to think so? Can the minister explain to us who is right and who is wrong?

The government is focused on supporting the 'yes' campaign to support constitutional recognition through a voice to parliament. We believe that working together on this generous offering from First Nations people around how to bring the country together is around consultation and listening. This is about recognition, through the Constitution, of the rich history of this country that dates back 65,000 years. We are working together with First Nations communities around the country on this, and it's about bringing the country together—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Nampijinpa Price?

Madam President, I have a point of order on direct relevance. Can the minister please explain to us whether it's the Prime Minister who was correct or the Minister for Indigenous Australians.

The minister has just informed me she has finished her answer.

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

I move:

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

In making my remarks here in the chamber this afternoon, I want to specifically focus on the answers from the government in relation to questions about the Voice and this government's failure to be honest with the Australian people about what they plan and what they are trying to quietly implement without telling Australians. We've seen yet again today the Labor government's inability to answer very straightforward, simple questions about what the Voice will mean for Australians. Time after time, they have chosen to dodge scrutiny when the Australian people are asking for the government to be honest and upfront. Over the past few months, we've seen the Albanese Labor government repeatedly and falsely try to claim that the Voice will not be having a say on issues which many of its supporters have claimed that it clearly would be expressing a view about. These questions asked today go directly to this issue of the government saying one thing to Voice supporters and an entirely different thing to the Australian public.

In the last few weeks, we've seen the Minister for Indigenous Australians claim that the Voice will apparently not express a view on changing the date of Australia Day. I don't think anybody in this country believes that statement to be true. We've also heard the government claim that the Voice won't be expressing a view on monetary policy or on defence, yet the government's own proposed amendment makes it clear that it certainly can. Now we have the Prime Minister telling us that the Voice isn't about a treaty, when clearly many of the supporters of the Voice—indeed, the Indigenous affairs minister herself—see it playing a central role in exactly that proposal. In fact, the government poured millions of dollars in funding into the new body funded in last year's budget which the coalition was asking questions about today, the Makarrata Commission. We know that this funding and this body must have been envisaged by the government to have been working with the Voice. Why do we know that? Because a media article from earlier this month says:

Anthony Albanese has branded it "dumb" to suggest outcomes for Indigenous Australians can improve without a voice to parliament in the constitution …

In the Prime Minister's own words, it's apparently 'dumb' to expect this new body and this $6 million in new taxpayer money to achieve anything unless we also change the Constitution. If that's the case, what was this money doing in last year's budget? What is it being spent on now if the Prime Minister now says that it's dumb to expect it to achieve anything?

This government and the Labor Party are dodging every question and hiding every detail about their plans for the future of Australia. They know what they intend this body to look like, they know how it will be elected and they know the breadth of everything that can be captured by this proposal. But they are deliberately not telling Australians the truth about what it will involve, because they know that if Australians were told the truth they simply wouldn't vote for it. Senator Nampijinpa Price is absolutely right to be asking the questions she asked in this chamber today, just as she is right to be using her voice here in this parliament and out in the community to raise the wide breadth of concerns that Australians from all walks of life have with this divisive proposal. But we've seen the Prime Minister and the Labor government responding to every question by saying that Senator Nampijinpa Price and all those other Australians with genuine questions about the operation of the Voice shouldn't be asking those questions; all they should be doing is listening to this government's slogans.

It was this government's choice to ask Australians to place a new bureaucratic advisory body in Australia's Constitution. It was their choice. The onus is on this government to explain exactly how that body will operate and exactly how it will work with all of the other pre-existing bodies, committees and agencies that we have in this country that are seeking to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. The government needs to explain all of this in advance of the referendum, whenever it is going to be held this year, and they need to stop dismissively and arrogantly telling Australians that it's none of their business to ask questions about this because, apparently, the government will sort it all out afterwards.

I note we have an opportunity to take note of and discuss all topics raised in question time today. I intend to use this time to speak about the questions raised around aged care, but before I do so I want to respond to the contribution from Senator Chandler. We have before us in coming months a tremendous opportunity to unite our country, to walk together hand in hand towards a more united and more reconciled future. It's an opportunity that comes from a generous and simple offer: voice, treaty and truth. It's an opportunity that comes out of one of the most significant consultations ever held in Australian history. I have been deeply heartened by the sentiment in my local community and right across our state, in the city and in our regions, of South Australians who want to take that step forward together, hand in hand, towards a more united future. I'm excited and heartened by that opportunity before us. And the Uluru statement is not, of course, just about Voice; it's about truth and treaty as well.

In question time today we opened with questions on aged care. Our government's aged-care agenda is something I'm very happy to have an opportunity to talk to further this afternoon, because we make absolutely no apologies for that agenda and the ambitious nature of that agenda. We make no apologies because for over a decade our aged-care sector and aged-care system have been in crisis, letting residents down, letting their families down and letting aged-care workers down. The previous government oversaw an aged-care system which was described in a royal commission report by one word: 'neglect'. How could any government of good conscience respond to such a report with anything other than the utmost ambition?

Having nurses 24/7 in aged-care services will make a substantial difference to access to clinical care services and to quality of care. Of course, where there are reasonable issues that make that hard, exemptions will be available. But just because it might not be possible to meet that ambition in some services doesn't mean that you throw the entire ambition out. If we do that, then we are saying to the Australian people, we are saying to Australians in aged care and we are saying to everyone who loves them that we don't think the highest of ambition is important, and we don't think responding to neglect deserves the highest of ambition.

Later this week there is an important day for aged-care workers. It's our opportunity on Aged Care Employee Day to thank those workers for the contribution they make to our country and for the care they provide to some of our most vulnerable citizens. Throughout the pandemic, we heard lots of thanks for our most essential workers. But what we were told time after time is that those workers wanted us to show our thanks not just with words and sentiment but with action—action which valued them for the work they do and which valued them for the contributions they make. So, in addition to our ambitions in aged care, we have also, of course, funded a 15 per cent wage increase for aged-care workers, a wage increase which says to those workers: we see the work you do, we value the work you do and we understand that you have been doing it in the most trying of circumstances. Of course, the pandemic absolutely amplified all of that, but we are saying we value you and we thank you.

There is a lot of work which needs to be done in the aged-care sector to make it the location of choice in our health system for people who have prioritised caring and care for others in their careers and in the way they want to make a contribution to our community. I absolutely value those workers. In the lead-up to the election, I heard time after time from aged-care workers that they love their work and they love the sector they work in, but they didn't feel valued or they couldn't afford to stay in that sector and provide care to loved ones.

If that is our loved ones, and we know that people who want to be in the sector and provide care are walking away because they are not valued, that is a shameful thing. We have a high ambition in aged care—for aged-care workers and for the sector; 24/7 nurses is part of that, and I'm very proud of it.

I rise to take note of answers given in relation to the recent statement about the Daniel Andrews government banning new gas fittings to houses by 2024.

I heard the statements made by Senator Smith. Of course, we all place the greatest importance on those who do these hard jobs like aged care. I heard the statement about a 15 per cent wage rise, but wouldn't it be great if we could give workers all over the country, like the Australian Labor Party used to purport to do, the benefit of cheaper everything, rather than having to constantly look at these sorts of government-interference-type actions, like increasing wages artificially like this? I say that because we are living in the middle of an enormous era of high prices, of high inflation, of exorbitant mortgage repayments and—probably most tellingly and the one that drives it the most—high energy prices.

There seems to be an aura of almost dismissal in this place about what's actually driving this. It's not the range of factors that are brought up in this place by those opposite. What's driving this is this reckless rush to renewables, and we see that everywhere. If we want to really make ends meet for working families across the country, what we would be doing is: drill, baby, drill. Get back into the energy market and get those projects pumping. With this gas ban, just when you think that a government can't be any more reckless, along comes the Andrews Labor government to prove us wrong. Right in the middle of a period of high energy prices and high inflation, the worst thing you could do is start to make these kinds of announcements, which have nothing but a deflationary impact on confidence an inflationary pressures on the costs of energy, which are already skyrocketing. This is almost like the canary in the coalmine—the icebreaker for further reckless energy policy.

Of course, we know that this isn't where it'll stops. All across the country we're seeing these policies being rolled out by Labor governments. There are far too many Daniel Andrews fan boys in this place to accept that we won't end up in a similar situation federally. These actions are terrifying enough for the Victorians who have to endure it but are even more terrifying for those in the rest of the country who know that this policy is something which is going to be rolled out at a federal level any time soon. While the federal Labor government is doing everything it can to undermine gas investments in this country, this decision to ban gas connections by 2024—that's less than two years away, I might point out—for new homes in Victoria can only serve to tighten the screws further on household budgets. This is all at a time when Australians can afford it the least.

As I said earlier, there needs to be a reality check in this place as to what's actually driving this. I had the opportunity this week to speak to a notable expert in the area, Dr Bjorn Lomborg, who told me in no uncertain terms that this extraordinary climate hysteria we're in the grip of has nothing even remotely to do with anything other than the rush to renewables. He made the observation to me that the high price of solar and wind and the fact that those renewables don't operate when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow is the primary factor in high energy prices, and yet there's almost a cognitive dissonance in this place—a wilful blindness, if you will—to accept that that is the case.

We have seen in recent times broken promises on energy bills. We were promised electricity bills were going to come down by $275, but prices continue to rise. They're continuing to spiral out of control, increasing by something like 28.7 per cent across the country, which will be an additional $564 a year that families are going to need to find just for the simple purpose of getting back to where they were the previous year. Just to keep the lights on, families are having to find this extra money—money they simply cannot afford. This is a crisis. This decision will ripple through the country, and it cannot be afforded by Australians.

The theme of some of the questions that were put today seemed to focus quite clearly on a total lack of understanding of the difference in the roles and responsibilities between state and federal governments. It is alarming that we have an entire chamber full of senators and there's such a high-level lack of understanding. But that's what we've seen. Particularly we've seen our coalition comrades over there misunderstanding who's responsible for various sporting decisions with the Commonwealth Games. We've also seen them focus on Victoria but not understand the domestic gas moves of the Victorian government. We know that our comrades over here, the Greens, have also got a very strong blind spot in determining the difference between state and federal governments, particularly when it comes to the issue of rental policy.

Let's just be quite clear. When we're talking about the Victorian government's decision about no further gas connections in new builds, the key clue as to who's responsible here is absolutely in the title: the Victorian government. Regarding some of the hoo-ha that's been going on and the overinflated statements from colleagues across the chamber, this is a Victorian government decision. This is not a federal government decision. So this idea that it will ripple across the country is not true. The federal approach is not to impose any sort of mandate like this at all. Our approach is to provide families with more choices, to provide more options and to provide the support to take up those options and make a transition. Our approach is to provide the opportunity to access energy upgrades and energy efficiencies that address cost-of-living pressures and are about choice. As people out there are feeling the pinch and finding life difficult, our approach is about moving to a more energy-efficient future that relies on solar and wind, when we know those resources will be much, much cheaper into the future.

The situation we have ourselves in at the moment, with significant energy prices, has been debated in this chamber ad nauseum over the last year or so, and the key things that are driving it do not include Dan Andrews. What we are doing as the federal government is providing options. Some of those options that were put through in the budget this year include $1.3 billion in financing for household energy upgrades. Part of that that I'm particularly excited about is the fact that $300 million is for social housing energy upgrades, something that we have not seen before. It has never been an option for people in social housing to avail themselves of these kinds of services, these kinds of programs. It's always been about homeowners. So I'm delighted to see that come forward, because it will make a difference for people who are genuinely doing it tough on the ground.

Then we also have $310 million to help small and medium-sized businesses with tax deductions, to get them on board for changing some of the ways they use energy, for looking at some upgrades that will make a significant difference to their bills. These are the kinds of things that we are doing. What the Victorian government is doing is up to Victoria. What we are doing is building a structured policy framework to promote investment, to build towards a cheaper, more secure energy future. That is what we will continue to do to make things cheaper, more accessible and more sustainable into the future for households.

The extraordinary thing this afternoon has been the complete disconnect between the Albanese Labor government and the realities of the world. We've heard crippling cost-of-living increases referred to as 'feeling the pinch' and 'doing it tough', when I know that people right across Australia are having to make tough decisions in their family budgets. They are fixing it firmly on a couple of things. The first is this Albanese Labor government's heedless, reckless rush to renewable energies at prices that are going to be borne by Australians. The Victorian government's decision not to put new gas connections in new homes from 2024 is another example of that complete lack of understanding of how the real world works. They have not reflected that per-unit electricity prices are 2.6 times higher than gas prices and that electricity is 5.84 times more emissions intensive than gas. These are two very compelling reasons why the Victorian government's decision is wrong, and this federal Labor Albanese government is complicit. We've heard, 'We don't support Victoria; that's not what we're doing,' yet, at a time when they're trying to drive down emissions, when they're sheeting the cost of emissions home, through the safeguard mechanism, to our big employers, our big businesses, in Australia, the Labor government in Victoria is actually making the problem worse.

But I want to turn to some of the comments made by Minister Gallagher when she specifically talked about the ACT government and their changes. I would ask that the Senate ask Minister Gallagher to return to this chamber to clarify her comments. She said that electricity prices are actually going down this year. I have referred to a couple of sources this afternoon—actewagl.com.au and the ACT Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission—which both very clearly outline that the cost of electricity in the ACT is going up by 4.15 per cent and ACT gas prices are increasing by 14 per cent this year. That is clearly not what the minister said. I ask that she return to the chamber to clarify her comments.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to foreign investment in housing.

On the night of the last census, one million homes in Australia were vacant, twice what we need to solve the housing crisis. Yet, after my question today, it's clear this government has not done anything to find out why these homes are vacant. Instead, the government has introduced a bureaucratic Housing Australia Future Fund that will, even if we take it at face value, build just three per cent of the number of homes currently sitting empty around Australia. That's just 30,000 homes, as compared to the one million already built and sitting empty. At no time has this government thought, 'We really should see if we can get people into those empty homes.'

We don't know how many of those homes are foreign owned, either directly or through dodgy beneficiary arrangements, because the government does not want to know. Minister Farrell made that clear in his answer, if indeed there was an answer somewhere in there. Let me educate the minister. According to data from the New South Wales Treasury, then extrapolated to other states, it's likely that every year in Australia 5,000 foreign buyers purchase $5 billion worth of housing. Many of them then lock up the properties for years until the prices rise and then sell the properties as brand-new, taking the homes out of the rental market. These purchases include shell companies buying multiple properties and foreign owners purchasing properties under the Foreign Investment Review Board limit, unbeknownst to the Foreign Investment Review Board. This minister did flag that a foreign owner of a property valued above $1 million who leaves the country must sell the property within six months. I flag a question on notice asking how many prosecutions have actually been made and if, in this situation, a foreign buyer is not allowed to rent the property. The minister's answer there was misleading to the Senate.

Canada, New Zealand and 30 other countries have banned foreigners from buying homes, partially in response to this very problem. Canada's rental price fell about 12 per cent in the three months before their ban started in January this year, then fell about that much again for three months afterwards. Home values fell only enough to help home purchase, not enough to put homeowners into negative equity. Prices are now rising again, because Trudeau is allowing in 500,000 new immigrants a year. It's not rocket science; it's simple supply and demand.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to offshore detention of asylum seekers.

Senator Watt has been very clear with the Senate that the government has announced a former spook, Mr Dennis Richardson, to conduct some kind of a review into matters associated with the allegations that have been made public recently, very credible and very serious allegations about corruption in regard to Australia's offshore detention regime. That corruption is alleged to have occurred both in Papua New Guinea and on Nauru. Anyone who has watched Papua New Guinea or Nauru over the last few decades would be completely unsurprised that there are now credible allegations that corruption occurred around the billions of dollars of Australian government money that flowed into those two places as a result of a decision by a Labor government in Australia to reopen the offshore detention regime.

Any time we speak about offshore detention, we should reflect on the human cost, the massive human cost, of this cruel, punitive, disgusting regime of torture of innocent people—the death, the murders, the armed assaults, the rapes, the child abuse, the child sexual abuse, the deliberate harming of innocent people. The cruelty was not a bug of the system; it was a feature of the system. Offshore detention was deliberately designed to make people's lives so unbearable and to harm them so grievously that they would choose to go back to the countries that they fled from in the first place, to go back into the dangers that caused them to leave their homes in the first place. That is what offshore detention was all about. The cruelty, the brutality, the dehumanisation—they were design elements of the system. They didn't happen by accident and they weren't unintended consequences; they were actually the whole point of offshore detention—to coerce an outcome out of desperate, vulnerable people who reached out a hand and asked our country for help, and to coerce an outcome out of other desperate and vulnerable people who were thinking about coming to Australia and asking us for help because we signed up to the refugee convention back in 1951. These are design elements of offshore detention.

We had a system deliberately designed to harm innocent people, including children—a system which relied on rampant and systemic corruption to deliver it—and we're not going to get a royal commission into it from this government. If those matters aren't worth a royal commission, there's very little that is. It is extraordinary that this government is doing its best to put in place a narrowly scoped inquiry that won't have all the powers it needs, that will conduct its business behind closed doors and that is effectively designed not to answer the serious questions that need answering, which are: How can a country like Australia, in the 21st century, end up with a bipartisan political agreement between the two major parties to torture innocent people to try and coerce an outcome out of them and out of other innocent people? How can we have designed a system that was deliberately created to harm children? Those are the questions that we should be answering. Offshore detention is one of the darkest, bloodiest and most brutal chapters in our national story, and we're never going to write the concluding paragraphs unless we have a royal commission that holds people to account and makes sure it never happens again.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senators Steele-John and Allman-Payne from 31 July to 3 August, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:

(a) Senators Bilyk and Thorpe from 31 July to 3 August 2023; and

(b) Senator Dodson from 31 July to 10 August 2023.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:

(a) Senators Fawcett and Payne from 31 July to 3 August 2023; and

(b) Senator Reynolds from 31 July to 1 August 2023.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That general business order of the day no. 37 (Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023) be considered on Thursday, 3 August 2023 at the time for private senators' bills.

Question agreed to.

Does any senator wish for the question to be put on any of those notifications? If not, we will proceed.

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

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 25 June 2023, of the Hon. Simon Findlay Crean, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Hotham, Victoria, from 1990 to 2013. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 25 June 2023, of the Honourable Simon Findlay Crean, former cabinet minister in the Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments, former leader and deputy leader of the Australian Labor Party, and former member for Hotham, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

Colleagues, I rise on behalf of a Labor government to express our condolences following the passing of a great servant of our nation, of its working people and of the Australian Labor Party: the Hon. Simon Crean—former union leader, minister, Labor leader and member of the House of Representatives—at the age of 74. I start by conveying our condolences to his family: to his wife, Carole; to his daughters, Sarah and Emma; and to his brother David, with whom he shared a special bond, as well as to his former colleagues here and to his many friends. I welcome Carole Crean and members of the Crean family to the gallery today along with friends, including from the European Australian Business Council.

Simon Crean was courageous, decent, kind and principled. These traits defined his character as he served our nation at the pinnacle of our trade union movement and in some of the most esteemed political offices of our democracy. Simon made an extraordinary contribution to our movement, to our party and to our nation: president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, cabinet minister to four Labor prime ministers and leader of the Australian Labor Party. In these positions, he worked alongside some of the most consequential figures in our country's history to build a better Australia.

Imbued with an outlook that was positive and optimistic, Simon Crean fundamentally believed in the role of Labor governments as agents of change, as agents of transformation at home and abroad. For him, it was never enough to simply administer the status quo. He saw that, with purpose and vision, government could effect real change for the benefit of working people everywhere and could create opportunity for all our people. This optimistic outlook also served him well when confronted by challenges along the way. He met them as they came, and occasionally sought them out—persevering, sometimes facing setbacks, but never trammelled by personal nastiness. At a time when we regrettably witness the practice of politics becoming increasingly personalised, we reflect fondly on this mark of his great character.

Simon Crean was widely respected. When the times called for them, he made hard decisions and he stuck with them. At his core, he loved people. I saw firsthand Simon's genuine interest in the lives of others and his remarkable ability to recall names, family histories, anecdotes and events, all of which brought others closer to him.

Born in February 1949 in Melbourne, politics was part of Simon Crean's life from the very beginning. He grew up in a political household. His father, Frank, was already a Labor parliamentarian, serving in the Victorian state parliament before becoming a member of the House of Representatives a few months after the second birthday of a young Simon—the middle of his three sons. He later became Treasurer in the Whitlam government. As a consequence, and along with his siblings, Stephen and David, frequent trips to Canberra were a feature of Simon Crean's childhood and adolescence. And whilst this background might seem to have preordained his own progression into politics, Simon Crean still forged his own path, studying economics and law at Monash University. It was his connection with the movement against the Vietnam War that spurred his own political activism. But before this, as a teenager, it was the tennis club that commanded Simon's attention, and it was at the tennis club where his life's match was fulfilled when he met Carol. Their loving union, so apparent to all who knew them, would endure until his passing, spanning more than 50 years.

Simon Crean began his career in the labour movement in the early seventies at the Federated Storemen and Packers Union, a forerunner of the NUW and what we now know today as the United Workers Union, alongside Bill Kelty. What a formidable partnership—first at the union, later at the ACTU, with Simon Crean as president and Bill Kelty as secretary.

His involvement in union leadership came at a pivotal time for our movement. As assistant and then general secretary of the union between 1976 and 1985, this included leading key disputes to advance industry superannuation and equal pay. You see, before there could be an accord between the unions and government, there had to be accord between the unions. An agreement was reached on the fundamental steps for advancement: improving year 12 completion, guaranteeing national superannuation and health care, instituting collective bargaining, setting institutional minimum wages, providing the greatest opportunity for advancement to those disadvantaged by sex or race, and building the union movement on its own terms.

Simon Crean was a key influencer in shaping the modern Australian economy of the 1980s and by the time he became president of the ACTU in 1985, having served as vice-president and then senior vice-president over the preceding four years concurrently with his union role, he had already done so much to help establish what would be a defining period in our country's history, a defining period in relations between unions, business and government. You see, the tripartite relationship fostered by the Hawke government in this period transformed our country, and Simon Crean was part of that—a transformational shift in industrial and in social policy.

Whilst his genuinely conciliatory and consensus driven style was effective, Simon Crean was fundamentally a successful union leader because he understood the struggles and the aspirations of working people. He could meet people from all walks of life and engage with them meaningfully and sincerely, and he, in turn, was held with such wide affection.

At the 1990 election Simon Crean took his passion for representing people from the shop floor to the floor of the House and he was elected the member for Hotham in Melbourne's eastern suburbs, a seat he would continue to hold until 2013, and immediately upon his entry into parliament he became a minister. He served alongside other Labor giants like John Button and Peter Cook, individuals who saw such great opportunity for Australia and worked earnestly to ensure that opportunity was realised and that it was shared. Simon Crean took the same approach.

Bob Hawke appointed Simon as Minister for Science and Technology, and a few months later he was appointed to cabinet for the first time as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. He continued to serve in this portfolio when Paul Keating assumed the prime ministership and through the 1993 election for the remainder of that year. Much like his predecessor, the late John Kerin, he was highly respected and is still warmly regarded in the agricultural sector.

At the end of 1993, Simon Crean became Minister for Employment, Education and Training, a portfolio he would hold until the end of Labor's time in office in 1996. It was a highly consequential time to hold such a portfolio as our economy emerged from recession and the impact of technology necessitated structural change across the economy. And the centrepiece of this time, for both Simon Crean and the government, was Working Nation. Bill Kelty called this the most significant statement on employment since World War II, and during Simon Crean's time as minister Australia's unemployment rate experienced a steady decline from 10.6 per cent when he took office to 8.1 per cent two years later.

Following the defeat of the Keating government, Simon Crean became the senior figure in the Labor opposition, including deputy leader and shadow Treasurer under Kim Beasley between 1998 and 2001. And following Kim Beasley's second election defeat Simon was elected unopposed as federal Labor leader and leader of the opposition. In his two years as leader, national security and international relations dominated. With the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and then the October 2002 Bali bombings, Australia faced an uncertain world.

The Bush administration in the US, supported by Australia led by John Howard, and the United Kingdom, led by Tony Blair, were preparing to invade Iraq based on flawed justification. It would have been easy, certainly much easier, to stand behind the ascendant Howard and provide bipartisan support for this action. Simon Crean and Labor did not, and history has demonstrated this principled and courageous judgement to be correct. Two decades have passed since that time, and, given the way this action unfolded, the lengthy duration of the conflict, the destabilisation in the Middle East, it's easy to forget what the political climate was like in the initial stages. Simon Crean was castigated in the parliament and in the press. But he maintained his stance, and as leader of the opposition he made several major speeches outlining Labor's position against the war.

At the HMAS Kanimbla farewell in 2003 he gave a short but consequential address, and he said this:

I don't want to mince my words, because I don't believe that you should be going. I don't think that there should be a deployment of troops to Iraq ahead of the United Nations determining it. But that's a political decision; that's an argument that the Prime Minister and I will have, no doubt, over the coming weeks and months.

But, having said that, I don't support the deployment of our troops in the circumstances. I do support our troops and I always will, and that distinction is fundamentally important.

an honest, courageous and decent statement reflective of the man. In February 2003 Simon Crean spoke in detail on Labor's position on Iraq to the parliament, and he again emphasised support for Australian troops along with the importance of non-proliferation, addressing border security issues in the Middle East and backing the authority of the UN and international law. But he also systematically dismantled John Howard's arguments for war, observing that the Australian people did not want peace at any cost, but neither did they want Howard's war at any price.

In case anyone thinks this stance was not without political consequence, we are reminded that, when Labor released its detailed policy statement on Iraq in 2000, the then foreign minister and then Treasurer said we were appeasers, and we were 'talking like Saddam Hussein' because we wanted the issue to go back to the UN Security Council. Yet again, it was Labor that addressed Australia's most significant international security issues with maturity, and it did so under the leadership of Simon Crean. At a National Press Club address the following month he spoke about the support he had received from the parents of troops who had been deployed. For him, the personal cost of war was never far from front of his mind. He also noted the courage of past Labor leaders John Curtin and Gough Whitlam who had stood up for Australia's interest in times of war. And Simon Crean was able to hold and articulate these positions because he deeply understood how fundamental they were to Labor's core.

In October 2003, several months after the conflict commenced, the President of the United States, George W Bush, addressed our parliament. In a speech of welcome Simon Crean addressed the president directly and made clear Labor did not agree with the war in Iraq. He spoke of the strength of our shared values, our interests and our principles, and he spoke of how the strength of our values, interests and principles did not prevent us from taking a different perspective and that did not diminish or weaken our partnership but enriched it and strengthened it. Simon Crean and Labor were proved right on Iraq—exercising cautious judgement and understanding that it was possible to be a constructive ally but not an unthinking one.

In this period, Simon Crean also demonstrated courage in the way he pursued reform within the Labor Party. Following a review conducted by Bob Hawke and Neville Wran, he implemented reforms that were wildly unpopular in some quarters. The effect was to reduce the influence of affiliated trade unions from 50 to 60 per cent in party forums and to increase the minimum target for the election of women to parliament.

When Mark Latham became Labor leader in December 2003, Simon Crean again became shadow Treasurer, before going onto serving the trade and regional development portfolios during Labor's final term in opposition before the defeat of the Howard government in November of 2007. When Kevin Rudd led Labor back to government, Simon Crean returned to the cabinet table, and I was honoured to be his cabinet colleague. Along with John Faulkner, he was one of only two ministers who had previously served at that level in a federal government. He retained the trade portfolio he had held in opposition, before becoming Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts under Julia Gillard. His service in the trade portfolio has seen him credited with influencing so many of the foundations of Australia's approach to international trade.

Regional development and arts were portfolios that suited him but were also politically important for a government that relied upon the support of country independents in New South Wales for its survival. In Simon Crean, not only did they have a minister who spoke their language but they also had someone with a genuine appreciation for country music—I did not know this fact—as evidenced by regular attendance at the Tamworth Country Music Festival. You learn something. One of his last acts as arts minister was to launch Labor's national cultural policy, something which didn't get its opportunity to flourish with the government's demise in 2013 but the legacy of which is carried on by the Albanese government's Creative Australia policy.

Simon Crean left politics at the 2013 election. He continued to contribute to our nation through his post-political pursuits. Organisations spanning primary industries, regional Australia, education, trade and the arts all benefited from his wisdom and his guidance—as well as his local community. Amongst others, he chaired the Australia-Korea Business Council, was on the board of Linfox, served as deputy chancellor of Monash University and was an ambassador for the McKinnon Prize in Political Leadership. When he died suddenly last month, he was in Germany, participating in a trade delegation in his capacity as chair of the European Australian Business Council.

Simon Crean was a great Labor reformer, a man who came from Labor traditions and sought to shape our movement, our party and our nation for better. He grew up in and was surrounded by the Australian Labor Party and its significant figures and then forged his own path for himself to become one of the most significant figures in our party and our movement. Variously described as our most successful trade minister and our most influential art minister amongst many attributes, he was held in wide esteem. And I too held him so. Simon Crean was the first leader I served as a parliamentarian when I entered the Senate in July 2002, and his positive and optimistic outlook struck me along with the fundamentally decent way in which he practised politics and conducted himself personally. I went on to serve alongside him in the cabinets of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, and we were fortunate to have the benefit of his wisdom and knowledge. Ideological he came squarely from the Hawke and Keating tradition, forging consensus, driving reform, taking an expansive view of our place in the world, and he reminded us to do the same. His passing reminds us again, as it is more important than ever.

As Carole spoke about in her heartfelt tribute, Simon was possessed of incredible self-belief and intellect. He trusted his judgement and was prepared to fight for what he believed in. His abundant passion was coupled with humility and a beautiful ability to forgive and let go.

He lived up to the ideals of his mother, Mary Crean, articulated as being that a Labor Party that should always be caring, compassionate and courageous and should always provide hope for those who need it most. And he understood that our job in Labor is not to do what is easy for ourselves. Our job is to do what is right and sometimes hard for Australia.

Simon Crean died in June 2023. There wasn't any warning. His state funeral, at St Paul's Cathedral in Melbourne the week before last, was attended by hundreds. It overflowed with gratitude for the life he had led, the contribution he had made and the love he had given. As his daughter Emma said through the tribute, 'Si: A Martlet of Love', which she wrote and delivered: 'A man with the strength to dream, redeeming his soul to fly at constant quest for knowledge, seeking truth, helping all he can, through adventure, leadership and hard work. One soul—a soul we all knew.'

This Labor government shares the gratitude of so many for the life of the Hon. Simon Findlay Crean. We express, again, our condolences and our sympathies to Carole, Sarah and Emma, Simon's wider family and all those here and beyond who knew him well.

I rise on behalf of the opposition to give full support to the motion moved by Senator Wong, to associate ourselves with the fine and thoughtful words of Senator Wong and to pay our own tribute to the life of the Hon. Simon Crean.

Simon Crean did indeed dedicate his life to the service of Australians and to the pursuit of his vision and the Labor vision for a stronger Australia. He performed his duties always as a gentleman and a man of principle, remembered as not only a stalwart of the Labor Party but someone who truly reflected the very best of the values and the ethos of his party.

Simon Crean was born into the world of politics. In hindsight, it almost seems inevitable that Simon would one day enter parliament. The son of Frank Crean, deputy prime minister in the Whitlam government, Simon got a political education from the family dinner table onwards, with dinner conversations and guests ranging from Evatt to Calwell to Whitlam. But, of course, he forged his own path, and, as Senator Wong rightly acknowledged, he forged a path that ensured he will be remembered for his contributions and his deeds.

At Monash University he studied law and economics and initially joined the storemen and packers union, as acknowledged, with Bill Kelty. Together, they would become—and I've got the same word as you had, Senator Wong—a 'formidable' duo, who would eventually come to lead the Australian Council of Trade Unions together. Simon was first elected ACTU vice-president in 1981, and eventually became president of the ACTU in 1985, with Bill Kelty as secretary by his side. They played key roles in negotiating big reforms through their time at the ACTU, engaging extensively on reforms such as universal superannuation, reforms to welfare and social security payments, and pathways to skills and employment. It is fair to say it was an era of effective, pragmatic and forward-looking leadership by the ACTU, which itself, in partnership with the Hawke government at the time, left a lasting legacy on Australia and was perhaps the ACTU's most impactful era in terms of its contribution to Australian public policy.

Following this significant period of work at the ACTU and in the union movement, Simon Crean made the move to parliamentary politics, into the House of Representatives. He was elected as the member for Hotham in 1990 and continued to serve as the member for Hotham, being re-elected for seven consecutive elections.

Amongst so many tributes paid to Simon Crean, it is notable that, through so many of them, there are reflections upon his commitment to his local community, to his work as a local MP and to never losing touch with those local ties. This is notwithstanding the fact that he was, immediately after his election, appointed as a minister, serving from 1990 to 1996 and again from 2007 to 2013. It is quite a remarkable feat to have spent some 23 years at the Labor Party frontbench, most notably serving as a minister under Prime Minister Hawke, Prime Minister Keating, Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard. Not only the diverse array of portfolios through that very long span, serving as minister in the fields of science and technology, primary industry and energy through to employment, education, trade and the arts but also the significant impact he had in each of them that is in part evidenced by the extraordinary range of organisations that pay tribute to Simon Crean upon his passing, from the Australian Ballet, the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, Monash University, Screen Producers Australia to his very much beloved North Melbourne Football Club.

Simon's parliamentary biography paints quite a picture also of the international representations and engagement he made during his time as a cabinet minister, undertaking some 68 international official visits to 134 countries, probably some not even captured within that. Notwithstanding the intensity of his work and the tempo of his travel, it is notable just how much unfailing love and kindness Simon Crean is credited with having shown very much not only to his family and his loved ones but across his friends, his colleagues and his wider community. Following the election of the Howard Liberal government in 1996, Simon served as deputy opposition leader and shadow Treasurer through the 1998 and 2001 elections, before becoming opposition leader for the Labor Party in late 2001.

As has been mentioned by Senator Wong and reflected upon by so many, one of Simon Crean's most profound moments in his parliamentary and political career was when he opposed Australia's involvement in the Iraq war as leader of the opposition. As is depicted by the Australian Financial Review, he did this from a difficult and challenging position. They said:

It was a tough environment for a Labor leader who was unpopular in the polls against an ascendant Howard. But on February 5, 2003, just over a month before the invasion began, Crean stood his ground.

Simon's qualities as a leader of the upmost principle and integrity were displayed in his strong support of the Australian troops being deployed, working tirelessly on his part to actively avoid a repeat of the Vietnam War, while still being clear in his grievances with the government and that his grievances with the government, never with those who wore the Australian uniform. Indeed, as so many have acknowledged, he farewelled our troops as they left Australia not only with patriotism but also with the respect of honesty, treating them with that respect and outlining very clearly not only the views and stance he took but also why they deserved not only his respect but that of all Australians. He did likewise in the parliament when the US President George W. Bush visited Australia, speaking to, again, his principal nature, being up-front yet gracious, saying very directly to President Bush:

Our commitment to the alliance remains unshakeable, as does our commitment to the war on terror, but friends must be honest with each other. Honesty is, after all, the foundation stone of that great Australian value—'mateship'.

This was not the only area where Simon Crean in a relatively short period of parliamentary leadership within this building demonstrated his willingness to use his political capital. During his time as opposition leader and as leader of the Labor Party, Simon Crean took the opportunity to pursue dramatic change within the Labor Party. Against great opposition from some, this product of the trade union movement used much of his capital to pursue reforms in Labor including the dilution of union influence in Labor Party preselections from 60 per cent to 50 per cent while also taking the step of ensuring female candidates were picked in 40 per cent of winnable seats, leaving a lasting and positive impact on his party.

His opposition to the war in Iraq, his reform of the party created disgruntlement and challenges, both outside and within Labor, during those tumultuous times. Being opposition leader then, as it has been for so many generations and remains, is an often thankless task and so it was for Simon. He stepped aside as a leader in late 2003. Nevertheless, as a respected former leader, Simon Crean was appointed and served as cabinet minister following Labor's election in 2007, notably as trade minister, a position that naturally aligned with his character, with his principles and with which he showed great gusto. After 23 years as the member for Hotham, and the majority of those as a cabinet minister, Simon announced his retirement before the general elections in 2013.

I can say that Simon Crean was someone who was always generous. As someone who followed him, though some years apart, in both the education portfolio and the trade portfolio, his willingness to provide advice, to engage and to work was always evident. His kindness, his thoughtfulness and his engagement, I acknowledge, I thank him for and I welcome. Whether it was on matters of international education or in the pursuit of our trade agreements, particularly those with the European Union, Simon Crean was always somebody worth having a conversation with, worth listening to and worth ensuring that he was deployed, as he would always seek to be, in the national interest.

One of his most notable post-parliamentary appointments was as the chairman of the European Australian Business Council, working to facilitate more open trade with the EU. His belief in the advancement of those trade networks and ties and their benefits to our nation were unwavering. It was this work which he so loved and was so good and effective at that he was pursuing at the time of his sudden death.

In Simon Crean, Labor has lost a former leader and a principled yet pragmatic advocate. But our nation has also lost an effective advocate and champion for our interests right around the world as well as for good, sound policy across our nation. His passing was sudden, and this no doubt has been a terribly difficult time for his loved ones, but I hope they can find some comfort in the recollections that have been shared across this place and in so many others, and in the huge outpouring of respect and admiration across all sides of politics that so many held for Simon Crean. As John Howard summarised, he was 'a formidable adversary who I both liked and respected' and that respect is perhaps the most important of all attributes.

On behalf of the opposition, and in joining all senators, I acknowledge and thank Simon Crean for his service, and we extend our heartfelt condolences to his wife, Carol; his daughters, Sarah and Emma; their families; and to Simon's so many loved ones, friends, colleagues, including many here, I know, across from us who served closely with Simon and who valued and treasured his friendship and support. We extend our deepest sympathies and our thanks for his service to our nation.

I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to give our condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the honourable Simon Findlay Crean. It's always difficult to lose a loved one, and even more so when it happens unexpectedly and away from home. It is clear that Mr Crean had many people who loved him.

Senator Wong has given an account of his numerous roles and achievements, which I won't seek to repeat. But one thing to note are the—at the time—bold commitments Mr Crean made to invest in the long-term protection of the Murray River in the lead up to the 2003 election. That work gave the environment a prominence in an opposition campaign that it had not had for some time.

He was a dedicated union leader and an advocate for workers' rights. He was committed to the arts and to regional communities. He was part of a political family but was a politician who saw getting outcomes as more important than people recognising his role in getting there.

A lot has been said already about Mr Crean's courage in speaking against Australia entering the Iraq War. He called for a decision to be deferred until the UN inspectors assessed the weapons of mass destruction claims that were used to justify the war, saying that denying the UN extra time to inspect undermined any legitimacy for the war. He took that stand while President Bush was in the chamber. Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle made their own statement on that day, and the collective power of that opposition strengthened the resolve of the anti-war movement. Mr Crean said that the media at that time had joined 'a stampede urging Australia to war, but had failed to question the evidence presented'—evidence which, history has shown, simply did not support the claims being made. Thousands and thousands of people took to the streets, but the Howard government was belligerent, and we went to war without a vote in parliament and without proper consideration. We went to war on a lie.

Mr Crean also called out Mr John Howard's disgraceful attempts to use the grief of Australian families affected by the Bali bombings to justify his war. It should not be so notable to stand against powerful allies and demand transparency, accountability and honesty. It should not be so rare to stare down a voracious media and do the right thing. It shouldn't be, but it is. History has supported Mr Crean, Senator Brown, Mr Wilkie and all those who stood against that illegal war. At a time in history when the drums of war are beating again, I hope that Mr Crean's legacy gives everyone in this place pause for thought about the mistakes that drove us to war in Iraq and how to make sure we don't repeat them. I hope his legacy is a government committed to transparency and rigorous decision-making.

I want to note the personal tragedy that Mr Crean experienced when his brother died bushwalking in a remote area and was not found for some time. It is hard to imagine the trauma of that long period of waiting, of not knowing, of losing hope. I would not wish that on any family. From that experience, Mr Crean maintained an empathy for communities experiencing tragedy. The sensitivity with which he addressed families and friends of the Bali bombing victims in the days and months following that tragedy was a testament to that empathy.

As I said at the outset, despite his sometimes stern demeanour Mr Crean was clearly loved and was loved by many. His sudden and unexpected death should be a reminder to us all to nurture our relationships outside of this place and to make sure that we let people that we care about know as often as we can. Our deepest condolences and best wishes to Mr Crean's family, his friends and colleagues.

I rise as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate to support the motion moved by Senator Wong and the comments made by both the government and the opposition on the passing of the honourable Simon Crean.

While many of the speeches are about his achievements in the union movement, his lifelong interest in the arts, his principled stand against participation in the Iraq war and his contributions to the Labor Party, I want to concentrate instead on his contribution to agriculture and regional Australia. He was dignified in a profession that is often brutal and cruel. When Simon Crean was promoted by Prime Minister Bob Hawke to be Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in 1991, he took to the job with great gusto and enthusiasm, donning his RM Williams boots and travelling extensively and relentlessly throughout regional Australia, meeting communities on the ground to hear firsthand from them. He was a staunch supporter of free trade and Landcare so communities in agriculture could actually reach their full potential. He knew that most people in the regions generally didn't vote for Labor and that as a prominent Labor person he would have to work doubly hard to gain their respect and trust, and he did. As a relatively new MP, he knew if he did well in agriculture and was respected by the sector that would stand him in good stead, and it did. The reason he was so different and so respected in the agriculture industry was that he did not readily become captive of noisy special interest groups, environmental groups or animal welfare activists. He took his high intellect and his commitment to evidence based policy development to the real world, and that was evidenced by how his pragmatic, solution-driven approach to policy development was supported by the regions and the agriculture industry more broadly.

I also want to say thank you to Simon, because when I became agriculture minister in 2019 he came to my office very early in the piece and was extremely generous in offering me his time and advice if and whenever I needed it. I appreciated his generosity and openness in this regard.

It is worth recording here that, post politics, Simon also became the chair of the Australian Livestock Exporters Council. I noted at his funeral at St Paul's Cathedral, which many in this chamber were at, there was significant representation from the agriculture industry. It was a testament to his ability to build bridges right throughout his life, no matter what job he was in, to have Baillieu, Brumby, Kennett and Bracks celebrating the life and achievements of a man like Simon Crean. I asked former Victorian Nationals leader and Deputy Premier of Victoria Peter Ryan for his thoughts, as they worked on regional development together as ministers at the federal and state levels. He said he was a man for all seasons who always had the greater good for our Australian communities in his compass.

Putting politics aside, I want to say in conclusion that Simon Crean was a politician who always tried to make a difference and who wanted to achieve a great outcome from whatever position he had throughout his public life. He was opposition leader and he aspired to become Prime Minister, but it was never destined to be. He was a man of deep faith, enthusiasm and drive and a great supporter of the North Melbourne Football Club, which I am very glad the Saints beat last weekend!

My thoughts and prayers go to Carole and his daughters, Sarah and Emma, his young grandsons and his close family and friends. Parliament needs more Simon Creans on both sides, in government and in opposition, for our nation to flourish, for the best of us to prevail, to be intelligent, not ideological, to have a work ethic that befits the people who sent us here, to have a curiosity for new ideas and to have a care after the human condition.

I rise to pay my respects to the Hon. Simon Crean and to extend my very deep condolences to Simon's wife, Carole, their two daughters, Sarah and Emma, and the Crean family and friends. It was an enormous shock to learn of Simon's sudden passing last month while visiting Berlin as part of an industry delegation in his role as chair of the European Australian Business Council. We often have to give eulogies in this place about parliamentarians that we never knew, but, of course, that is not the case with Simon.

I first got to know Simon more than 40 years ago when he worked for the Storemen and Packers Union with his great friend Bill Kelty. At the time I was an industrial officer with the shop assistants union in Adelaide. In those days, we were often involved in demarcation disputes with the Storemen and Packers Union over who should cover warehouse workers in South Australia. But those disputes were always conducted with great civility. That became a hallmark of Simon as a Labor leader. I long valued Simon's friendship and advice over those decades, and I was pleasantly surprised when I first got elected to the Senate in 2008 when he sent me a letter of congratulations—a very thoughtful act, I thought, by a very busy cabinet member.

Simon gave a lifetime of service to the Australian people in a range of senior ministerial positions, including as Minister for Trade between 2007 and 2010. Most recently, my engagement with Simon has centred on the ongoing trade negotiation—very difficult trade negotiations—with the European Union. I sought Simon's views on engaging with the Europeans and was deeply grateful for his support, including during my visit to Europe in December last year. If in the end we do secure a free trade agreement with the European Union, it will be very much because of Simon's advocacy.

Simon's dedication to public service continued beyond his political career, including as chair of the Australia-Korea Business Council and, of course, the European Australian Business Council. Simon was a strong supporter of Australia as an open trading nation and was a vocal advocate for the primacy of the multilateral trading system. With his always warm and welcoming smile, he will be missed by all those Australian businesses and workers that rely on international trade for generating greater prosperity. But, of course, he will be most deeply missed by those who loved him: his family and friends. And all of those who knew him know that his passing was a very great loss for all of us. Vale, Simon.

I wish to join with the government and all of the parliament today in support of this condolence motion for the late honourable Simon Crean. In doing so, I recognise his legacy and contribution to public life in Australia.

Simon was a principled leader with a curious mind and a thirst for adventure, and we know, of course, that he had courage. We've heard that many times already today. He made a substantial contribution for over 50 years in public life, serving as leader of the ACTU, minister in four Labor governments and leader of the Labor Party. Perhaps just as important, he was a thoroughly decent and affable man with friends across the parliament and the Australian community. Simon had an empathy and humanity that was bigger than party politics. His commitment to the Labor Party was strong, but his believe in good politics was always at the centre of everything that he did.

I've known Simon since I was a kid. He was a dear friend of the family. I know when I first came to this place Simon always made an effort to check in and see how I was going, and that continued long after he had left and I was still here. I remember sharing Christmas at his family's home. I was deeply honoured and think back on it very fondly. When I was a kid he was a great union leader, and I just took it for granted. As I got older I realised the real contribution that people like Simon made and, of course, what his strong union with Bill Kelty meant to working people in this country. The reforms that they made and their contribution to the lives of Australian workers and to real changes to working conditions in this country have, I think, been unmet and unmatched by those who have come after.

Simon was a great union leader. My own dad was a member of the old storemen and packers union. On the news of Simon's passing, dad texted me and said, 'Simon Crean. A really top bloke and a humanitarian,' and I think that goes for a lot of workers who really valued and succeeded from the leadership of Simon in his union years. My dad's a harsh critic—he doesn't say those things about people very lightly—but he always had the utmost respect for Simon, and I think workers right across the country did as well.

I want to recognise Simon's contribution to a number of portfolios and passions that he and I both shared: his advocacy for the arts and for the Murray River and his principled opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

As the Minister for the Arts in the Gillard government, Simon launched national cultural policy Creative Australia, the successor to Keating's 1994 Creative Nation, delivering on one of the key ideas of the Rudd government's 2020 summit. Creative Australia presented a vision and strategy to place arts and culture at the centre of modern Australian life. Simon knew arts was for everyone, not just the elite few. It spoke, of course, this policy, to five overarching goals developed in close consultation with the artistic and the broader Australian community.

Simon ensured that goal 1 of the policy's five objectives was to recognise, respect and celebrate the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to the uniqueness of Australian identity. That was important, as important then as it is now. Those goals established the framework that was central to the development of the current Australian government's cultural policy, Revive, and I look forward to seeing that implemented properly and funded with gusto. Simon was personally involved actively in the arts, serving as the Chair of the McLelland Gallery, and was an enthusiastic supporter of the Australian National Academy of Music. He always understood and championed the value of arts in Australian society and, as I said, for everyone, not just a few.

On the Murray River, obviously a topic that's very close to my heart, being a senator from South Australia, Simon was one of the first political leaders to push for a national plan on the Murray-Darling long before others had chimed in and before John Howard followed suit. As Labor leader, in his 2003 budget reply speech, he made national cooperation over the Murray-Darling instrumental to his response and to the policy. He chaired the regional affairs committee's first parliamentary inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin. Ironic it is that now all these years later we are still facing these battles, but we are in a much better position now than we were back then because of his leadership and courage.

He emphasised the importance of people working together to strike the right balance and protect the river and the economy, knowing that there are no jobs on a dead river. He understood the environmental limits of extraction. He said, 'You can't keep taking water out of the system and think that the basin is going to be there in the long term.' He understood the basics of how our economy needs a healthy environment. When some reacted angrily to the river plan and burned hard copies in front of the media, Simon Crean acknowledged the frustration but urged people to work together. He said, 'Burning books has never solved a problem in the history of the world,' and he challenged people to work together for constructive solutions.

There's been much said already today and lots written about Simon's principled stand against the illegal invasion of Iraq. As one of the millions of Australians who marched against the war, when I was at university, I want to acknowledge his moral leadership in opposing this catastrophic war. His words at that time meant so much to those of us out there on the streets. As Kim Beazley said recently:

Had his call been heard, picked up in the US and the UK and by the Australian government, the Middle East would not be the mess that it is, and we probably would not have gone out in Afghanistan in the way in which we did.

Simon's leadership at the time was so profound and important. Simon Crean was right. The majority of Australians who opposed the war were right. John Howard, George Bush and Tony Blair were wrong. Crean's stance on the invasion of Iraq reflected that he was partly politicised of course, as we've heard today, from his opposition to the Vietnam War during his youth, and as his speechwriter and former colleague Dennis Glover wrote about Simon Crean recently:

… he was a student during the Vietnam War. In our meetings he mentioned repeatedly how he knew of young men, including some close friends, who had come back from that war physically and mentally damaged. Agreeing to send people to fight was something he would never, ever do lightly.

Simon Crean stood up to John Howard on Iraq, and, like the former Greens leader Bob Brown, he stood up to George Bush, although slightly differently. On 4 February 2003, just over a month before the invasion began, Simon Crean stood his ground in parliament and told John Howard:

Prime Minister, you argue that the United States alliance requires you to respond to all requests from the US. It does not. The very first article of the ANZUS treaty makes it clear that all alliance decisions must be in conformity with the United Nations.

Only two weeks earlier, Simon had joined the Prime Minister Mr Howard to farewell troops who had been deployed to the gulf. Simon said at the time to the troops:

The men and women of our fighting forces in a democracy are expected unquestioningly to accept the orders of the government of the day.

You don't have a choice and my argument is with the government, not with you.

This was Simon Crean, leading with courage, conviction and empathy. Our national debate and our politics would be richer today if there were more leaders with the moral conviction and courage that Simon Crean showed on Iraq.

Whether it was as a friend, as a unionist fighting for workers or as a minister advocating for the arts or the plight of our river or showing strong opposition against an illegal war, he stood with conviction. I want to recognise Simon Crean's life and legacy and express my sympathy to his family, his friends and his colleagues today. I know that he will be missed dearly, and I think, for all of us, taking a leaf out of his book—courage, conviction and standing still in the wind—is something we should all consider.

Today I rise to mourn a great unionist, a principled parliamentarian, a respected minister, a strong leader and an outstanding family man. Simon Crean was truly a great Australian. I acknowledge Simon's family, who join us in the gallery today. While I didn't know Simon as well as many of the others who have spoken here today, I do know that he was humble and compassionate and a man of great intellect. Labor through and through, he will probably be best remembered by the wider public for his time as opposition leader.

It's been mentioned many times today already, but his courage to speak out against the invasion of Iraq in front of then US president George W Bush exemplified his bravery and conviction. His assessment that friends must be honest with each other is a lesson for us all. I remember being so proud to see the federal Labor leader of the time take that principled position and express it at an enormous rally in Brisbane, when I was a little bit younger than I am now. The benefit of time would, of course, ultimately vindicate Simon's position.

Earlier as well as later in his parliamentary career, he held various ministerial portfolios, including trade, agriculture, employment, energy and the arts. There would be very few people who could say they served as minister under four different Labor prime ministers across the different decades. His time as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy was defined by the promotion of a reform agenda, opening up the possibilities for Australian food and fibre production to benefit from free trade. As minister, Simon drove Australia's first drought policy, led industry restructuring and was an early advocate of Australia's image as a clean, environmentally sustainable food producer.

Simon forged strong, respectful relationships with the agriculture sector which continued post-politics. He challenged the industry to be more proactive in identifying growth opportunities themselves rather than relying on government handouts. In 1993, he told a conference of agribusiness leaders on the Gold Coast just that:

The role of government was not to try to pick winners (they pick themselves) but to provide leadership and direction to an industry with tremendous export potential but … with a few exceptions, largely domestically oriented.

Things have certainly changed since those times. Simon championed workplace reform at every chance and used science to inform his agenda around food processing and food exports. He established the Agri-food Council in the nineties, bringing together the ACTU, CSIRO and the National Farmers Federation to identify opportunities to access the rapidly expanding Asia-Pacific market. His collaborative approach, bringing together industry, unions and other stakeholders, has been a big influence on me in my role as agriculture minister, especially regarding matters of agricultural trade, workforce and biosecurity.

Reform was something Simon pursued his entire working life. He was fierce and determined but approached every situation with the decency, kindness and generosity we've heard every speaker reflect on. As has been said many times, Simon was revered by people on all sides of politics. After his passing, countless agricultural organisations, including the National Farmers Federation, Grain Producers Australia, the Australian Livestock Exporters Council and Cattle Australia, all paid tribute to his life and service to the industry. Senator Ayres pointed me to an article in the Land, where the very famous—and well-deserved famous—meat processor Roger Fletcher reflected on the time he'd spent with Simon as minister. Simon wanted to hear from those directly involved in the industry about issues they thought the government could actually influence and make a difference on. The quote from Roger—which is prescient, given other developments recently—says: 'He didn't like to use consultants. He liked to go straight to those with skin in the game and get their direct feedback on any issue. He used to ask himself, "What do I need to do to fix this issue?" That's the kind of thing he would ask.'

News of Simon's passing came through as I was getting ready to depart Australia for Rome to speak at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization conference. It would have been the type of event Simon would have loved—bilateral meeting with EU agriculture ministers, as we tried to assist Minister Farrell to get the EU free trade agreement improved for Australian producers. I know Simon had done a lot of work on this through his role as chairman of the European Australian Business Council. In his work with European business and, previously, the Australia-South Korea business council, Simon championed Australian products and the benefits that bilateral trade would have for our nation.

It was at a European Australian Business Council event here in parliament that I last caught up with Simon. I was grateful he imparted some further words of wisdom to me in my current role. In particular, he was a strong supporter of the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, on whose board he served, and he shared his thoughts with me as to how this group could support an agricultural reform agenda. It was another reflection of the generous advice Simon was always willing to provide to any of us in this parliament.

To Carole and Simon's whole family: my thoughts are with you during this time. May our comrade Simon Crean rest in peace.

First, I would like to acknowledge that Carole Crean is in the chamber today, with Simon's family. I express our condolences to you on behalf of the Tasmanian federal Senate team, including Senator Urquhart, Senator Catryna Bilyk and Senator Polley. I know Senator Polley will be speaking as well.

Labor has lost a leader who stood among the greatest. Simon Crean will be remembered as someone who made you feel at ease in his presence with his patience, his interest and his calm temperament. Simon showed absolute dedication to serving people, covering 50 years of public service, first in his time in the trade union movement and then as member for Hotham for 23 years. All of us in this place know that his legacy will endure for decades to come.

Simon served as a cabinet minister under four Labor governments—Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard. He covered a broad range of ministerial portfolios, covering trade, agriculture, resources and energy, training and industry. In each of these areas he spent time representing, he was always guided by a deep understanding of people.

Many reflect on Simon's powerful and principled speech against Australia's involvement in the Iraq War. This speech was just one example of his tireless and devoted efforts in all areas of politics. To many, these attributes will be his most significant legacy.

In 2013 Simon introduced the National Cultural Policy, Creative Australia, which invigorated creativity, laying the foundations to celebrate Australia's diverse and inclusive culture. Through Creative Australia, Simon ensured we recognised, respected and celebrated our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, essential to Australia's unique identity. The legacy of Creative Australia lives on today under the leadership of Minister Tony Burke. I know Simon would have been proud to see Creative Australia back in its rightful place, at the forefront of Australian cultural policy.

Despite his career stretching half a century, with many ministerial portfolios, as deputy leader and then leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, Simon will always be remembered for what he did while he was in these positions—the tangible changes that are unforgettable marks on modern Australia.

Simon never lost touch with the people, maintaining integrity and fairness throughout his parliamentary career. He truly was a visionary whose perspective and outlook were anchored in values of humility and compassion. Simon's family has a deep history with the Labor Party, exemplified by his father, Frank Crean, who served as Deputy Prime Minister in the Whitlam government. His brother David Crean served as Treasurer of my home state of Tasmania, under the Jim Bacon government. Despite embodying true Labor values, the Crean family maintains respect, as we've heard in the contributions here today, from across the whole political spectrum, speaking to their qualities, and we have just seen that today.

To Simon we owe a lot. We owe thanks that cannot be quantified, and my thoughts are with his family. When I first heard that Simon had passed away, I was so sad. I'd met Simon on a number of occasions, and of course I've met his brother David. It was a loss—to the Labor Party and the labour movement—that is very hard to put into words. He was a man of passion and a man of integrity. I hope you take comfort in knowing that sharing Simon with the labour movement and the country will have an enduring influence. You have our gratitude. Vale, Simon Crean.

I rise to speak briefly about the Hon. Simon Findlay Crean. Like Senator Watt, the last time that I saw Simon was on budget night at a function hosted by the European Australian Business Council, and, in his characteristic way, he was warm and friendly and encouraging. I had recently come back from Berlin, where I'd had the opportunity to meet with a range of Australian and European businesses interested in the hydrogen industry. He was incredibly interested to hear all about this and encouraged me to share these observations with the very large group that had assembled, which I duly did. It was characteristic of the enthusiasm that he had for economic and cultural exchanges, which are at the heart of the council's mission, but also the values and objectives that he sought to advance through his parliamentary and public life, serving in portfolios across employment, training, regional development, trade, agriculture and the arts.

Simon was quite literally a son of the labour movement, which not many of us can say, but he contributed much more broadly, as a unionist, a parliamentarian, a minister and as Labor leader. Leading the federal parliamentary Labor Party is an enormous honour. It reflects the confidence of your peers and the eternal hopes of the labour movement for a better, fairer and more prosperous Australia. Simon was called to lead at a time of great change in Australia and in the world. He was not a radical, but he was called to make a difficult decision, much criticised at the time and since vindicated. I was active in the vast community movement at that time, which included faith groups, unionists, veterans and thousands of citizens who were opposed to the war in Iraq. Our movement insisted that there should be and could be another way. I well recall the significance of federal Labor's decision at that time to oppose the commitment of our troops, and I remember the firm courage with which Simon sought to explain that decision and our thinking patiently and honestly to the Australian people. Reading back over Simon's contributions from that time, I am struck by the care that he took to articulate the elements of Labor's position: admiration and care for our serving personnel, respect for the alliance between Australia and the United States, and a resolute commitment to identifying and serving our national interest.

This will be a time of great sadness for Simon's family and friends. I do hope that you find some peace in the admiration and affection in which he is so widely held. Vale, Simon, and thank you.

I wanted not to say too many things, because many words have been spoken today, appropriately. Of course, they are appropriate but never enough in this situation. I want to echo Senator Brown's words just then. When the news about Simon's death came through to my family—both my wife and I knew Simon—we were very sad. Very sad. In my house, we have talked many times over the course of the last few weeks about the depth of Simon's contribution to the labour movement, to the Labor Party and to the country. We've talked about it with our kids, because he was an exemplar of what a leader in the labour movement should be.

Simon's funeral in Melbourne, just a few days ago, was also unaccountably sad. People have said it was attended by hundreds of people; I think it was many thousands. That church was absolutely full to the brim, and there were thousands of people who could not attend. The speeches spoke, in the same way that many of the speeches in here have, about Simon Crean's contribution to the country, to his portfolio areas and to the labour movement. I was particularly struck by Bill Kelty's contribution at the funeral.

Bill can never be accused of making a speech that's too short—that is true—but every word in that speech was well weighted, as it often is when Bill contributes. He talked about his and Simon's leadership and contribution the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia at the time, and he said that he was never soft. That, I think, was really important to understanding the kind of trade union leader that Simon Crean was before he came into parliament. He was hard headed. He was pragmatic. He was focused on delivering for the low-paid workers—the storemen and packers who it was his job to represent. Of course, he's made a much-storied contribution to the ACTU, the labour movement, the parliament and Australia ever since. There are very few people who get the opportunity to serve in as many portfolios as Simon Crean did, and in not one of them was he resting on his laurels. In not one of those portfolios did he not make a profound contribution to the way it operated.

I was talking with Senator Watt earlier about Simon's contribution and making the point about Roger Fletcher and what he'd had to say about Simon Crean's contribution. The thing about Roger Fletcher, who's one of our great self-made businesspeople in the meat industry in Australia, is that he said all of the kind things to me about Simon before Simon died. He was always holding up Simon's contribution in trade and agriculture as being an exemplar of what an Australian trade or Australian agriculture minister should do, and I think Roger would want that point made here on his behalf. Of course, many have spoken about Simon Crean's contribution, particularly on the Iraq war, and I'm indebted to the other contributions on that as I don't propose to go over them.

He was a leader in the labour movement who also exemplified kindness in the way that he engaged in politics. He actually didn't bear grudges. He engaged in some very difficult internal and external struggles, but never bore a grudge. The people who were his staff, and even his opponents, spoke about the way that he engaged with his colleagues and staff. Again, he was an exemplar for us all.

I met Simon Crean at the Albury Gold Cup races. I had arranged a marquee to which I sold 1,500 tickets to members of the metalworkers union, and Simon came along as the guest speaker wearing what I think was a pretty startling sports coat that I imagine he probably wasn't allowed to wear in Melbourne. He was so loved and so comfortable in that crowd of not just members of the AMWU, but the business people and the racing community who gathered for that remarkable racing carnival that happens every year in Albury. He has provided, ever since that day, valuable support and advice to me, before I came into parliament and particularly over the last few months. I'm very grateful for it. I just wanted to place on record my appreciation for his work and his advice and his service to the country.

I rise to acknowledge a champion of Australian primary producers and former champion of the Australian Livestock Exporters Council, Mr Simon Crean. The federal member for Hotham served in the Australian parliament from 1990 to the 2013 election. When in government, he held various ministerial portfolios, including Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Minister for Trade, Minister for Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts. But it was the Australian Livestock Exporters Council who summed up his contributions to agriculture perfectly. They said:

During his time as Trade Minister and Primary Industries Minister he was responsible for a range of policies that still benefit the agriculture sector today, not in the least livestock exports … Mr Crean was a proud Australian and he was once again representing Australia's interests on the world stage at the time of his passing.

Mr Crean was elected Chairman of ALEC in October 2014 and was re-elected in 2016 and 2018—stepping down in February 2020.

At the time of his initial election as ALEC Chair, Mr Crean said he felt he had an obligation to help the industry following the Gillard Government's 2011 Live Cattle Ban. However, he not only wanted to help it get back on its feet, but to help continue … its growth path. He also wanted to see the industry continue its continuous improvement in animal welfare, something he oversaw and delivered with great enthusiasm.

He took a keen interest in the individuals involved in the industry, encouraged their success and leadership. He was a wonderful people person and genuinely cared for the individuals he associated with.

Mr Crean was a well-respected advocate not only in politics, but across a range of sectors including the arts, regional development, and agriculture—all of which he was a passionate advocate for. It is a true mark of the man that tributes are flowing from across the political spectrum and from diverse sectors. This speaks to Simon's integrity, intellect and standing as a public figure.

Despite all his incredible work and achievements, Mr Crean constantly spoke of the importance of family, and it was clear that this is what he cared about most and what he was proudest of. It is his family that are the focus of our thoughts today, as while Australia has lost an incredible leader, they have lost a loving husband and father.

Thank you to ALEC for recognising Mr Crean's amazing contribution and may the encouragement and advocacy he displayed for our amazing livestock industry live on for many years.

I join with my fellow senators in honouring the life of the Hon. Simon Findlay Crean. I convey my deep condolences to his wife, Carole; daughters, Emma and Sarah; brother, David; and his extended family; Simon's many friends; and his incredible Labor family, including many in the chamber. I acknowledge the many fine contributions made in this condolence motion, including from Senator Wong. I don't intend to repeat a lot of the detail of Simon's life and his incredible contribution to this nation, other than to make a few a remarks.

Simon Crean's legacy is one of service to the union movement, to parliament, to the people of Hotham for 23 years, to a range of business and industry organisations post politics and, of course, to our nation. Much has been said about the many ways in which Simon Crean enriched this great country. As I say, his contribution was incredibly significant.

Ten days ago I was honoured to join hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand, at the state funeral of Simon Crean at St Paul's Cathedral in Melbourne. It was a celebration of a true giant of the Labor movement and particularly a true giant in Victoria. In the weeks since Simon's shocked passing, he was remembered as many things—brave, a peacemaker, a widely respected Labor statesman, someone of great integrity and decency. However, as his great friend Bill Kelty reiterated in that wonderful eulogy—and it was an incredible eulogy—Simon was also very tough, and Bill Kelty particularly wanted people to know that Simon was tough, because, of course, on the surface Simon was a true gentleman. He made many friends across politics and he had a wonderful way with people. He was very kind, but, as Bill Kelty said, he was also very, very tough.

Simon's life was cut tragically short. Of course, he was doing what he loved to do, and that was to represent this nation in one of the many loves of his life: international trade.

Simon was born in Melbourne in 1949 to parents Frank and Mary Crean, and it was inevitable with a father such as Frank Crean that Simon would follow in his father's very large footsteps. After studying law and economics at Monash University, it wasn't long before Simon moved into the union movement. During his time in parliament, Simon held several very key portfolios, including one close to my heart, the education portfolio, before he was elected as the deputy and eventually the leader of the federal Australian Labor Party. He served with great distinction in a variety of portfolios, as cabinet minister and, of course, as the opposition leader.

I had a bit to do with Simon when he chaired Deakin University's Carbon Nexus. He made a really significant contribution after leaving politics. Our paths never crossed in the parliament as he resigned prior to the 2013 election. He became deeply embedded in a number of different organisations—Carbon Nexus, the Australia-Korea Business Council and the European Australian Business Council, where he continued to advocate for Australia's trade interests on the global stage. I know Simon worked very, very hard on behalf of many Australian Korean organisations, including Hanwha Defense Australia, and he would have been overjoyed with the news that Hanwha won the tender for Land 400 phase 3. He worked very, very hard with so many companies here in Australia to advance the interests of our two countries.

We didn't always see eye to eye. I was an ardent Geelong Cats fan, and I think I might have encouraged him to swap teams at one point, because he spent quite a bit of time in Geelong in his role as chair of Carbon Nexus, but he was very much a dedicated, one-eyed supporter of the North Melbourne Football Club.

I saw Simon just before last Christmas, in a restaurant in Melbourne. He was at an adjoining table with a group of colleagues and friends, and we just sort of waved and had a quick hello. He was absolutely full of life. He was cheery. He was energetic. He was dynamic. He was commanding the presence of all around him. I don't think it mattered where he was in his life; he commanded a great presence from all around him.

It was wonderful at his funeral to learn about his love of travel, his love of learning about every part of this world, but of course his love of travel with his beloved wife, Carole. Again, I convey my deep condolences to Carole and his children and his family. Vale, Simon Crean. Thank you for your service. May you rest in peace.

There have been some amazing contributions today, and I'd like to associate myself with all of those comments. 'Intelligent', 'reformer', 'decent', 'hopeful', 'professional', 'caring', 'generous' and 'humble'—these are the words that every single person, not only in this chamber but those who met and worked with Simon Crean, knew he lived by, and he will be remembered for all of those qualities. He was everything to everyone, a bigger-than-life character that will live on in the history books. But, most importantly, Simon was an incredibly kind and very supportive person to those that he was close to and those that he cared about. It was these qualities that drove him to serve others across Australia in countless forms and duties.

I first met Simon when I was a staffer, and he left a lasting impression on me for how kind and respectful he was to me as a staffer. And then later, when I joined this place and became a colleague, nothing changed. That was indicative of the sort of man that Simon Crean was. I wish to pay my respects to the life and the work of Simon Crean, and I offer my sincerest condolences to his wife, Carole, his daughters, Sarah and Emma, and, particularly, David, his brother, who I worked along with when he was a member of the Tasmanian House of Assembly. I also want to extend my condolences to the entire Crean family.

To navigate life without Simon Crean will be difficult in the coming days, weeks and years ahead. But his legacy will live on. The Crean family's ability to speak and to be great orators was certainly passed on to his daughters. I know he was very much a family man. He was a trade unionist. He was a committed lawmaker, an advocate for regions, a friend of industry. He was a compassionate advocate for education and for the arts and, most importantly, a leader in every walk of life he trod. But, very importantly, he was a great friend to Tasmania. Unlike some ministers in former Labor governments, he didn't close his door and try and keep the Tasmanian caucus out of his office—because we're well known for hunting in a pack!

You can't keep them out, no matter what you do!

I'll take that interjection. We will never give up, and you won't keep us out, Senator Wong!

But Simon Crean had the most impressive career, and he never, ever let go of his moral compass to challenge his many positions to stand up for Australians, regardless of what shoes they were walking in. He did this all with the highest level of honour and respect for those he worked with and those he worked for.

One of my staff members heard Simon Crean speak at his high school. I think I was there in another capacity, working for a state leader. It was in his high school days. He recounted to me that the impression that Simon left on him was from the way that he spoke with such passion about what Labor governments can achieve and have achieved. On that day—and as was always the case—he was unashamedly a Labor man and a politician, asking the students gathered in the assembly area to, 'Go home and tell your parents to vote Labor.' I don't think any of us could imagine that happening today—that any school would let a politician come in and speak so candidly about an upcoming election and actually give students and staff a voting directive.

Simon Crean was remarkably gifted and confident in his own right. His resume was without flaw. A graduate of economics and law at the Monash University, Simon chose to pursue a career committed to standing up for the powerless. Simon transformed the lives of Australian workers as a union leader and later president of the ACTU and through his engagement with the landmark prices and incomes report. From the contribution that Bill Kelty gave at the state funeral, I don't think there's any doubt that that duo were unbeatable in their commitment. As my colleague Senator Ayres said, one thing about Bill Kelty is he is a fantastic orator. He never gives a short speech, but everything that he said on that day just resonated with everyone there. Today, I just want to thank Bill Kelty for his contribution in making sure that no-one forgot or will forget the contribution that Simon made during his time with the ACTU and with the storemen and packers.

We have all heard about the contribution that he made when he came to this place. He always was an advocate for working people and their rights and their interests. There was no greater advocate for superannuation or Medicare than Simon Crean. His talent came to fruition when Simon won preselection to the seat of Hotham in 1990, immediately becoming a frontbencher upon his election, and the rest is history. He covered science and technology, primary industry and energy, employment, education and training, trade, social inclusion, arts, regional development and local government. This was a man who was the Leader of the Opposition from 2001 to 2003. He represented the seat of Hotham in the House of Representatives from 1990. As I said, he was elected until 2013. He was a cabinet minister in the Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments. Not many can claim such an incredible parliamentary record.

Simon Crean will rightly be remembered as a servant of the Labor movement, a champion of the Australian spirit and someone who through all of his years never lost sight of his belief in true fairness. I will personally remember Simon as a former secretary of the Storemen and Packers Union, as president of the ACTU and, most importantly as a gentleman. I attended Simon Crean's funeral in Melbourne two weeks ago and, from that, I reflected on him and the politics of the time. This was a man without malice in his heart. At his political peak, he would have the political fight but it would never turn nasty against his opponents. He was there to do a job, and it wasn't personal. It was professional. He was always a politician. He could even maintain a friendship with people of the opposite political leanings, as we have heard from those that have made contributions and the conversations we have had in this place in the corridors and outside. He was highly respected. His life has been celebrated. On behalf of myself and particularly my state—and we've had some rough times, with forestry and other issues challenging the Hawke government—I just want to acknowledge his great contribution. He always had a genuine interest in what was happening in Tasmania. He was always guided by principle and kindness, and he didn't let the harshness of politics sour his nature. Generosity was his best friend.

As mentioned today and at his funeral, when he voiced his opposition to sending Australian troops to the Iraq War he made it clear that his argument was not with the ADF and those who served our country but rather with the Howard government who made the decision. I agree that Simon Crean's position has been vindicated by history.

Simon Crean was a statesman. He was, in so many ways, before his time. He was always in front of prevailing views of the time, and I increasingly believe that he really did define what a leader should be. Simon, in my view, would have been an excellent Labor prime minister, but unfortunately Labor lost that opportunity.

I think it is fair to say that we're all mourning a great Australian who served his country and his community above all else; but we should also celebrate his life and learn from his teachings, his commitment and his achievements as a leader of people. Simon Crean believed in our country above all else. He believed in the greatness of our country, but he also believed that as a country we can always be better—which is, after all, the essence of the mission of our Labor movement.

Simon, as I said, was a family man. I want to say thank you to Carole, Sarah, Emma, David and the rest of the Crean family for sharing this man with us not only as Labor politicians but as members of the great Australian community. You know only too well how much a family sacrifices to have their partner represent them either in the House of Representatives or here in the Senate, so thank you. My heart goes out to you and the rest of his family. But thank you again for sharing Simon's charm, intelligence and vision for the Labor movement and the Labor community. Simon will be missed. Vale, Simon Crean.

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

Honourable senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 13 July 2023 of Ewen Thomas Jones, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Herbert in Queensland from 2010 to 2016.

Pursuant to order, I call on Minister Watt to provide an explanation.

The government affirms the terms of the public interest immunity claim made in respect to the Senate order of 15 June 2023 relating to the resignation of Justice Meagher as the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The government also deeply regrets the grubby attempt by the opposition and the Greens political party to draw a justice of the Federal Court of Australia into a political controversy. It is almost without precedent to use the procedures of the Senate to examine matters concerning a judge in this way. The only precedent that comes to mind is the disgraceful attempt by former Liberal senator Bill Heffernan to use the Senate to besmirch the reputation of a justice of the High Court. Those acts were rogue acts done without the support of the Liberal Party. In contrast, the motions moved by the Liberal Party in relation to Justice Meagher were moved here by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash. Senator Cash demonstrates time and time again that the modern Liberal Party is incapable of viewing any significant matter of public policy through any prism other than the prism of self-interest.

Not so long ago, the AAT commanded universal respect. Its integrity and independence were lauded by politicians of all political persuasions, by members of the community and even by High Court judges—one of whom, the late Sir Gerard Brennan, served as the AAT's inaugural president between 1976 and 1979. In 2006, the former Liberal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said that the AAT led the world in administrative law innovation and best practice. It is inconceivable that any Commonwealth Attorney-General, Liberal or Labor, could make remotely similar comments now. That, in large part, is because a series of Liberal Attorneys-General broke the AAT. They trashed it. They treated it like a cash cow for their Liberal mates. When Labor was last in government, appointments to the AAT were made in accordance with a publicly accessible merit based selection process. However, after the Liberals came to power in 2013 they dumped the merit based selection process and, over the course of almost a decade, appointed at least 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates without any merit based selection process, including some individuals with no relevant expertise or experience.

Unfortunately, a series of Liberal Attorneys-General, like Senator Cash and Christian Porter, made non-merit-based appointments to the AAT, because for them and their Liberal colleagues the AAT was there to serve the interests of the Liberal Party and its mates, not the Australian community. The former coalition government fatally compromised the AAT, undermined its independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making. Senator Cash and her colleagues cared so little about preserving the actual or perceived independence of the AAT that they even appointed active lobbyists as members. Remember, the job of an AAT member is to conduct independent merit reviews of government decisions, yet Senator Cash and her colleagues thought it was appropriate to spend taxpayers' money to appoint Liberal aligned lobbyists as AAT members while those individuals were also being paid by corporate interests to influence government decision-making.

In December last year, the Albanese government announced the abolition of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That decision was not taken lightly, but it was made necessary because of the actions of the former government and those former Liberal Attorneys-General. Every senator in this place who supported this motion by Senator Cash, including every member of the Greens political party, should hang their heads in shame, because what they did by supporting the motion was to align themselves with Senator Cash and the Liberal Party's campaign to protect the Liberal Party's stack of the AAT. What Senator Cash and her Liberal colleagues did to the AAT was a disgrace. Tens of thousands of the most vulnerable people in Australia rely on the AAT each year to independently review government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives—decisions such as whether an older Australian receives an age pension, whether a veteran is compensated for a service injury or whether a participant in the NDIS receives funding for essential support.

Not on this matter and not on any matter will be Albanese Government take lectures from the Liberal Party on integrity or transparency—a Liberal Party that, while in government, was led by a prime minister who appointed himself to secret ministries; that contained a cabinet that endorsed, defended and doubled down on the illegal and disgraceful robodebt scheme; that failed to honour a commitment to establish an anticorruption commission; and, of course, that contained ministers whose offices leaked police raids on union premises, jeopardising police investigations. Senator Cash and the Liberal and National parties have no credibility whatsoever on integrity matters, and we won't take lectures from them now.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

This motion is not about the coalition. It's not about their stack of the AAT. Indeed, the Greens are on the record as being deeply concerned by the politicisation of the AAT. This motion is about the current Attorney-General. It's about a meeting that was arranged on behalf of the current Attorney-General. An invitation was made by the AG to meet with Justice Meagher and Michael Hawkins, the president and registrar of the AAT respectively, on 25 November 2022. That's what it's about. It's about a meeting between the Attorney-General and the registrar and the president of the AAT on 25 November 2022, and the reason we want to know what occurred at that meeting is that, following that meeting and, it appears, as a result of that meeting, the president resigned.

The president is a statutory officer, protected with tenure and not able to be removed by the Attorney-General. The president can only be removed by a resolution passed by both houses of this parliament. That is to prevent the politicisation of the AAT. It is to protect the AAT. It is to protect the independence of the AAT. We found out not in a document volunteered by the government in estimates. After the house moved the resolution calling for papers, we found out that it was as a result of that meeting on 25 November 2022 between the Attorney-General and the president that the president resigned. And we know this because we finally have the communication written from the president to the Attorney-General, and I will just read it onto the record. It's from 30 November 2022 and it reads: 'Dear Attorney, having regard to our meeting on Friday 25 November 2022, I inform you that I am today offering my resignation as President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Governor-General. I have made myself available to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to sit as required there.'

'Having regard to our meeting on Friday 15 November 2022.' What happened in that meeting? The Attorney explained what happened in that meeting. The Greens may not have chosen President Meagher to be the president of the AAT. We may have chosen somebody else. We may have chosen someone with different experience. But this isn't about the choice of President Meagher to head the AAT. This is about the removal from office of the president of the AAT. This is about ensuring the independence of the AAT and ensuring there's no political interference with it and ensuring that no Attorney-General can at their whim just remove somebody from a statutory office when it's protected by legislative tenure.

So, when we hear from the minister that they will produce nothing about that meeting, and when they rely upon a claim of privilege which is based upon preserving the confidentiality of communications between the Attorney-General and statutory office holders, there's no such privilege. There's no such immunity. It's not known to the law. It's not known to this house. It's not a basis to refuse the production. If nothing untoward happened in the meeting, show us the minutes. If nothing untoward happened at all, please just show us what occurred in the meeting.

Far from this motion being a politicisation of the AAT, this is a motion designed to ensure the integrity and political independence of not just the president of the AAT but any other statutory office holder that is within the remit of the Attorney-General's jurisdiction. This is about ensuring independence and ensuring that people with tenure and statutory positions cannot be removed, if that's what happened, at the whim of the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister or any senior minister. If there's nothing to be troubled about, show us the documents, Attorney. Show us what happened in that meeting.

I, too, rise to take note of the minister's response to the resolution passed in this place that documents be produced and the claim of public interest immunity. It is very disappointing to see Senator Watt come into this place and attempt to defend the indefensible. There is a very, very serious question which the Attorney needs to respond to, and that is, to put it very, very precisely: what happened in meeting room 3 on 25 November 2022 when the Attorney and his chief of staff met with then president of the AAT, her Honour Justice Meagher? What happened in that meeting room? That is a legitimate question that all senators have a right to ask the Attorney with the reasonable expectation that he will engage with the question. There are extraordinary issues arising from this matter. Quite often Senator Shoebridge and I are on the same page in matters of process, governance and in the importance of our institutions, including this place, the institution of the Senate. Quite often we are on the same page. I absolutely agree with many of the comments he has made in this respect, including the public interest in knowing what happened in that meeting between the Attorney and the then president of the AAT, who was a member of the Federal Court. This has nothing to do with past matters involving past High Court judges and past senators, absolutely nothing. It has direct relevance in terms of what happened in that meeting on that day.

I refer to some of the testimony we received before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in estimates in May 2023. In fact, there were two meetings on 25 November 2022 in the Attorney-General's office in Sydney or in the Commonwealth meeting offices in Sydney, Meeting Room 3. The first was attended by Her Honour Justice Meagher with the Attorney and his chief of staff between 10:15 and 10:45 on that day. The second was attended by the Attorney, his chief of staff, with the registrar of the AAT, Mr Hawkins, half an hour later. This is something extraordinary which Mr Hawkins, the registrar, brought to the attention of the committee during the course of estimates, after he was asked questions in relation to what happened in the meeting he had with the Attorney and the Attorney's chief of staff. This is what he said in answer to a question from Senator Cash, who asked, 'Can I ask what the meeting was about?' Registrar Hawkins responded, 'I would like to tell you that the Attorney prefaced the meeting by saying it was cabinet in confidence and confidential, and that I wasn't authorised to speak about it with anyone, so could I take that on notice?' Senator Cash then asked, 'It was cabinet in confidence and confidential? Have you ever been told that before in relation to any meetings that you had?' Mr Hawkins: 'No, it was certainly the first time I've been told that and that's why I'm particularly reluctant to discuss it.' Senator Cash: 'I accept your reluctance. Are you a member of cabinet, Registrar?' Mr Hawkins: 'No I'm not.' How can the discussions held between the Attorney, his chief of staff and the registrar of the AAT be cabinet in confidence? It's absolutely extraordinary.

I went and had a look at the cabinet handbook. Who is the secretary of the cabinet? It is the Attorney-General, who claimed cabinet in confidence in relation to a discussion with the office holder of the AAT. Does it have any comment at all in relation to cabinet-in-confidence discussions with people totally external from the cabinet? No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't. It's absolute nonsense. Yet we have no explanation whatsoever from the minister's response today as to how a discussion between the Attorney, with their own chief of staff and the registrar of the AAT could be cabinet in confidence. This is extraordinary. There are serious, serious questions to be asked about what happened on that day, 25 November 2022, and the Attorney should carefully reflect on how he responds to the questions raised in this chamber.

I will continue where my good friend and colleague Senator Scarr left off because this is an extraordinary set of circumstances. You have a letter released under the order for production of documents where the former president of the AAT says, 'Having regard to our meeting on Friday 25 November 2022, I inform you that today I am offering my resignation.' So something happened in that meeting that triggered the resignation, but the Attorney-General, hiding behind a public interest immunity claim, won't give us the details.

Let's look at this public interest immunity claim that the Attorney-General—quite frankly, the chief legal officer in the nation and someone who should know better—is relying on. On the one hand, he's relying on this impediment to future communications between statutory office holders and ministers. To be clear to those listening, this is not an accepted ground for a public interest immunity claim. It has never been accepted by this place. It has never been tested in the courts as acceptable grounds for a public interest immunity claim. In fact, it seems to have been made out of whole cloth. There is no mention of such a claim in Odgers'. Quite frankly, as someone who's had a fair bit to do with PII claims over a number of years, it's not one that I have ever heard of before.

The other one is perhaps even more puzzling. It claims that it would disclose deliberations of cabinet. As Odgers' makes very clear, this is a very narrow, very limited public interest immunity claim specifically about the deliberations of cabinet. To give an example, in 2016 an order for the production of documents regarding a submarine tender process was refused, but, later, that document became available, because the cabinet decision related to that document had been made. If this public interest immunity claim is truly about the deliberations of cabinet, then they have been overridden by the action of time—by the decision to make changes in the leadership of the AAT. Even if that was the claim, the effluxion of events means that that claim would lapse with time, as it clearly now has with the resignation of the former head of the AAT and the putting in place of a new head. We have a tissue paper of claims by a government and, particularly, by an Attorney-General who should know better but who is hiding behind claims of public interest immunity. At the same time, he is championing this Labor government as one that has the virtues of transparency and openness. It clearly doesn't live up to its own rhetoric. There is clearly something to hide here, and the Senate should demand that these documents are released in full with no redactions apart from those designed to protect members of the Public Service—certainly with no redactions that are designed to protect ministers or the Attorney-General.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)

I inform the Senate that 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:

With Antarctic sea ice the size of Western Australia missing this winter, the hottest global month ever recorded, extreme fires and heatwaves across the northern hemisphere and record Atlantic Ocean temperatures, the United Nations Secretary-General has declared that the world is boiling. The urgency of this escalating crisis requires urgent and profound action from all global leaders, including Australia's Labor Government that must commit to no new coal and gas and an immediate end to native forest logging."

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 clock in accordance with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

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

With Antarctic sea ice the size of Western Australia missing this winter, the hottest global month ever recorded, extreme fires and heatwaves across the northern hemisphere and record Atlantic Ocean temperatures, the United Nations Secretary-General has declared that the world is boiling. The urgency of this escalating crisis requires urgent and profound action from all global leaders, including Australia's Labor Government that must commit to no new coal and gas and an immediate end to native forest logging.

I rise to share the sentiments that so many people in Australia and around the world are feeling, a dreadful fear—fear about the climate crisis we are in: the fires, the extreme heat, the droughts, the floods which worsen every single year. The globe isn't just warming up anymore; it is cooking. We are in the era of global boiling, and, yes, it is as terrifying as it sounds. With Antarctic ice the size of Western Australia missing this winter, July being the hottest month ever recorded, extreme fires and heatwaves ravaging the northern hemisphere and record Atlantic Ocean temperatures, the unambiguously apocalyptic climate warnings that scientists, the United Nations and the other experts and agencies have been sounding are actually being realised. There is also anger—a deep anger—at this government's arrogance and refusal to take the urgent and profound action needed in the midst of this absolute emergency. People are crying out for urgent action, for us to do so much better as a country on climate, to lead the world in climate action and to fight with everything that we've got to give our planet and our children the chance of a livable future that they so deserve.

Coal and gas are fuelling this extreme climate crisis, and Australia is one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels. While the globe boils, what is Labor doing? It's turning up the temperature by opening new coal and gas. They are making it worse, with the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, giving the tick of approval to three climate bombs just this year. That's right—Labor aren't just letting us careless coast along towards climate collapse. No, they are actively driving us there. If this insatiable appetite to dig up coal and gas continues, there are predictions that our planet could catastrophically warm but 1.5 degrees as early as 2027—that's just four years away—bringing on the irreversible collapse of ecosystems. What we are seeing in the northern hemisphere now will hit Australia this summer.

Why is Labor wilfully ignoring all the signs, the code reds, the flashing lights and the blaring sirens? Is it just a lack of courage stopping them from taking the profound action that is needed? Unfortunately, it is worse than just a lack of foresight or courage. It's much more sinister. Labor know full well the inadequacy of their responses, but they are so beholden to the climate wrecking, morally bankrupt fossil fuel corporations who fill their pockets with dirty donations that they don't care. The Labor Party are held to ransom by their buddies in big coal and gas—companies who, by the way, pay next to no tax and are using oppressive SLAPP suits to silence activists alerting us to the climate emergency. They would rather the planet boil than stand up to these companies and risk their own coffers.

Australia's coal and gas are causing climate disasters everywhere. It is our neighbours in the Pacific and indigenous people and people of colour in the global south who are on the front line and who will be most harmed by the climate crisis, but they have contributed the least to global emissions. They have been sounding the alarm at every international forum for decades, and yet leaders of rich countries like Australia and the global north have ignored their pleas for climate justice. I have just returned from Pakistan after seeing my ammi. Australia's criminal inaction on climate is deeply felt there—felt in the extreme heat, felt in the melting glaciers washing away entire villages and felt in the everyday life of children in Pakistan who are suffocating in an ever deadly mix of intense heat and trapped pollution.

We must also remember to lift our gaze. We must start a process of making climate reparations to the global south countries who are most harmed by Australia's contribution to the climate crisis. This is not charity but compensation for harms that Australia continues to directly cause and Australia now has an opportunity to redress. It is time to take real action on climate. Labor must commit to an immediate end to native forest logging. The Prime Minister and Labor must stop approving new coal and gas projects and push the world to do the same. That is the kind of leadership we demand from Australia.

I have never heard a greater spray or screed of double standards in this place. I was not going to raise the Pakistan issue, but since Senator Faruqi has she might be interested to know—and I don't know if this came up in discussions over there on the subcontinent—that in February, less than six months ago, under a headline from Reuters it was reported that Pakistan plans to quadruple domestic coal-fired power and move away from gas. But she has the temerity to come into this place and blame this country for this climate crisis while failing to mention—and I'm sure she would know—that Pakistan is turning on more coal-fired power stations just as they're going out of fashion. How about we apply an equal standard here? Why are the Greens so quick to damn Australia, our country and our people, but are so quick to let others off the hook, whether it is Pakistan, China, India or Europe—and I'll come to Europe later.

The other broader double standard in this contribution today is that every time it's cold we are told the weather is not climate, and then as soon as it is hot in Rome apparently the weather is climate. What a double standard. Do the Greens remember May? Only a few months ago in May—and I am quoting from a report—more than 100 weather stations across Australia registered their coldest May minimum temperatures on record. I'm not saying that is climate, but you are. You are saying that because it is a bit hot in Europe at the moment it's global boiling, which is apparently the term now. Global warming is no longer useful, so they have come up with a new term to replace the old term to scare us even more. But they are just using weather, using data points, to justify putting a massive new restriction on our own economic restrictions while they are ignoring the data from our own country, which shows we just had one of the coldest Mays on record.

Why do you ignore that? It does not make any sense because what is actually happening around the world, not just in Pakistan—a news flash for the Greens—is the world is increasing its use of coal. But that's not the case in Australia. We are getting blamed. The Greens constantly blame us. They want to blame their own country and their own people, yet they ignore—

Where are they getting the coal from, you goose?

It's not from Australia—I'll take that interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson because Australia's coal production actually fell by three per cent in the past year, whereas in China it's up six per cent and in India it's up eight per cent. Europe has increased its coal production by one per cent over the last year. Our use has actually declined. If the Greens looked at the data, they would actually see that Australia is not contributing to this issue, it's the other countries that they refuse to condemn. As the International Energy Agency reported last week:

As projected in the Coal 2022 report last December, global coal demand reached a new all-time high in 2022, rising above 8.3 billion tonnes …

Australia's production actually fell by three per cent, but this new record was reached because other countries—China, Indonesia, India—are increasing their production of coal. Even Europe are increasing their reliance on coal.

It should be stated, to get the facts right here, the world uses 8,300 million tonnes of coal a year. Although it has declined a little bit, Australia's production is 450 million tonnes of the 8,300 million, so it's about 5½ per cent. We produce about 5½ per cent of the world's coal, so we're not the cause of all of these issues. And even if we were to completely shut down the coal industry here, as the Greens would want to do, it would make no difference to the climate at all. It would make no difference to the climate at all because China, India and other countries would continue to mine their own coal. They would easily be able to increase their production to replace our coal.

So, what is this actually about? It's not really about the climate. It's not about that at all. They simply want to deindustrialise Western countries. That is the agenda here. They're letting all the other countries off the hook. You never hear speeches about Xi Jinping and his policy to build two coal-fired power stations a week. There's never any condemnation of that. There's never any condemnation of India's plans to expand their coal production to over 1,000 million tonnes per year. They've achieved those plans; they achieved them in the past year. There's never any condemnation of that. There's never any condemnation of Pakistan and their plans to quadruple the coal-fired power stations in their country. If they really cared about the climate, they'd be mentioning those things as well.

What the Greens really care about is shutting down industry in Australia and shifting and redistributing that wealth to other countries. That is the agenda here, as plain as day given the double standards that are constantly espoused by those in that corner.

So here we are again with our three-cornered conversation around climate, energy and the future of Australia. I don't think it's going to surprise anyone in here when I advise you that Labor will not be supporting this motion. We will not be supporting a motion that has a blanket moratorium. Rather, we will be transitioning Australia to a clean, sustainable energy future because the extremities of all and the extremities of nothing are not going to give us a strong economy, a safe country and an opportunity to do everything that we can to transition to that.

Rather than pointing fingers at what everybody else might have done, I thought I would just take the opportunity, given the debates we've had so far on this today, to talk about what we have done in 12 months and where we think that's going to take us.

We do know that natural disasters are increasingly frequent and increasingly unnatural. How many times have you heard somebody say, 'Oh, that's our second 100-year flood in 10 years.' Times have changed. These 100-year floods, 100-year fires, that's not how it's moving anymore. Things are changing. It is a crisis; we need to take action. Obviously, there is a lot of disagreement about what that action should look like, but we will take action, and we have taken significant action in the 14 months that Labor have been in government.

Our major focus, coming into government, was to lock in a policy environment that was going to drive our climate and energy priorities, which we've been really clear about for a number of years. We wanted to create policy certainty for business and to encourage investment, because the kind of change we're looking at is going to take everybody pulling in the same direction and putting ourselves out there as an investment certainty, as a good opportunity for investment, which helps drive that development quicker. It helps drive that process towards a more renewable energy base quicker. Then we went about rebuilding relationships internationally and with our states so that we could actually get that connectivity that we've heard some talk about already in terms of, internationally, who's doing what to who, when and how. I will make a point of saying I think that the commentary about us being responsible for a country who's got much more robust action going on—in a negative sense—is out of line. We went about the negotiation with the states and the rebuilding of the relationship with the states, so that we could then get traction on those issues that are shared responsibilities or connected responsibilities, and we have seen the fruits of that hard work from Minister Bowen.

We set our emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. We committed to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. We have given the safeguard mechanism teeth so that the biggest emitters will need a net emissions reduction of almost five per cent per year every year. We had the Chubb review to verify the carbon credits and make some changes. We've got emissions reductions finally in the national energy objectives so that our regulators and our operators are actually using that as a baseline for decision-making and for setting the rules in our energy market. We've got the Climate Change Authority back to play a real and meaningful role. We've put net zero in the objectives of the CEFC and the ARENA Act and made it relevant to other key agencies that are playing in this space, namely Infrastructure Australia and Export Finance Australia. We are upgrading and expanding our power grid, with $20 billion in Rewiring the Nation to increase the grid's security and to drive down power prices and unlock new renewables. We've finalised the law for offshore wind. We have released our National Electric Vehicle Strategy, which comes with fuel efficiency standards and electrical vehicle discounts that, we've seen, actually work. We're seeing movement. We are seeing significant changes. There is not enough time in the five minutes I've been given to list all the things that we have done, but we are working so hard to make sure that Australia has a sustainable clean energy future.

We face a terrifying outlook when it comes to climate. We've seen Antarctic sea ice the size of Western Australia missing this winter. We've seen the hottest global month ever recorded, extreme fires and heatwaves across the Northern Hemisphere, and record Atlantic Ocean temperatures. The UN Secretary-General has declared that the world is boiling. The urgency of this escalating crisis requires urgent and profound action from all global leaders, including Australia's Labor government, which must commit to no new coal and gas and an immediate end to native forest logging. I commend this motion from the Greens.

Twenty-one of the 30 hottest days ever recorded occurred this month. This year, 2023, will likely be the hottest year in history by a considerable margin. The coming El Nino system is likely to push temperatures even higher and may make 2023 or 2024 the warmest year yet recorded. We're seeing the result of inaction. It is horrifying. We have to listen to scientists. We have a government that says that they accept the signs; they just won't listen to scientists. They've been clear. They won't even listen to the International Energy Agency. Apparently, their plan is better. Their plan includes fracking the Beetaloo, opening up so many big gas projects—Scarborough, Barossa, Pluto; it's a long, long list—as well as approving the extension of coal in 2023.

Ninety per cent of global warming—or, as the UN Secretary-General now describes it, global boiling—is stored in our oceans. With an unprecedented heatwave in our Northern Hemisphere still unfolding, with records being broken every day, with July set to break the record for the warmest month in human history, an unprecedented 44 per cent of our global ocean is experiencing marine heatwaves right now, compared to an average of 10 per cent. They are the warmest ocean temperatures ever recorded in the North Atlantic, and the same in the Mediterranean. Officially the warmest ocean temperature ever recorded anywhere on the planet was off the coast of Florida last week, at 38 degrees Celsius—warm as a hot bath. Our oceans, reefs and corals that support a quarter of our earth's marine biodiversity are in danger. Our own global natural wonder, the Great Barrier Reef, also recorded its own marine heatwave warning for the end of June, over one million square kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef, for 2,000 kilometres—above average. That is worrying considering it's not even summer yet, with an El Nino summer almost certain to come. Coral bleaching poses the single biggest existential threat to reefs and marine biodiversity around the world.

With such global boiling occurring on land and sea, this will impact ice levels on our planet. Disappearing ice in the Arctic has long been a source of concern; now it's also one in the Antarctic. An unprecedented ice mass, compared to previous years, the size of Western Australia, or Mexico, is missing off Antarctica. Scientists are baffled at the size of the change. To use their own word, they are 'gobsmacked'. It is estimated this once-in-7.5-million-years event is almost certainly due to global warming. Loss of sea ice can accelerate ocean warming, alter ocean currents globally and ultimately raise sea levels, and will have significant biodiversity impacts on krill and other marine creatures.

At such a time in human history, where we are likely facing a climate tipping point, can you believe the Australian Antarctic Division, which does our critical scientific work in the great barometer of the world's weather and climate, is facing budget cuts. We learned last week the Australian Antarctic Division has to cut its operating budget by 16 per cent to find $25 million in savings. We have heard from many sources that many scientific programs planned for this summer, including studies of sea ice, have been canned because of this budget cut. How did this happen? There has never been a worse time for our globally significant and critical Antarctic science division to be facing such cuts. This government needs to commit, especially at such a critical juncture, to prioritising Antarctic science programs. That will be critical to understanding the pace of change we are seeing in the climate and what we can do about it.

Most importantly, the government needs to stop approving new coal and gas mines. Three coalmines in 53 days—that's Labor's current response to this accelerating climate crisis. I noted last week that, when this new data came out about Antarctic sea ice, there was not a word from the Prime Minister or any minister in this government. It's simply criminal to ignore the climate breakdown we are seeing around us and continue to pour petrol on the fire.

In my last 16 seconds: I'm an optimistic guy, but I really hope Senator Canavan might have opened his eyes and taken his head out of his arse and noticed that this planet is changing.

Senator Whish-Wilson, I ask you to withdraw that reflection on Senator Canavan.

I withdraw the word 'arse'.

You should withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw.

In the first part of this year, I have spent a lot of time with Australians hearing how they have dealt with natural disasters. I've had this privilege because I am chairing the disaster resilience committee. Unlike a lot of inquiries in this place, this one looks forward, not back. We know extreme climate events are getting worse and what everyday families are having to cope with is just plain awful, from what we are hearing.

Between the floods and the fires, the message I've been getting is loud and clear: without the Australian Defence Force being called in, we are in a great world of hurt—and that is without them being in a place of war. Right now, we are very privileged to be able to use them. But I've got a problem: the ADF is already stretched. What happens when they aren't here? Our SES and firies are also massively stretched. They're getting older, and the generation down, like me, are not signing up to volunteer. Everyone from the UN to the top investment managers are saying we need to be on a war footing to cope with the extreme weather events. I can assure you that something needs to be done. I'm calling for volunteers.

This July has been the hottest global month ever recorded. The climate crisis is happening now. Antarctic sea ice the size of Western Australia has gone missing this winter. The Northern Hemisphere in July saw extreme fires and heatwaves and record Atlantic Ocean temperatures. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, says that we've left the era of global warming and we've entered the era of global boiling. He's called for dramatic, immediate climate action. He's previously called for developed countries like Australia to get out of coal, oil and gas. The time to act if we're going to keep global heating below catastrophic levels must be now. Yet, the Albanese government continues to approve new fossil fuel projects, putting our climate and our environment and our very humanity at risk.

Environment assets include the Great Barrier Reef, which is one of the seven Natural Wonders of the World and supports countless, miraculous species of creatures and corals and plants and provides a livelihood for 60,000 workers in my home state of Queensland and a revenue pre-COVID of almost $6 billion a year. Recurrent bleaching as a result of the climate crisis has already changed global reefs forever. More than half the coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef has been permanently lost in successive mass coral bleaching since 2015. Because of that bleaching, and the mass industrialisation of the reef with export ports to ship out yet more coal and gas to the world, the world heritage committee put the reef on the watch list for endanger listing, and the time for our country's homework to be re-marked by the committee is nigh. It could even happen as early as tonight.

Professor Terry Hughes tweeted today: 'The Prime Minister has rejected any moratorium on new coal and gas plants. Minister Plibersek has already approved three new coal mines in two months. Does UNESCO seriously think Australia is doing all it can to safeguard the great barrier reef's world heritage values?' With the Albanese government continuing to expand fossil fuels, it's hard to imagine how an endangered listing for our Great Barrier Reef can be avoided again. Then again, maybe Australia can bribe our way out of such a listing like we did last time with the global lobbying effort, more effort than was spent on actually addressing the climate crisis.

That's three coalmines in two months. Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated coincidence, fossil fuel companies have donated $2 million to the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party in just the last financial year. We need to ban fossil fuel donations. We need to make sure that coal and gas projects are made based on the science and not political interests. There can be no new coal and gas. None of those 114 coal and gas projects can proceed if we are to have any hope of staying within liveable parameters.

I thank Senator McKim for his matter of urgency. The public is waking up to the net zero war on living standards, war on freedom of movement and war on property rights. Following public sentiment moving away from global warming ideology, the media is seeking to restore its credibility on this. So what's a climate carpet bagger like UN head Antonio Guterres got to do? Does he admit the scam is over and resign? No. He dialled up the hyperbole from global warming to global boiling. This hyperbole is dangerous. It's based on falsification of data. It's scaring children into thinking they have no future. It's destroying wealth and property. It's taking away basic human rights like the right to travel and the right to enjoy one's own property. The warmers are desperate to save their scare from the reality of cooling temperatures and the demonstrated failure of wind and solar to provide baseload power, while driving skyrocketing unaffordable power prices, crippling families. In tomorrow's adjournment speech, I'll be saying a lot more.

This planet has just experienced the three hottest days on record. This month, July, will be the hottest month on record. The Antarctic ice sheet is 15 per cent smaller than it should be. An area the size of Mexico or Western Australia has failed to freeze this winter. There are record north Atlantic Ocean temperatures that the actual Gulf Stream is flickering; it's turning on and off. Wildfires are ripping through southern Europe as we speak. The planet is literally cooking. We are living through the early days of the climate catastrophe, and the feedback loops are kicking in.

I'm usually an optimistic person, but I just want to say—

You hide it well.

Mate, you can shut your mouth.

Senator McKim!

You can shut your mouth.

Senator McKim! Senator McKim, resume your seat.

People are dying because of you and sociopaths like you.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator McKim, resume your seat.

Senator McKim! Order. I have a number of senators on their feet. I don't really need you to be on your feet for me to say that you—

Senator Canavan! Senator McKim! Order! This is disgraceful behaviour in the chamber. It is disgraceful. Now, Senator McKim, I ask you to withdraw your comments about Senator Canavan and resume your speech, and, Senator Canavan, I ask that you cease interjecting across the chamber. Senator McKim.

I withdraw, and I'm not going to cop interjections from sociopaths like Senator Canavan. I will not cop it and I won't—

Senator McKim, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie.

A point of order. I would just ask Senator McKim to withdraw that very unparliamentary reflection on another senator.

Senator McKim, I asked you to withdraw, and I ask you again to withdraw and just continue your comments through me, the chair.

I will withdraw, and I will say—through you, Chair—that the sociopaths who run fossil fuel corporations on this planet who are literally destroying the lives and the futures of billions of people and their sociopathic agents in this chamber and in the other place in this parliament have got a lot to answer for. And what they've got to answer for is death, disease, displacement, starvation, people dying of thirst, arable farming lands turning into desert and, most likely, billions of people dead by the end of this century and the collapse of the ecosystems that actually support all human life on this planet. That's what people like Senator Canavan have got to answer for. He can sit there and smirk and laugh about it as much as he likes, but history will regard what he has said and done in this place as an utter disgrace.

This paradisical planet! This beautiful, beautiful planet! This complex, awesome web of life is dying. It's dying. What is it going to take for people like him, for people like the Labor Party, for people like the opposition in this place to act? How many people are going to have to die before you will divorce yourselves from the sociopaths running fossil fuel and forestry corporations?

Thank you, Senator McKim.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order in the chamber! Order! I call Senator Shoebridge.

We are living through the opening scenes of a disaster movie right now: the hottest month ever recorded, global ocean currents collapsing, Antarctic sea ice missing, fires across Europe and North America. And the villains are there too: the billionaires accumulating ever more wealth, no matter the human and environmental costs; the politicians saying we can't afford climate action, while shovelling public money at rapacious fossil fuel companies; the media outlets telling people that climate solutions include getting used to the heat. In the context of global boiling, no new coal and gas is the essential first step. When the situation is this bad, not making it worse is hardly bloody radical; it's the bare minimum.

Our children can't afford the cost of another dirty coalmine or another stinking gas field. They can't afford the greed of fossil fuel corporations. They can't afford a weak government. No new coal. No new gas.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Faruqi, at the request of Senator McKim, be agreed to.

A letter has been received from Senator Ruston:

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

The failure of the Albanese Labor Government to stand up for our incredible athletes and stop Premier Daniel Andrews from cancelling the 2026 Commonwealth Games; and the damage to our international sovereignty and sporting reputation resulting from the cancellation of this event.

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 clock in line with the informal arrangements around speaking times made by the whips.

It's with a very, very heavy heart I rise tonight, as a proud senator for the great state of Victoria, a fantastic state known for its proud sporting heritage and traditions. In fact, our capital is known as the sporting capital of this country. We host international events such as the Australian Open, the Grand Prix—I could go on and on; we are renowned—the Melbourne Cup, the race that stops a nation and indeed the world—

The AFL Grand Final!

And the AFL Grand Final, thank you—go Saints! We are very, very good at hosting international events. But I rise tonight to speak on this matter of public importance: the failure of the Anthony Albanese Labor government to stand up for our incredible athletes and stop Premier Daniel Andrews from cancelling the 2026 Commonwealth Games; and the damage to our international sovereignty and sporting reputation resulting from the cancellation of the event.

On 18 July this year, our national—not just Victoria's, not just Melbourne's, but our national—reputation as a sporting and business capital was dealt an enormous blow by the sudden decision of the Labor state premier to cancel the Commonwealth Games. This was an unprecedented decision. Only World War II had stopped the Commonwealth Games prior to this. This decision by Premier Andrews was one he doesn't regret, one he didn't even think about, if you take his public comments as he's said. It didn't give him a moment's concern. But I can tell that you the very proud residents and local communities of Geelong, of Bendigo, of Ballarat, of Shepparton and of the La Trobe Valley were very much looking forward to being on the global stage and showcasing what they could do when it comes to hosting the Commonwealth Games.

The Labor Party—for those playing along at home—will stand up tonight and talk about: 'It's the Comm Games. Who cares?' I'll tell you who cares: the young Australian athletes who left yesterday and today for Trinidad and Tobago for the Youth Commonwealth Games. It turns out the sports minister—I don't know if she's even posted about it—doesn't care. The Commonwealth Games is part of a pipeline of events that, if you are a young athlete in this country, you look forward to participating in and competing in against the best in the world. Particularly, if you're a netballer, it's the premier event—and good luck to the Diamonds during the World Cup at the moment—as indeed it is for our track athletes.

You heard Senator Wong stand up today during question time: 'This was a decision for the Premier.' Yes, but it has national and international implications. That is why you had the United Kingdom's sports minister on our local TVs here. These are our allies in more than just Commonwealth sporting events, in more than just the Ashes we challenged them to over this last month. These are our strategic partners as well, and our sporting alliances bring economic benefits and diplomatic benefits.

The Premier can wake up and, with no evidence, claim that the costs have blown out—not table a document and not go through a public process. Indeed, the Commonwealth Games Federation rejects his figures. This is a state government which has continually undermined the rollout of these games, which is why this chamber set up a Senate inquiry in April to question what was going wrong with the Victorian Commonwealth Games. Now we know. We know the Premier was just planning a cheap political trick to win a state election last year. He's been called out by the Commonwealth Games Federation, no less.

The National Party, including Martin Cameron and Gaelle Broad in Bendigo, have stood up for their local communities and have championed the hosting of the games. It's up to Anthony Albanese to bring the premiers together and find an Australian solution.

Madam Acting Deputy President, before I begin, thank you for the way you managed the chamber during the previous debate. It's really disappointing when conversations that are important to our national conversation descend into those types of arguments.

I want to put on the record that when it comes to the decisions of the Victorian government and the debate that we're about to have, it's very clear from our government's point of view that this was a decision of the Victorian government. It's disappointing, and we've put that on the record too. It's disappointing news for Victorians and it's disappointing for athletes, coaches and sporting fans alike, who were looking forward to Australia's Commonwealth Games. But we maintain that it's a little odd for those opposite to bring this as the first matter of public importance for this sitting week and to bring it to the federal Senate where, it has to be said, we don't have much power over the decisions of the Victorian government, and it is clear that this was a decision of the Victorian government.

The Victorian government didn't engage with the former Australian government during the bid process, nor in relation to its withdrawal. However, we are prepared to work in good faith, and the Prime Minister had agreed in principle to the standard major events provisions that fall within Australian government responsibilities. We were willing to do what was required from the Australian government's point of view. But we also know this is a decision that was made by the Victorian government. It's an odd thing for those opposite to bring it here and somehow insinuate that our government had anything to do with the decision itself or could, as the motion says, 'stop Premier Daniel Andrews from cancelling the games'. I'm not sure what mechanism those opposite would like us to use and I am not sure at what cost to taxpayers those opposite are referring to. But it is very concerning that those opposite are trying to make this into a political debate in the national parliament. We have so many issues that we are dealing with across the country.

I think it is interesting that those on the other side of the chamber are suggesting that somehow our international reputation has been damaged by the cancelling of this event. We know that those opposite don't have a great track record when it comes to our international reputation, whether it is Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, or former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, overheard joking at Pacific Island nations having water lapping at their doors, or whether it's the debacle with the French submarines, when the former Prime Minister lied to the Prime Minister of France. Even the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed this was his assessment of the situation. No-one can forget that, when it comes to Australia's international standing, nobody did more damage than those opposite when it came to their 22 failed policies on climate change. We on this side will not sit here and take lectures from those opposite about our international reputation, which, it must be said, has finally been restored under the Albanese government.

Finally, it's also the height of hypocrisy to be lectured about community sporting infrastructure and how important it is to communities by the minister responsible for sports rorts and by the previous government responsible for sports rorts, unapologetic about sports rorts, a program that systematically undermined the ability of governments to actually fund sporting infrastructure and diverted funds away from deserving community organisations. Senator McKenzie referred to 'cheap political tricks' used to win elections. Well, that's exactly what the former minister used sports rorts for.

So we welcome any debate about the funding of community infrastructure, because nobody has forgotten those colour-coded spreadsheets. No-one has forgotten sports rorts. When it comes to what the Albanese government is doing, we're supporting our athletes, we're making sure we are funding the Olympic Games and we are getting on with the job.

I rise to speak in support of the cancellation of the 2026 Commonwealth Games. In fact, I'm pleased that Premier Dan Andrews had the foresight to cancel the games and invest the money in the community where it is actually needed. I wish other premiers had the guts to do the same thing for other sporting events such as the Brisbane Olympics. Spending billions of dollars on a 12-day sporting event is not tenable when you have people sleeping on the street or people who have to choose between heating their homes and eating. This money would be much better spent on health, housing, education, on providing infrastructure, fixing roads or on investing in our regions. I could go on with other areas where it could be better spent.

Hosting the Commonwealth Games or the Olympics does not bring all the benefits that people claim. The boost to tourism is not to a scale that's needed to justify the spend. These events notoriously run over budget and, in many cases, the locals don't want them there. The most extreme example is the 1976 summer Olympics in Montreal. Montreal actually ended up paying off the debt in 2006 that they incurred by putting on this event in 1976. That is 40 years that it took them to pay off the debt from putting on the Montreal Olympics, 40 years of money being taken away from critical government infrastructure and services. While this is obviously an example of things going very wrong, this event marked a new era for big sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games, the Olympics or, in fact, the FIFA World Cup. To host these sporting events, bids became bigger and bigger, more money needed to be spent and more infrastructure was promised around these events. This is a gamble that rarely pays off. In 2010, India budgeted $250 million for the Commonwealth Games, and that actually ended up costing them $11 billion.

So I think it was a very wise move on the part of the Victorian government to quit while they were ahead and spend this money where it was actually needed the most. Events like this are important. It is an opportunity for unity and for Australians to cheer on their favourite athletes; however, the suggestion that this cancellation damages our international sovereignty is a bit of a joke, and I'm not going to stand here and be lectured by those opposite and others about international sovereignty and damage to it. We are in a cost-of-living crisis and I'm pleased that no other state or territory government has chosen to put education, housing or health funding at risk or on the backburner for the Commonwealth Games.

It is a great shame and disappointment for the regional communities of Victoria that the Commonwealth Games will not be going ahead in their towns. It would've been a source of pride for Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat, the Gippsland area and other regions across Victoria to host such an event—the first time it would've been hosted by country towns of that size.

The issue before us as the federal parliament, though, is that, in terms of the rest of the world, it was not really Bendigo or Ballarat or Geelong hosting the Commonwealth Games. The rest of the world probably had not heard of our detailed plans for the Commonwealth Games. The rest of the world thought Australia was hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2026. For the first time I know of a country has reneged on its promise to host a major sporting event such as a Commonwealth Games, an Olympics or a soccer world cup. It is such a shame and so disappointing for that to happen in this country given that, until this shocking decision from the Victorian Premier, we were known around the world for our capacity and ability to hold these types of events with great efficiency, great success and great harmony with the rest of the world.

I particularly dispute some of the other contributions that have been made here which have said that somehow it's a complete waste of money to hold these events. They are great events to build our nation, our community and our country. I still fondly remember the Sydney Olympics in my formative years. It was a fantastic event for our nation and something that I think most Australians are very proud that we successfully hosted here in this country. I hope we are similarly proud of the Brisbane Olympics in 2032.

Unfortunately, this decision now has sullied our reputation for hosting these events. It was the Victorian Premier who promised these games. It wasn't imposed on him. It wasn't forced on him. He hasn't had to try to fix a problem not of his own making. He promised this less than a year ago, ahead of the Victorian election. Even then he should've known. He should've done his sums better, and he didn't. It's a terrible outcome for the Victorian people and for the Australian people.

Given that national implication and how it has harmed our national reputation, it really is incumbent on the national Prime Minister and the federal government to try to fix things. We're not standing here claiming that it was the Albanese government that got us into this mess, but as the national government it is their job to help us get out of this mess. This 'wash their hands', Pontius Pilate approach to the problem is not good enough for the reputation of the country. When you're the Prime Minister, the buck stops with you. Not every problem that comes across your desk is yours, but you wanted the big job, you got the big title on the desk, so you should have to come up to the plate here and have some answers for the Australian people about how we're going to solve these things.

If nothing else, the Commonwealth Games association has been completely left in the lurch and, as one of the larger members of that association, one of the most successful sporting nations in that organisation, we surely have some responsibility to help see a successful 2026 Commonwealth Games proceed. As a country, I think we have the responsibility, given it was one of our states that promised to hold it and has reneging on that promise. Even if the games are not to be held in this country, given it's only a few years away, surely we have some responsibility here to at least help and assist the Commonwealth Games to continue. It's a great institution, and we want it to succeed in the future. I think this chamber should definitely be putting pressure on the Victorian government and doing what it can to help fix up this terrible mess of Dan Andrews's making.

I chair the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, and we're conducting an inquiry into the Commonwealth Games at the moment. We were doing it before this shocking decision, and we are going to continue to pursue that inquiry. We want to hear directly from the people of regional Victoria, who've been completely dudded by this decision, in a way that Dan Andrews certainly hasn't. One of the most shocking things about this decision is that there was no consultation. There was no discussion with people impacted by it; it was just dropped into the media like a grenade. We will consult with those people, but we will also try to come up with solutions to help make sure that the Commonwealth Games in 2026, wherever they are held, are a success. It is a great event. It has a proud heritage and history, and we, as a country that has participated in that history, have a responsibility to make sure it continues to be a success in the future.

I'll start by saying that I completely understand the disappointment of athletes and coaches about the Commonwealth Games no longer being held in Victoria. It's a decision the Victorian government made after considering all the facts on the table, and we understand the decision. I can also tell you that sport will survive and indeed thrive in Victoria and in this country going forward. This government is committed to our athletes, to our coaches and to our training staff. Our commitment to sport is without equal. We will continue to ensure that our athletes have every opportunity to compete at home and abroad.

There are no less than 22 major sporting events coming down the green and gold highway right now, all leading to the 2032 Brisbane Olympics and Paralympics, whether it's the Rugby World Cup, the Netball World Cup, the Men's T20 World Cup or even the BMX World Championship, and we are lucky to be hosting four Women's World Cup events across the next five years. I think it's safe to say that our international sporting reputation is well and truly safe and intact.

We are helping Australians excel on the sporting field at every level and in every postcode, from the playground to the podium. Only last week we announced an additional $20 million in funding for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Preparation Fund. This investment in our athletes will help Australians qualify, and it will assist with transport costs for the games. This is a funding injection that will help teams like our wheelchair rugby team, who needed support to reach the World Cup in October.

We know that sport is bigger than any one event. Ultimately, our sporting events need to be good investments that provide value for money and lasting benefits to the community. I'd like to take the opportunity to commend the Victorian government for their focus on continuing to deliver lasting investments in housing and infrastructure for regional communities. This is a focus and commitment that the federal government shares.

The hypocrisy of those opposite really can't go without mention today. They demand to see more action on the cost-of-living crisis, and now they ask that billions of taxpayer dollars be spent on the Commonwealth Games. They insist repeatedly that sports and politics should not be mixed, and then they wish to play politics here in the chamber today with what is a state government decision.

Rather than playing politics, we are currently focused on hosting the largest women's sporting event in the world—the FIFA Women's World Cup—and we are hosting it very successfully, I might add. The Matildas opening match reached almost five million people. We committed more than $84 million to support the bidding, delivery and legacy of the Women's World Cup here in Australia. It's broken records already in terms of crowd attendance, the number of countries competing and the number of spectators watching at home and around the world. It's raised the profile of women's sport to an unprecedented level not just here in Australia but also internationally. It's the kind of event that we know will have impacts for generations to come, on the girls and boys who are inspired to put on the green and gold.

I finish by saying: go Matildas, tonight. We had a sell-out crowd for the friendly in Melbourne against France, in Victoria, and we have another sellout tonight. News of the demise of Victorian and Australian sport is greatly exaggerated by those opposite. Again, I reject the assertions of disaster of those opposite. This was no doubt a tough decision for our athletes but I know that Australia will land a successful Commonwealth Games campaign with our athletes, just as I know Victoria will continue to be the home of Australian sport from schools to stadiums and everywhere in between. The Victorian government have given the reasons for the decision they've made. It remains a state matter. I can tell you: Victorian sport will survive and thrive.

If money management was a Commonwealth Games event, Victorian Premier Andrews would finish stone-cold last. The Premier deserves no credit for cancelling the games. He should never have bid for the games in the first place. Victoria was already broke—and still is broke—when Premier Andrews announced his intention to host the event. The Premier, Mr Daniel Andrews, has never been in a hole that he did not insist he could make deeper. He's useless. He insisted on adding another $2.6 billion of debt by hosting the games. He now says the games were going to cost $6 billion—or was it $7 billion? Even today the Premier can't nail down the cost to within $1,000 million.

Now the whole thing has been cancelled, Premier Andrews behaves like he deserves a medal. He doesn't. Was the Commonwealth Games a ploy by the Premier to convince people in the regions to vote for him? It could have been. After the voters have put him on the podium, he just walks away from the games contract at a cost to the taxpayer yet to be disclosed. Small businesses invested in anticipation of these games. It should have been a boon for country towns. Instead, they are the victims of the Premier's incompetence.

Premier Andrews has embarrassed the state. He has embarrassed the nation. He is the most irresponsible, reckless premier in Australia's history. The man's face gives me PTSD. I can't stand the guy.

As a Geelong based Victorian senator, I am absolutely appalled by Premier Andrews's decision in concert with the Albanese government. We have brought this matter of public importance to the Senate to call on this government to take a stand for Victorian regional communities. What we have seen so far from this government is spineless, is callous and is demonstrating no care or regard for regional communities—Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Gippsland, Shepparton. It has treated regional Victoria with absolute contempt. It is a shocking indictment on the spinelessness of this pathetic Albanese government that it will not stand up to this deceptive, callous Victorian premier and say, 'This is not good enough.' It's not good enough.

Acting Deputy President Walsh, you just made a contribution. You've said you don't think this is going to hurt our international reputation. I have to say to you: have you not been watching what's been going on? Have you not read the papers?

Senator Henderson, resume your seat. Senator Ciccone, do you have a point of order?

I do. The remarks by Senator Henderson are clearly a reflection on your contribution just before, and I'd say that's against the standing orders, and she should withdraw.

It does seem slightly irregular to be directing those comments to the chair, but I'll just seek advice from the clerk.

Senator Henderson, just for the convenience of the chamber, could you move on from referencing my former role a few minutes ago.

Senator Walsh, I wasn't referring to you as the Acting Deputy President.

That's fine.

But I am appalled at the suggestion in this chamber in this debate that this decision has not reflected on our international reputation. We are an international laughingstock as a result of the decision of the Victorian premier, and this Albanese government did nothing. The member for Corio, the member for Corangamite, the member for Bendigo and the member for Ballarat did absolutely nothing to stand up for their communities as our reputations were trashed across the world. For the people of regional Victoria, the games were a critical opportunity of a lifetime, not just to see their local heroes compete but to grow their businesses, to take advantage of the significant economic boost in Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Gippsland and Shepparton. Those plans, those hopes, those dreams have been trashed.

The coalition has always recognised how important sport is to our nation. We work so hard as a government to secure so many important events—the FIFA Women's World Cup is on right now—the 2032 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, the 27th Netball World Cup. Daniel Andrews's decision to abandon the 2026 Commonwealth Games is an insult to Australian athletes, an insult to regional Victoria and an insult to the Australian people. Working hand in glove with Premier Andrews, Prime Minister Albanese and this city-centric government have broken our hearts.

Premier Andrews is walking all over the top of the members opposite and this government. He is laughing. He could not care less. And this spineless government just stands by and fails to stand up for regional Victoria, fails to stand up for our country. This is appalling. We saw it again in action just a few days ago. The Victorian government, this tyrannical government as it's turning out to be, banned gas from 2024 for new builds, and what do senators and members in the other place do? What does the government do? It does nothing. I cannot believe that gas is going to be banned for new connections, and this spineless government does nothing to stand up for Victoria. We don't believe a word Premier Andrews says. Look at what he did with the East West Link: he cancelled that contract, and that cost Victorians more than $1 billion. We will get to the bottom of this through our Senate inquiry. We will get to the bottom of this deceptive, callous, devious state Labor government, aided and abetted by this unprincipled and spineless Albanese government. We've had enough of being trodden on. We've had enough. We are not going to tolerate it. And shame on the member for Corio, the Deputy Prime Minister and the members for Corangamite, Bendigo and Ballarat who did nothing to stand up for us.

The time for this discussion has expired.

On behalf of the Minister for Resources, Ms Madeleine King, I table a ministerial statement on the Critical Minerals Strategy.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of this most important matter, Australia's critical minerals industry. The coalition strongly supports the growth of this sector, one that is so vital to not only Australia's future prosperity but the prosperity and advancement of the world. Delivering ongoing, significant and rock-solid investment into the critical minerals sector is crucial for securing our national security and our economic wealth and for meeting the demands of the future. It is crucial because Australia is fortunate to have a critical minerals sector with such extraordinary potential, hosting vast deposits which are among the world's best. From mobile phones to computers, from microchips to banknotes, from defence to health, the importance of these resources is all around us.

The coalition is proud of what we achieved in critical minerals during our term in government. We created Australia's first Critical Minerals Strategy, a landmark document that signalled stability and certainty and the coalition's commitment to the sector. We delivered an update in 2022 to better reflect the shifting global mineral environment, and in 2019 the former Australian Prime Minister and the US President coordinated the first US-Australian action plan for critical minerals cooperation.

Further to this, the coalition has invested billions developing our critical minerals sector. In 2021, the coalition set up the Critical Minerals Facility, a loan facility specifically targeted at supporting the diversification of the critical minerals value chain, including supply chains and downstream processing. In April 2022, Iluka Resources was awarded an historic $1.25 billion loan to develop Australia's first integrated rare earths refinery at Eneabba in Western Australia. In 2022 the coalition set up the $200 million Critical Minerals Accelerator Initiative to provide targeted funding towards early-stage and mid-stage critical minerals projects. This funding was directed at key projects designed to build our production capability. The first six grants, totalling approximately $50 million of investment, were announced by the coalition in April 2022. Unfortunately, this program was cut by over $100 million by the Labor government, a disappointing blow to other projects seeking to kickstart investment.

The coalition also committed $50.5 million over three years in the March 2022-23 budget to establish the Virtual National Critical Minerals Research and Development Centre. We extended the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive with an additional $100 million in support and created the $225 million Exploring for the Future program. All of this great work highlights the proud legacy the coalition—in particular the last two resource ministers, Keith Pitt and Matt Canavan—has in the critical minerals space. This is a legacy that has set critical minerals up for a promising, sustainable and productive future.

This now brings us to the minister's announcement last month, the 2023 Critical Minerals Strategy. I wrote to Minister King strongly advocating for the inclusion of potash, phosphate, aluminium, alumina, bauxite, nickel, copper and zinc. To mitigate supply chain risks to regional food security, Australia needs to increase domestic extraction of potash and phosphate in order to secure these minerals, which are vital for large-scale quality food production. Including these on the critical minerals list will help provide security of supply domestically, assist Australia in providing regional food security and help achieve the goal of growing our agricultural industry to $100 billion by 2030.

Further minerals identified on a number of international critical minerals lists—aluminium, nickel, copper and zinc—are essential for the functioning of our modern technologies and economies and, in an increasingly unstable world, are susceptible to the shocks of disrupted international supply chains. Countries around the world have identified the importance of many of these minerals to their economies, with the International Energy Agency, the United States, Canada, Japan, the European Union and the Republic of Korea identifying some or all of these strategic minerals. As we have seen in recent years, global supply chain disruptions can occur at a pace that far outstrips the development of required new mineral resources. As such, the heightened uncertainty of reliable access has driven many nations around the world to strengthen their supply chains for many of the minerals in which Australia is either globally dominant or competitive. However, despite these strong arguments in support of adding these minerals to the list, the government has instead chosen to postpone any further reviews or updates to the strategy until 2026. It's a very disappointing outcome for the sector.

What has the strategy actually outlined? Three of the six key focus areas are concerning to the coalition: promoting Australia as a world leader in ESG performance; unlocking investment in enabling infrastructure and services; and growing a skilled workforce. Firstly, on ESG performance, specifically the calls to streamline the EPBC approvals, the government's work on the review of the EPBC Act does not fill the coalition with confidence. Progress on new environmental laws and standards is stalling under Labor, and, despite having been in the job for over a year, the environment minister still appears to be months away from finishing that work. It is appearing increasingly likely that Labor's approach will culminate in more regulation, more red tape and less incentives and clarity for businesses and resource projects.

Secondly, on infrastructure, it is laughable that Labor now claim one of their priorities is unlocking investment in enabling infrastructure and services when they have done so much damage to the infrastructure sector. In Labor's first budget, they cut $9.6 billion from the infrastructure program. This was in addition to cutting more than $10 billion in regional programs and $7 billion in dams and water infrastructure. In the May budget, Labor announced a 90-day infrastructure review, now pushed out to 105 days, which is expected to make further cuts to road and rail infrastructure across regional Australia. As a result of these delays, projects are being put on hold, some workers stood down and some contracts relinquished.

Finally, on growing a skilled workforce, it is ironic that the Critical Minerals Strategy is calling for a skilled mining workforce when currently the government is trying to push through destructive industrial relations legislation at odds with our nation's mining sector. The government's same job, same pay legislation is deeply misleading. Employers should be able to reward their employees for their individual experience, job performance or ability. Labor needs to stop taking direction from their union paymasters and adopting policies which will not work in reality.

However, despite the issues in half of the government's objectives, what do we find when we unpack the new investment in the sector? It appears Labor are relying on programs delivered by the former federal coalition government as the main investments to develop the sector. They have committed no real programs or initiatives of their own to help investment in critical minerals projects. Labor's budget provided no real investment into the sector, with $57.1 million for the Critical Minerals International Partnerships program and $23.4 million for critical minerals policy development and project facilitation. Both of these funding pools are largely administrative with neither going to supporting new projects or investing in developing our critical minerals reserves. This funding is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the billions the coalition invested, and to quote Mineral Resources managing director Chris Ellison, 'This funding is the Australian government telling industry to go it alone.'

The $500 million investment from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is not new funding, but simply earmarked funding from the $2 billion increase that David Littleproud, as then minister for Northern Australia, along with myself as former special envoy, announced in December 2021. Overall, the coalition strongly support the critical minerals sector. We believe there is a bright future for the critical minerals sector to operate alongside vital traditional resources industries like iron, coal and gas.

The update to the critical minerals strategy provided the government with an opportunity to illustrate its plans for the development of the industry; however, what we saw announced was far more fluff than substance. Australia is on the cusp of reaping the generational rewards of building a vast and substantive critical minerals sector. Every day Australia competes on the global market for investment dollars for our resources sector—dollars that create jobs here in Australia and put money back into our economy. The coalition set a secure foundation for the sector's growth; it is now up to the government to ensure this opportunity is not wasted.

I rise to also speak to the ministerial statement provided by the Minister for Resources and take note of her statement regarding the government's new and much awaited Critical Minerals Strategy.

In her opening remarks, the minister states that we are on the cusp of the creation of a new resources industry. The minister spoke to the gold rushes of the 1800s, the Japanese investment in iron ore in the 1950s and the expansion of LNG in the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, the minister also spoke about the benefits genuine partnerships between the critical minerals sector and First Nations people can bring. I note that she also circled around jobs and prosperity in this, which she sees as the very key aspects.

But what the minister failed to mention in particular in this ministerial statement is the dispossession of land, the contamination of sacred groundwater and other water sources, the destruction of cultural heritage and the unequal power balance between First Nations communities and very large mining companies, particularly in this country. The minister is right, in fact, that minerals that will be mined under this strategy are important in our fight against climate change. These minerals are needed for batteries in our electric vehicles, a cohort that I recently joined, and they will be needed for our solar panels, our wind turbines and our hydro facilities. However, we cannot, and we must not, proceed with the same carelessness and disregard of the impacts of these mines as we did with gold, coal and gas. We must learn the lessons that have been presented. They are the lessons of: What is consultation? What is co-design? What is free, prior and informed consent? It's the protection of cultural heritage.

Further to that, we must also consider the environmental impact of these mines. Yes, they may be needed to help us create technologies to transition to clean energy, but mining operations are also energy intensive. They use a lot of water and chemicals to explore, extract, process and transport these minerals. We also can't turn a blind eye to the impacts solely because these minerals are needed to make batteries and our other technologies. There needs to be a balance struck between the need for these minerals and the impact that they have on our water, climate, endangered species and cultural heritage.

Over 60 per cent of the resources projects operate on land covered by native title determination or native title claims, but the fact is that every single mine in this country is on stolen land. Every single dollar that mining companies make in this country is stolen wealth. Every single drop of water that is extracted to process these minerals is a stolen sacred resource. These resources are ours. This is country we have had a connection to for 65,000 years, and the water that runs out into our free country is ours.

Mining companies have a shameful history of strongarming traditional owners, and the Native Title Act unfortunately facilitates some of this. Native title bodies are told that they must provide consent in order to receive compensation, and this is in fact not true. Because of this representation, native title bodies provide their consent because they know that, even if they don't provide consent to that project, it will go ahead anyway and, if there is work happening on their land, they might as well benefit from it. Unfortunately, this is the horrible, horrible situation that traditional owners all over this country are placed in. This is why we need native title reform. We need stronger cultural heritage protections. We need to ensure that free, prior and informed consent is legislated.

For far too long First Nations people have been exploited. Our land has been destroyed. The minister actually refers in her statement to genuine partnerships. Well, I would like to see the model that the minister is proposing for what this would look like and guidelines or examples of what this government thinks genuine partnerships look like and what tangible benefits they will bring to First Nations communities. These benefits go beyond just the promised jobs, the infrastructure and the flash talk that comes along with what mining companies spin when they go into our communities. It's important that governments that are brokering some of these deals actually understand that.

I want to thank the minister, Minister King, who I meet with on a quarterly basis and have a good engagement process with, on her engagement on this critical minerals strategy. I look forward to the future engagement so that these considerations are not lost and to ensure that the right balance is struck and that First Nations people don't bear the brunt of the consequences of a new era of mining in this country. A new era means some of the wealth, some of the development and some of the opportunity needs to be shared.

I also rise to take note of the ministerial statement in relation to the critical minerals strategy. The first point I'd like to make is in relation to some of the points which Senator Cox made. I agree with many of Senator Cox's themes in terms of the need to work closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with respect to the development of mining projects.

But can I say this: in my experience—and I am someone who comes from the Australian mining industry—I would back the Australian mining against any other country's mining industry around the world in terms of its environmental health and safety performance. I want to put on the record excerpts from a recent documentary played by National Public Radio in the United States in relation to what is happening in some parts of the world in relation to the mining of critical minerals. I think this is really important for us to know. If minerals like cobalt aren't mined in Australia, they will be mined in other jurisdictions which do not have the standards which we have in Australia. That mineral will still be mined, but it is preferable that it is mined in a jurisdiction like Australia's, which has very stringent environmental conditions and health and safety requirements and has the rule of law. I want to quote from this documentary that was played on National Public Radio Siddharth Kara, who is a fellow at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health and at the Kennedy School. He has been researching modern-day slavery, human trafficking and child labour for two decades. He says that although the DRC—the Democratic Republic of the Congo—has more cobalt reserves than the rest of the planet combined, there is no such thing as a clean supply chain of cobalt from the country.

In an article about the documentary Terry Gross writes:

In his new book, Cobalt Red, Kara writes that much of the DRC's cobalt is being extracted by so-called "artisanal" miners—freelance workers who do extremely dangerous labor for the equivalent of just a few dollars a day.

"You have to imagine walking around some of these mining areas and dialing back our clock centuries," Kara says. "People are working in subhuman, grinding, degrading conditions. They use pickaxes, shovels, stretches of rebar to hack and scrounge at the earth in trenches and pits and tunnels to gather cobalt and feed it up the formal supply chain."

Kara says the mining industry has ravaged the landscape of the DRC. Millions of trees have been cut down, the air around mines is hazy with dust and grit, and the water has been contaminated with toxic effluents from the mining processing. What's more, he says, "Cobalt is toxic to touch and breathe—and there are hundreds of thousands of poor Congolese people touching and breathing it day in and day out. Young mothers with babies strapped to their backs, all breathing in this toxic cobalt dust."

It is desperately important—desperately important—that these critical minerals and materials are mined in countries such as Australia, which has checks and balances, like this place, the Senate, where people such as the Acting Deputy President can hold companies to account with respect to their actions in terms of their mining operations in this country. That is the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is in relation to Senator McDonald's comments on critical minerals and what is included in critical minerals. Interestingly, the United States actually has two categories: critical materials and critical minerals. They list critical materials, which they define as:

Any non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material that the Secretary of Energy determines (i) has high risk for supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves an essential function in one or more energy technologies, including technologies that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy …

The definition of critical materials includes aluminium. It includes copper. It includes nickel and minerals which aren't considered critical minerals under our regime.

Indeed, in relation to the definition of critical minerals, which is defined under the Energy Act 2020 as any mineral, element, substance or material designated as critical by the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director of the US Geological Survey, the definition specifically includes, again, nickel and zinc, so I think we need to deeply reflect on how we categorise minerals and whether or not they are critical materials or critical minerals in this context. It is quite disturbing that we appear to be out of step with some of our major trading partners. To be frank, if a material is a critical mineral or a critical material in the United States then surely it has to be a critical mineral or critical material in Australia.

Lastly, I want to comment in relation to a matter which is not in my view adequately dealt with in the critical minerals strategy document. And, again, whilst there's much in that strategy document which I do support, there is a lack of awareness that decisions of government at both federal and state level can determine whether or not Australia is seen as an attractive investment destination for our foreign trading partners.

I want to quote from an article by Michael Smith in the Australian Financial Review, entitled 'Australia no longer Japan's "most trusted" LNG supplier'. It reads:

Australia is no longer seen as a trusted supplier of LNG and Japan will seek new sources for gas in Alaska and other parts of the world, one of Japan's top energy advisers has warned as Tokyo ramps up criticism of Labor's new climate policy.

Japan's Institute of Energy Economics chief executive Tatsuya Terazawa said Australia was no longer a candidate to make up any shortfall from reduced LNG supply from Russia, in a damning assessment of the Albanese government's policy which will force gas operators to cut emissions or pay for carbon offsets.

…   …   …

"Australia and Japan worked together at the highest level to develop and support LNG but now changing policies, new constraints and burdens are put in place," Mr Terazawa told a briefing of foreign journalists in Tokyo late on Tuesday.

"It is like changing the rules of the game after the game has started, and the game was started at the highest level.

I just want to repeat that. He said:

It is like changing the rules of the game after the game has started, and the game was started at the highest level.

The article goes on:

"While we understand the need to deal with the environment issue, this long-term trust and win:win relationship that we have developed over the years will have to be more respected."

…   …   …

"Australia has been our most trusted supplier of LNG. Unfortunately, the recent policy changes in Australia put serious questions on the future role of Australia as a reliable supplier of LNG," he said, noting Japan's first shipment of LNG came from Australia in 1989.

"The most likely candidate would have been Australia—

That's what he said—

but with the recent changes in the policies by the Australian government it poses a really serious question as to the future role of Australia as the trusted supplier of LNG.

"That makes us very much concerned and that forces us to look for alternative options for LNG supply in the future and that would include Alaska," he said.

That is sovereign risk. That is our major trading partners looking at policy recalibrations taking place at both the federal and state level and raising the sovereign risk red flag, and that is deeply, deeply disturbing. The mining industry and the oil and gas industry will not invest in this country if they consider that, in the words of this Japanese commentator:

It is like changing the rules of the game after the game has started, and the game was started at the highest level.

That is sovereign risk. And there will be people making decisions around boardrooms all over world who will be considering policy decisions which have been made by this federal government, particularly with respect to pricing control in the gas industry, and also with respect to royalty decisions, including in my home state of Queensland. Decisions will be made as to whether or not Australia is a preferred investment destination. Unless we get those policy parameters correct, we can forget about major investment in this country in the mining and the oil and gas industries.

I, too, wish to rise briefly to talk on the ministerial statement on critical minerals. The key thing here, following on from my friend and colleague Senator Scarr, is that this government is saying one thing but then doing another. It's doing one thing in terms of its legislative performance and it's doing another in terms of the legislative performance of state Labor governments. It's saying on the one hand that we want to see more gas developed but then it is changing the law to make gas development less likely. On the one hand, it is saying we need to see these critical minerals because they will drive things like our development of lower emissions energy systems, such as battery technology, solar technology, wind technology, and that these minerals are critical for that yet, at the same time, we are seeing a regulatory environment that is getting worse and worse for minerals development in this country.

In my own home state of Western Australia, regardless of what you think about the law itself, the Cultural Heritage Act, in its implementation, there is no doubt it has been an absolute disaster. It's been an absolute disaster. It has put a stop to everything from minerals development to literally the planting of trees by greening groups. When you have legislative overreach of that sort then you will have a freeze on investment in things like critical minerals.

The federal Labor government also has a cultural heritage bill somewhere. We don't know where. We don't know what stage it is up to. We don't know any details. We are told it won't override the state law, though I'm not sure how the minister can say that when the state law has been put back on the drawing board, and the Constitution clearly states that federal legislation overrides state law where they conflict. So I do not see how the federal minister can say that the federal law, when it comes to the light of day, when we see a draft of it, will not override the state law.

This government can't have it both ways. It can't say one thing to the left and then another to the right and for both those things to be true because they simply cannot be.

Question agreed to.

The President has received a letter seeking a variation to the membership of joint committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Corporations and Financial Services — Joint Statutory Committee —

Discharged—Senator McKim

Appointed—Senator Barbara Pocock

Public Accounts and Audit — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senator Barbara Pocock.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023

Our government is determined to protect more of what's precious, to repair more of what's damaged, and to manage nature better for our kids and grandkids.

And today, as part of that mission, I am very proud to be introducing this legislation into this chamber.

This bill establishes a new nature repair market in Australia—the first of its kind in the world.

It will make it easier for businesses, philanthropists and other Australians to invest in activities that repair and protect nature.

And it will reward landholders for the work they do in nurturing our natural environment.

It will encourage good environmental work- like replanting a stretch of koala habitat or repairing a damaged riverbank, or removing invasive species from a fragile ecosystem.

That's what this legislation is about: connecting people who want to invest in nature repair, with the people who can do that work on the ground.

This is critical work.

It's work we need to promote as a nation, in every state and territory, in every corner of our vast continent.

As the State of the Environment report made clear, Australia's environment is in a bad way, and it's getting worse.

We live in the extinction capital of the world—losing more mammals to extinction than any other continent.

These terrible extinctions have many causes, but chief amongst them is habitat destruction.

When we knock down trees, or pollute a waterway, or experience a natural disaster, and when we don't step in to repair the habitats we've lost, that's how we get into the position we're in now, where koalas are endangered across most of the East Coast, where our beautiful beaches are eroding before our eyes, where our soil is losing fertility, becoming more vulnerable to drought, or simply blowing away with the wind, and where our fish, right now, are literally choking to death in our rivers, because they don't have enough oxygen to survive underwater.

When you look at these trends, when you look at the state of our environment, it is clear that we have to do more than just protect nature from future harm.

We need to start restoring places that we've damaged in the past. We need to start healing the land and the water.

And that's what this legislation is designed to do- not to replace government effort, but to reinforce it; to add private money to the stream of investment our government is already making in nature protection and restoration.

In December last year, the Minister for the Environment and Water released our government's Nature Positive Plan.

At the heart of these changes was a shift in ambition.

For almost 250 years, since Europeans first colonised Australia, we've been running down our natural environment.

And when we've tried to do something about it, when we've attempted environmental policies, we have slowed the pace of this decline.

But the point of our plan, the point of being nature positive, is to reverse that trend, to stop the march of environmental destruction—and go further: to begin the

process of repairing nature, to start restoring damaged ecosystems and to genuinely leave Australia in a better state than it's in now.

If we're serious about this goal, a large part of our work has to be on private land because more than 60 per cent of our country's landmass is in private hands.

Of that land, a majority is owned by farmers and First Nations peoples.

That's where a large percentage of the critical habitats exist. That's where many of our most endangered animals live, which means we cannot restrict our conservation efforts to national parks, or other places of sanctuary.

We need to encourage and support nature repair everywhere. And that is what this bill will do.

The purpose of this legislation is to establish the machinery needed for a future nature repair market- the register, the rules and the regulator.

This market will apply to projects that enhance or protect existing environments, as well as projects that establish or restore habitats.

These projects can be on land, in our lakes and rivers, or in marine and coastal environments.

They will be open in a voluntary way to all landholders: farmers, First Nations peoples, conservation groups, businesses, local councils—all will be eligible.

Under the scheme, when a landholder conducts a project to repair or protect nature, they will be issued with a tradeable certificate.

This certificate will provide a range of standardised information—such as the size of land repaired, the kind of work conducted, the threatened species protected, or the length of time the actions will continue.

This will help buyers understand what they're investing in—and allow them to compare and value projects. Once projects are approved by the regulator, these certificates can then be sold on to a third party- like a philanthropist, a business, a government or an individual.

This will give the landholders extra income.

It will help companies demonstrate their environmental credentials. It will help philanthropists achieve their social mission.

And most importantly, it will protect and repair Australia's environment. These certificates will be tracked via a public register.

This register will be open and transparent—helping buyers show their shareholders and customers exactly how they're supporting nature repair.

And a regulator will ensure that projects are being implemented according to the rules, and that the register accurately describes what is happening on the ground.

The nature repair market will encourage all kinds of good work.

Work that landholders already want to do, but often don't have the funds to complete.

Like helping a farming family, who want to remove invasive plants and manage feral animals on their land so they can better protect a stretch of native forest where endangered greater gliders live.

Or a group of Indigenous Land and Sea Rangers, who want to control feral species across a coastal floodplain -to protect sea turtles, migratory birds, and to improve water quality for fish and crabs.

Or another farmer, who wants to replant native grasses and trees on an unproductive stretch of land—to make the area more resilient to drought and salinity.

Or a group of fishers, who want to regrow a meadow of seagrass that was previously killed off by poor water quality so they can provide a habitat for dugongs, turtles and seahorses, and at the same time, improve fish stocks.

The nature repair market will cover a broad range of different types of nature restoration.

And it will reward people involved in it- money for farmers, jobs for First Nations communities and, at the end of the day, homes for our native animals and plants.

That's what this legislation is designed to promote.

Because there's no shortage of repair work that needs to be done.

And the scheme is flexible enough to make sure that landholders can do the environmental work that is needed specifically on their patch of land.

Like supporting the east coast koala population.

Or reviving critical nature corridors -that animals can travel through for food and water, for shelter, or to avoid bushfires.

Or replanting hillside vegetation -to stop erosion and to protect and enrich the local soil.

These projects will look different in different places, depending on local needs. And the nature market will work absolutely hand in hand with carbon credits.

It will help ensure that, when we plant new trees, we're not just establishing an endless monoculture, relying on a single species, but that we're supporting a rich

spectrum of biodiversity; of plants and animals and ecosystems; and that we're planting the right trees in the right places.

We know that organisations are very keen to support these kinds of projects. International organisations are looking to Australia as a destination.

They understand that Australia is a megadiverse continent- with plants and animals found nowhere else in the world.

And they recognise that we're one of the most important sites in the global fight to protect biodiversity.

Businesses and philanthropic groups are telling the Government they want to support this type of nature repair effort.

That's what their shareholders are asking of them. That's what their customers are asking of them.

It's what their employees are asking of them.

Shareholders, customers, staff—they want to know that they are investing in and working for environmentally responsible enterprises.

In fact, these investments are already happening in small ways.

But they're happening without an institutional framework to support them.

Which makes the whole process more difficult to enter into, far more cumbersome, risky, and ineffective than it should be.

Making these investments impossible for the vast majority of businesses and landholders that would like to engage.

This legislation will solve two major problems with the status quo- making it much easier to invest in nature repair and protection.

Firstly, it will connect people wanting to fund this work with landholders who are willing and capable of doing it.

Currently, if an organisation wants to support environmental restoration, they have to either buy the land themselves and then contract the work, or find a willing landholder to enter into some sort of custom management agreement.

This can be very frustrating for everyone involved.

Most companies are not usually in the business of environmental management and, in general, they shouldn't have to own land in order to contribute to the protection of it.

And, basically, we wouldn't want them to or need them to.

Because no one knows their land better than the farmers and First Nations communities who steward it.

And these landholders don't want to sell their land or engage in complex legal arrangements.

When this scheme begins, investors will be able to find projects they want to support, without having to purchase their own plot of land, and without having to design their own contracts.

And both parties will be able to enter into the arrangement with the confidence of a legal framework behind them.

This leads me to the second problem this legislation will answer- which is the question of trust and integrity.

Currently, organisations and conservationists are understandably nervous about some investments in nature repair.

How do they know these projects will actually deliver the improvements that they advertise?

Without a legal framework-without a national regulator to enforce the rules and ensure compliance—there's a greater risk that business and the public will fall victim to greenwashing.

That the promised project will look different in practice to what has been promised. This Bill will introduce necessary oversight and assurance.

It will enable the Clean Energy Regulator, an independent statutory authority, to certify biodiversity certificates.

The regulator will monitor and publish landholder reports on the delivery of these projects, including the progress being made towards the environmental outcomes specified.

And the regulator will also have enforcement powers -to ensure that projects are following the rules.

This is a scheme that will be built on transparency.

The regulator will publish information on projects and the ownership and use of certificates.

It will actively release relevant data.

Which will allow parliament and citizens to scrutinise the scheme. And we welcome that scrutiny.

I acknowledge the recent review of carbon crediting led by Professor Ian Chubb.

Like the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, I'm committed to learning the lessons of that review, and to make sure that those lessons shape this market as it develops.

I would also like to acknowledge the amendments made to this Bill in the House of Representatives.

Our government welcomes the strong interest shown in this Bill and the amendments made by the House.

These changes have made improvements to the Bill that provide further detail on the purpose of the Bill, increase integrity, and empower landholders to determine whether their project could be used as an environmental offset.

Nature markets—like all markets—need to be properly regulated, and this is, of course, challenging because environmental outcomes generally aren't measured in tonnes or kilometres.

Just because something is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

It means we should put some thought into making sure we do it properly. And that's what we are doing with this legislation.

Because we need every tool available to us if we want to build a nature positive Australia.

If we want to leave this country in a better place for our kids and grandkids. We need effective national environmental laws.

And we need active government investment.

And yes, we also need private money and philanthropists. Our government welcomes that support.

This scheme will bring more money into nature repair.

And it will guarantee that that money is doing what it's intended to do -

Restoring habitats, improving our soil, helping threatened species, protecting our beaches, and making our land more resilient to droughts and floods.

Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

This Bill supports the operation of the nature repair market being established under the Nature Repair Market Bill. The market is delivering on the Government's commitment to the environment through the Nature Positive Plan. It will be instrumental in better protecting Australia's environment and preventing further extinction of native plants and animals.

The independent Clean Energy Regulator will be responsible for regulating the nature repair market. Their knowledge and experience in the carbon market, including administrative processes and systems, will ensure an efficient establishment of the nature repair market. Their regulation will also provide efficiencies and synergies between the carbon and nature markets.

This Bill makes minor, technical amendments to two Acts relevant to the functions of the Clean Energy Regulator. These are the Clean Energy Regulator Act; and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

The Bill updates the Clean Energy Regulator Act to provide complementary functions for the nature repair market with those of climate change law, currently administered by the Clean Energy Regulator. It also ensures the Board of the Regulator has sufficient expertise to support the new nature repair market.

Restoring public accountability and trust is a key principle of the Government's Nature Positive Plan. This Bill makes amendments to the Clean Energy Regulator Act to ensure environmental data held by the Regulator is publicly available and accessible. This will support transparency and integrity in the

nature repair market and allow the Australian Government to demonstrate our continued delivery on international biodiversity agreement obligations.

Audits are a core assurance mechanism central to effective implementation of the scheme and delivery of nature positive outcomes. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act will be amended to allow the nature repair market to appropriately utilise the qualified and experienced auditors under this scheme. Future amendments to National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting subordinate legislation will further support this outcome.

The amendments in this Bill will ensure the nature repair market operates with efficiency and integrity. Delivering on a nature positive future for our environment.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 1 November 2023.

As Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2023 together with accompanying documents.

I seek leave to amend the motion in the terms circulated in the Senate.

Leave not granted.

I rise to speak for the third time on this motion. I've had a little bit of time to think about how I wanted to conclude my contribution. I've already said, in an earlier contribution, that I think some of the contributions supporting this motion have been made in good faith, and I don't resile from that statement; I think that's true. What I do want to say very clearly is that I don't believe this motion has been moved by Senator Hanson in good faith. I want Senator Hanson to know that we see exactly what she is up to here. We see you trying to line up trans people as cannon fodder in your ongoing culture wars. We're not going to have a bar of that, because trans rights are human rights. Trans men are men and trans women are women. Trans folk deserve our love and support. They do not deserve to be discriminated against, persecuted and vilified. No human should have to live with the threat of violence, persecution and discrimination because of who they are. No human should be lined up and used as cannon fodder in the culture wars, particularly when we know the grievous harm that this will do to so many trans folk and so many people who love trans folk. I'm one of those people. I'm lucky enough to be a stepdad to an awesome young trans man, Jasper Lees.

Jasper wrote something in the Guardian a few months ago, after a rally in nipaluna/Hobart that was put on by Kellie-Jay Keen, also known as Posie Parker—who is still trolling me on Twitter, by the way, and trolling Jasper's mum, Cassy, on Twitter, labelling us as 'groomers' because we had supported Jasper through his transition. For that, I'm apparently a groomer. This is where this debate is at, folks. When you line up with people like Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, that is where you are at. When Jasper wrote for the Guardian, he said a couple of really impactful things. He said:

Transitioning has been … the hardest and most wonderful thing I have ever done.

He also said:

There were two options for me as I grew up … I could die or find a way to live as Jasper.

Those were the options that he faced. What this motion seeks to do is line up people like Jasper as cannon fodder in the ongoing culture wars run by the extreme right in this place, in this country and in numerous other countries around the world. As I said earlier, the Greens are not going to have a bar of it, because we are here for people like Jasper. We are here for trans folk and other folk across the whole beautiful, complex web of human diversity, whether people are straight or queer, trans or cis, brown skin, black skin or white skin, able or disabled. This wondrous condition of humanity is actually enriched by its diversity, and diversity should be celebrated and supported. It shouldn't be condemned and used as a reason to punish and vilify people.

So I want to warn everyone in this chamber that, if this motion goes through, we are going to set up a parliamentary platform for hatred and bigotry; we are going to give the bigots of the country, the haters of the country, the persecutors of vulnerable people who live in this country, a platform and a megaphone. This is not some hypothetical exercise. This is not some scenario where we can all do our thing in this committee and then go home, and everyone will just be fine. Everyone will not be fine. I need people to understand that everyone is not going to be fine if this motion goes through. You cannot say you weren't warned, because I'm warning you now, and others have warned you in this debate, about what will happen if this motion gets up—this massive megaphone, the parliamentary privilege we will provide to people who make submissions and give evidence, the grievous harm that will be caused to people who deserve our love and support, who do not deserve to have us abandon them to the hatred and the bigotry that will inevitably flow if this inquiry gets up.

Trans rights are human rights. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. We should be offering them our collective and unanimous love and support. We should not be providing a platform for the haters and the bigots to use them as cannon fodder in their culture wars. We should not be deliberately setting up a process of the Senate that is designed explicitly to cause harm to people who deserve our support. That would be an appalling thing to do to a group of people—and I've lived through it personally—that we know are likely to harm themselves. We know how likely they are to kill themselves. This is not a hypothetical exercise, colleagues; this is real life. People are not going to be fine if you vote for this motion.

by leave—I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the Senate:

At the beginning of the motion, insert "(1)".

Omit "4 September", insert "16 October".

At the end of the motion insert:

(2) Any hearings held in relation to this inquiry must be held in camera.

I, along with the government, oppose this motion. It doesn't do a service to Australia's young people, transgender people and their families or to their need for health care and support. In our nation, each child, each family, whether or not they're transgender or gender-diverse children, should all have access to the care and support they need for the best possible health, now and into the future.

Unfortunately, this debate and this motion to the parliament to have an inquiry into young people and gender identity does not add to the supportive environment that they need. The matters contained in the proposed terms of reference question the expertise of clinicians who, in treating their patients, must be called upon to utilise their clinical judgement to provide appropriate support and care. But the motion before us is not about that, as Senator Hanson would like us to believe. The motion before us is, indeed, about giving a platform to people with extreme views who would do harm to a vulnerable patient group and their families and loved ones.

The mere fact of having a public debate on this matter can do and has done considerable harm. In fact, we've seen, for example, at Westmead a blowout in waiting times and a complete paralysation of their ability to provide much-needed care to young people seeking it—young people who are experiencing extreme bodily dysphoria and distress. That dysphoria may or may not mean that they grow to be trans. They could just be one of the many young lesbians out there who also struggle with their gender identity, the onset of puberty and their dislike of their body. But that is what these clinical services are there to do: to support young people who have a real need, who experience things like gender dysphoria and desire not to experience puberty and who are seeing the onset of things like anorexia.

Those who have sought to critique the service and purportedly do their own research have done so-called research that does not stand up to peer review, and we do not need a parliamentary inquiry to show us that.

The AusPATH board, which, indeed, is the professional board that has come together to provide services for transgender people—it was formed all the way back in 2009—have expressed their serious concerns about the misrepresentation of data presented in much of this research, as well as the choice of language used throughout the so-called clinical papers that have been put forward. They argue that the choice of language demonstrates a clear agenda of the research to undermine the provision of gender affirming care to transgender children and adolescents. They have done a good job of unpacking the data inside that.

Let's have a look at the methodology. A paper on gender dysphoria in the journal Children was entitled: 'Gender Distress: A Prospective Follow-up Study'. This particular study was arguing that children are getting inappropriate care. What I will show you really debunks the lack of evidence put forward in that paper. One of the arguments put forward is that 21 per cent of young people in the paper did not meet the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. They were calculated by the publishers as being a successful desistance from not wanting to transition—as if to say you can teach and show young people that transition is not the only path for them. Well, the simple fact of the matter is that those young people in ordinary clinical environments would not have met the criteria for having gender dysphoria. Therefore, they would not ordinarily be offered puberty blockers or gender affirming hormones in any case. So that evidence base should not even be included in this so-called calculation of desistance from gender transition. So the arguments put forward in this paper are actively misleading.

The authors used a subgroup of 68 young people who had met the DSM-5 criteria for a formal diagnosis, with two lots to follow-up. Three of the 66 people in the study stopped puberty blockers, with one of these younger people reaffirming their gender assumed at birth. So, again, one of the primary objectives of puberty suppression is to allow a young person time to get over their distress and to decide whether they are going to begin gender affirming hormones. Puberty suppression is indeed completely reversible, and so it should not be reported as an adverse outcome, as happened in this case. Of 66 people, three people ceased gender affirming hormones, and this more accurate statistic is not clearly reported in the paper in Children entitled 'Gender Distress'. All of those participants were considered in the paper put forward as desisters—as in, another successful attempt to say that your young person didn't transition, although none of those participants, when you dig into the evidence, were known to have reaffirmed the gender that they were assigned at birth. Again, AusPATH considered that those young people were incorrectly labelled in the paper as desisters from gender transition. As AusPATH correctly highlights, there are many ways to be transgender, and seeking gender-affirming hormone treatment as part of affirmation is just one. There are indeed a myriad of reasons that young people may choose to cease gender-affirming treatments.

Those putting forward the argument in favour of this motion draw on research that says that we must question what clinical specialists are advising. But the research is unfounded. For example, the authors of the research have not questioned why the young person might have ceased treatment or whether the young person involved regretted accessing treatment. The authors made statements about people regretting gender-affirming medical therapy, leading the reader to believe that all people who cease puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones may regret starting them. These are complicated issues that AusPATH clinicians and people experienced in gender-affirming care are able to wisely step through with their patients.

Just because someone stops gender-affirming medication, for example, does not mean that they will reaffirm the gender assigned to them at birth. Based on the data presented in this study, only 1.5 per cent—that is, one out of 66 of the cohort—had indeed reaffirmed the gender assigned to them at birth after commencing at any stage of their treatment. This rate in fact is consistent with other studies, but this statistic is not highlighted or placed in the context of the wider literature. Instead, the authors focus on a concept of regret without having demonstrated in their research that these young people did indeed regret the treatment. These are some of the ridiculous notions and misinformed evidence that those putting forward this motion have sought to rely on in implying that there is some kinds of crisis or catastrophe going on in the care of our young people.

The authors of the study stated, for example, that they take a neutral therapeutic stance when it comes to working with young people on a transgender pathway, thereby allowing the reader to believe that their research is neutral in intent. However, as AusPATH points out, as with previous research released by the authors, the literature cited within the paper is indeed unbalanced with widely presented opinion throughout the text of the purported research. The research refers to literature that critiques the gender-affirming approach with little reference to the well described established and growing literature demonstrating the mental health and psychosocial benefit that hormonal intervention can have for this group.

I do encourage people to read what AusPATH has outlined in its response to the Elkadi paper, which is entitled Gender Distress: A Prospective Follow-up Study. It really highlights that those who purport to be doing peer reviewed evidence based research in this space needed to be critiqued as to their underlying agenda. There was a largely very good Four Corners television show back in early July that really highlighted the risks and the trauma confronting families and young people when they are not able to access the care that they need. I want to thank the young people and the families who spoke up in the course of that TV show.

There are a great many well-respected population health specialists—

Debate interrupted.

In my role as Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery, I'm always on the lookout for good examples of community recovery and resilience building. During a recent trip to Western Australia, I witnessed two excellent examples of this at the City of Swan and the City of Wanneroo. I saw how federal government support is helping assist with important work.

During my visit I met the bushfire recovery team from the City of Swan with the member for Hasluck, Tania Lawrence. The Wooroloo bushfire started on 1 February 2021 and burned more than 10,000 hectares over seven days. The bushfire caused extensive damage, destroying 86 homes and damaging many more. We discussed ongoing recovery efforts from the devastating bushfire. I heard how the $18.1 million jointly funded Commonwealth-state disaster recovery funding arrangements helped to provide support for ongoing recovery, including a residential clean-up program focusing on removing bushfire damaged waste for rebuilding; a community recovery and outreach program to lead community driven recovery projects, including access to emotional support services; and a recreational asset restoration program to prioritise the clean-up and repair of community assets relied upon for everyday activities.

While I was in Perth, I also visited the City of Wanneroo. In the lead-up to Christmas 2019, the City of Wanneroo was hit by a major bushfire. The blaze destroyed 13,000 hectares and caused thousands of homes to be evacuated. Following the bushfire, the City of Wanneroo received grant funding from the Australian government, through the Preparing Australian Communities—Local Stream program for its Prepare Together Project. The Prepare Together Project aims to reach 5,000 families with key fire mitigation and emergency preparedness information through a series of communications, workshops and information sessions. It was great to attend a Prepare Together Project information session with the member for Pearce, Tracey Roberts, to see how the project is helping the community to prepare for more frequent and intense emergencies so as to reduce the impact of future disasters.

Now, while bushfire readiness is a focus, the project ultimately aims to reduce impacts and save lives from the occurrence of any major emergency. The project provides residents with information and resources to help them understand the risk and how it's changing, while also learning how to access up-to-date alerts and warnings. I'd like to thank the City of Swan, the City of Wanneroo and the members for Hasluck and Pearce for taking the time to share their experiences of the bushfires and their ongoing recovery with me, and for their candid feedback about the significant challenges posed by the ongoing recovery workload and associated costs.

This has been a recurring theme throughout my visits to disaster impacted communities. I've repeatedly heard how state and territory governments have been stretched in their abilities to deliver support and how this has had a flow-on effect to local governments. That is why I was proud to announce in June that councils across Australia will be able to fast-track local repair works, with the Albanese government advancing nearly $1.8 billion in disaster payments to the states. I thank all the councils, including the City of Swan and the City of Wanneroo, who shared their experiences and feedback with the government to help shape this decision. And I thank local MPs like Tania Lawrence in Hasluck and Tracey Roberts in Pearce for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of their communities. The Albanese government will continue to listen to councils, and, in close partnership with the states, will make sure that regions have access to the support they need when they need it.

I rise to speak about the Rockingham by-election held in my home state of WA on the weekend. In particular, I want to thank and congratulate the local Liberal candidate, Peter Hudson. Peter's an outstanding young man. He was born and raised in the area; in fact, he lives in the suburb of Waikiki, which is just a few minutes from the heart of Rockingham. Peter ran an exceptional campaign and secured a 22½ per cent swing away from Labor in its safest seat in the state. The state Labor government has tried to spin this as, somehow, a good result, given that the opinion polls about a week before the by-election showed a 24 per cent swing. They managed improved that to a 22½ per cent swing against them.

What was your primary vote?

To give some context, Minister Watt, to the outcome: this is the first time that seat has gone to a preference flow in many years.

Since 1996, my good friend Senator O'Sullivan has just told me. It is the first time this seat has gone to preferences since 1996. Labor opposite can be smug—

Senator Pratt, who is interjecting, can be smug over there about a 22½ per cent swing against the state Labor government, but I think it's something that Peter Hudson, the local Liberal members in that area and the Liberal Party of Western Australia can be proud of.

On the booth on Saturday morning, where I was handing out how-to-vote cards, a few issues came up. Law and order came up—the fact there is no 24/7 police station in that area, and problems of increasing youth crime in particular. Failures in the healthcare system came up more than once. Problems with the local hospital, with violence against nurses and doctors, came up. In particular, one nurse who worked at the local hospital talked to me about the assault she had suffered in the hospital from a 'patient'. Those issues came up, but, without doubt, the single biggest issue that was raised with me on polling day was the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. Never in my time in politics have I seen a more inept, a poorer drafted, a poorer explained or a poorer prepared piece of legislation than the state Labor government's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. It has caused confusion and uncertainty across the community—I was about to say 'the business community', but it's not just the business community; it's across the community in Western Australia.

A few days before the state by-election day, I was down in Katanning. There were 500-plus farmers concerned about the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and its implications. At a community meeting in Dawesville, 250 members of the community there were concerned about the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and its implementation. On that polling booth in Rockingham, time after time, for the people who were taking our how-to-vote cards or those of the strong independent candidate in the area, the issue raised was the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.

The federal government, federal Labor, has its own cultural heritage act coming up. We don't know what it looks like. We don't know what's in it. We're told it's not going to override the state act—even though I don't see how you can rule that out under the Constitution. This is something all Western Australians care about, and they'll be watching this federal Labor government very closely indeed.

You meet a lot of politicians in this place. Many are earnest. Some light up our lives. Too few leave a legacy. Then there are the oxygen-thieving dementors. Ewen Jones was no oxygen-thieving dementor. Ewen sadly passed away a few weeks ago after battling cancer. Ewen was rightly seen as a funny guy. He was hilarious, but he was so much more. To define Ewen merely by his wicked sense of humour is to not know Ewen. Ewen Jones was earnest, thoughtful and caring. As an eight-year-old his family accidentally left him behind at a petrol station. This chapter of a five-act family melodrama became Ewen's driving force—that no-one would be left behind.

As an MP, he stood up for those who had no voice. He stood up for those left behind. Ewen lit up any room. He always had joy in life. Even when he was being crowded out by dementors, he would use his happiness, that bouncing smile, those quivering, glinting eyes and those flailing arms, to seek out the best in people, even those who were not so deserving. In his six years as member for Herbert he left a legacy. The only reason Townsville has a football stadium, a home for the Cowboys, is because of Ewen. No matter what others may say, Ewen delivered it. I know. It's a fact. Ewen delivered the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, now proudly housed at James Cook University—fact. Ewen fought for the funding for the final stage of the Townsville Ring Road, which has been delivered—fact. Indeed, his last speech in parliament was about developing the Port of Townsville with a connected eastern access rail corridor.

But his legacy isn't just about infrastructure; Ewen's legacy is as much about the man himself—decent, passionate, occasionally stubborn, a family man, intelligent and an ideas factory. But, upon reflection, while Ewen fought to leave no-one behind, after our loss in Herbert in 2016 very few of us, not enough of us, checked that Ewen wasn't again being left behind. Too often, too many of us fail at checking on those who leave this place, and that failure reflects poorly upon us all.

To Ewen's family and friends—to Linda, Emma, Abbie and Andrew—you all know how special Ewen was. Thank you for lending him to politics. Thank you for lending that streak of sunshine to this grey mess that sometimes is Canberra. Townsville and Queensland are both better places because of his service. Please accept my condolences and those of the Liberal National Party.

by leave—I am about to give a condolence speech and I note that the whips have agreed to give me a few additional minutes. Last week we learned the very sad news that Sophie Trevitt, a former Greens staffer, award-winning human rights lawyer who led the charge to raise the age of criminal responsibility and a proud warrior for social justice and climate action, had lost her short battle with brain cancer. Sophie was just 32. What Sophie managed to pack into those 32 years is a lesson for all of us in how to make every moment count. I can't see through my tears; I'm sorry. I share this tribute to her and her work with the permission of her beloved partner, Tom, and the encouragement of her legions of friends, some of whom are in the chamber with us tonight.

In the heartfelt tributes that have flowed since her death, one theme emerges. Sophie made you a better person. Sophie worked as an adviser to former Greens leaders Richard Di Natale and Christine Milne. Christine described Sophie as funny, generous, kind, a dogged and resourceful climate activist and communicator and a beautiful person.

Sophie staffed me at the climate COP 21 meeting in Paris in 2015, which Christine also attended. Few people would accuse Christine Milne of being anything less than 100 per cent committed to climate action yet she recalls that Sophie chided us for taking an afternoon to explore Paris, because you cannot pause in an existential crisis—every moment matters. In my time working alongside her, Sophie's work ethic and her passion were in equal measure.

Sophie took that determination and heart into her community legal roles, including working at the National Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency representing First Nations people fighting against a flawed justice system. She saw firsthand the unparalleled cruelty inflicted on First Nations children imprisoned as young as 10, separated from their families and supports, traumatised at a formative time in their lives. Sophie became a dedicated advocate to raise the age, working as executive officer of Change the Record and with Australian Lawyers for Human Rights. Her work to raise the age of criminal responsibility was awarded the 2020 ACT Youth Coalition award and Liberty Victoria's 2023 Voltaire award for human rights. She played down these awards. She said she had not done anything and was only interested in how she could use the awards to boost the campaign. But the nominations submitted in support of Sophie to win those awards are a testament to her standing in the legal profession advocacy organisations and the broader community. I wish I had time to read them all out but here are a few.

Rocket Bretherton said, 'I am a proud Noongar women who spent a lot of time caught up in the justice system. Sophie is one of the most fierce and powerful advocates I have worked with in the justice reform movement. She is someone who backs up her words with action. She has always worked in solidarity with First Nations people and she is deeply respected. She is a voice for freedom, justice and a vision of a better future for this country.'

Her colleagues at Canberra Community Law described Sophie as 'a rare gem' and 'an irrepressible voice for change'. Mr Robert Deeves said, 'Sophie is a courageous champion for the unspoken for. I believe her record as a lawyer advocating on Indigenous issues in Alice Springs as the national voice for raising the minimum age for incarceration and as a sleeves-rolled-up political campaigner for social justice issues make her an outstanding candidate. Sophie lives with her heart on her sleeve at work and at home where her generosity and kindness for others is unbounded.' And that reference to her personal generosity outside of the workplace has been affirmed by so many of her legions of friends who have shared stories on how she was often the first to meet a new baby or to bring a meal to new parents or friends need. She was genuinely a wonderful person.

Back in the workplace, her sharp mind and empathy meant that Sophie could cut to the heart of things. She was a brilliant writer and she used it to tell stories, to change people's minds and to draw focus on what needed to be done. Even as her aggressive cancer progressed, she told the Guardian that her biggest fear was for children in jail. She held up a light to the insanity of our current laws when she wrote, 'At some point society decided that it was not only okay but beneficial to lock up children as young as 10 behind bars. I have spent a long time trying to imagine that moment, imagine closing and opening your eyes and thinking "Okay, this is it. This is the way we will restore harmony on our streets. We will put children in cages and adults behind bars."' Sophie was a truth teller and she demanded answers and action. When we do eventually raise the age of criminal responsibility right across this country, it will be in no small part because of Sophie and her work.

Sophie wrote a poem five years ago that catalogues the experiences of young women. Its clarity and poignance breaks my heart. She starts off the poem:

I am eight.

I am eight, and I am an avocado in a flock of magpies and I want to be a magpie so badly that it makes my fingers curl.

I want to know what it feels like to dig my claws into the ground and to stretch my wings and be told that one day I will reach the corners of the sky.

The poem goes on to detail youthful misadventures, about learning how to be in the world, seeing women crowded out and people's voices silenced. She concludes:

I am 27.

I am 27 and (hopefully) only a third of the way through living and the air is thick with the sounds of women.

The clouds hang heavy with songs of stolen opportunities and broken bones, and the fog is dense with the stories of men who tried to make them disappear.

… … …

I breathe in the stories of women who punched holes through avocado skin and listen to the softly building anthems of women reclaiming their sky.

It's beyond a tragedy that Sophie did not have another 27 years or maybe more.

To her friends; her family; her partner, Tom, the love of her life, on behalf of all of our Greens team, we were so lucky to know her. My deepest condolences. I hope that the collective love for Sophie comforts you and that her death reminds us all to stop mucking around and take action. Get kids out of prisons. Get refugees out of detention. Stop approving new coal and gas. Love boldly, be kind and have fun. No matter what doubts she may have had, Sophie Trevitt was always a magpie. She was glorious. She dedicated her life to showing up, standing up, holding firm and fighting for the things that matter. We owe it to her all to now stretch our wings and reclaim the sky.

Senate adjourned at 20:21